trump begs Florida judge to restore his Twitter account

[FA_Q2]

The obvious point is that the MSM and social media outlets have turned away from Trump almost exclusively.
You don't need me to tell you that, it's always been an albatross around Trump's neck. Hence, attempts by upstart media sources and their attempts to fit into the mainstream.

And again, your point. You are just stating things without connecting to the actual thread. I don't disagree with any of that at all. It is still not a point.

 

[meaner gene]

This argument about economic freedom is utter horseshit. Twitter and Facebook are common carriers, just like the phone company. As such they have no right to revoke anyone's account.

That's the correct talking point. The media has no right.

WOW. Next you'll claim that the airlines as common carriers, have no right to kick unruly passengers from their aircraft.

 

[FA_Q2]

But we do have regulations. NYT may not do as it pleases in terms of content publishing. Twitter is a content publisher as well not a disseminator like they claim. Keep up, Leftist. I do not want to re-explain everything to you.

Curating content is not content creation.

That is just a fact no matter how much the right needs it to go away to push control over Twitter.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Curating content is not content creation.

That is just a fact no matter how much the right needs it to go away to push control over Twitter.

Ahh...that is not for you or me to decide but up to the courts.

If I post 10 posts that you smell like rotten potatoes and you post 10 that prove otherwise but Twitter bans you and your tweets then in effect they have become a content publisher. But that is my opinion. I am not a legal expert. Are you? This should go to the US Supreme Court to decide IMO.

 

[meaner gene]

But we do have regulations. NYT may not do as it pleases in terms of content publishing. Twitter is a content publisher as well not a disseminator like they claim. Keep up, Leftist. I do not want to re-explain everything to you.

Twitter does not create content. That's the difference between a newspaper and twitter. It's like suing the delivery boy, because one of the cans he delivered smelled spoiled when you opened it.

 

[Donald H]

WOW. Next you'll claim that the airlines as common carriers, have no right to kick unruly passengers from their aircraft.

A fascist government will strip the airlines of their rights, based on political expediency and bias.

Reagan introduced the concept of government interference in the airlines' affairs years ago.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Twitter does not create content. That's the difference between a newspaper and twitter. It's like suing the delivery boy, because one of the cans he delivered smelled spoiled when you opened it.

Ahh...that is not for you or me to decide but up to the courts.

If I post 10 posts that you smell like rotten potatoes and you post 10 that prove otherwise but Twitter bans you and your tweets then in effect they have become a content publisher. But that is my opinion. I am not a legal expert. Are you? This should go to the US Supreme Court to decide IMO.

 

[meaner gene]

Ahh...that is not for you or me to decide but up to the courts.

Why waste the courts time, trying to argue that a company that doesn't create content, actually creates content.

It's like my example of the delivery boy. He doesn't create the canned goods, he just delivers then. and if one of the cans contains bad content, it's not the duty of the delivery boy to make that judgement.

Of course, the delivery boy, given a load of bloated cans, can for safety reasons, refuse to deliver them.

 

[ClaireH]

Will USSC refuse to hear the case? If so, it implies silent agreement with the status quo (in my layperson’s opinion) similar to a recent case that SC turned down.

 

[meaner gene]

A fascist government will strip the airlines of their rights, based on political expediency and bias.

You mean like the "no fly" list?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Why waste the courts time, trying to argue that a company that doesn't create content, actually creates content.

Because we have a disagreement that cannot be settled any other way. Your opinion is not a fact, leftist. I disagree with you and explained why. Do you not understand English? You may disagree with me but my opinion cannot be wrong as it is an opinion. For example I believe you are a stupid idiot. Am I right? IDK

It is subjective.

 

[Turtlesoup]

What's the point in government if you can't use it to bully private companies?

Trump asks Florida judge to force Twitter to restart his account

Trump argued the social media company was "coerced" by members of the U.S. Congress to suspend his account.

www.nbcnews.com

What's the point of free speech if child self serving billionaire dorsey can silence whoever he wants?

 

[Donald H]

And again, your point. You are just stating things without connecting to the actual thread. I don't disagree with any of that at all. It is still not a point.

It couldn't be anymore obvious that Trump is asking the judicial branch of government to interfere on his behalf with the decision of a social media outlet.

https://www.bremertonschools.org/cms/lib/WA01001541/Centricity/Domain/222/Fourteen%20Defining%20Characteristics%20of%20Fascism%20slides.pdf

#6 is a dead ringer, but you might be able to argue that taking that right away from Trump was a fascist attempt to silence Trump?

Except, you would need to find some other fascist trait other than control of government.

If you choose to spam instead of debate then I've lost patience with you. Be forewarned.

 

[Donald H]

Ahh...that is not for you or me to decide but up to the courts.

If I post 10 posts that you smell like rotten potatoes and you post 10 that prove otherwise but Twitter bans you and your tweets then in effect they have become a content publisher. But that is my opinion. I am not a legal expert. Are you? This should go to the US Supreme Court to decide IMO.

Hmmmmm! Stack the Scotus and then appeal to the judicial branch of government to allow government control of social media!

https://www.bremertonschools.org/cms/lib/WA01001541/Centricity/Domain/222/Fourteen%20Defining%20Characteristics%20of%20Fascism%20slides.pdf

 

[meaner gene]

If I post 10 posts that you smell like rotten potatoes and you post 10 that prove otherwise but Twitter bans you and your tweets then in effect they have become a content publisher.

It's no different than if you were arguing with somebody who threatened to kill you, and got banned for it, is no longer able to respond to your posts.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Hmmmmm! Stack the Scotus and then appeal to the judicial branch of government to allow government control of social media!

https://www.bremertonschools.org/cms/lib/WA01001541/Centricity/Domain/222/Fourteen%20Defining%20Characteristics%20of%20Fascism%20slides.pdf

I do not make the rules but typically how are disputes settled in modern westernized countries? Our courts. If I get a divorce, I do not believe for example my wife should get anything (hyperbole for arguments sake) as I earned all the monies. She disagrees. How is this decided? Court of law.

Don't hate the player, hate the game. Elections have consequences.

Truth over Facts

 

[FA_Q2]

Ahh...that is not for you or me to decide but up to the courts.

If I post 10 posts that you smell like rotten potatoes and you post 10 that prove otherwise but Twitter bans you and your tweets then in effect they have become a content publisher. But that is my opinion. I am not a legal expert. Are you? This should go to the US Supreme Court to decide IMO.

No, they have not 'in effect' become a content publisher. Curating content is not being a publisher as you are not actually publishing anything whatsoever. You do not need to be a legal expert to understand that very basic concept.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

It's no different than if you were arguing with somebody who threatened to kill you, and got banned for it, is no longer able to respond to your posts.

Nope, it is 100% different. But you knew that and decided to troll anyway. I accept your surrender.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

There was only #2 and #3 in your options and again you didn’t answer my question. Rude

There are different styles of entities that fall under 230, the fact they are not all exactly the same is actually laid out in the law. The fact that both Versizon and Twitter are covered by it is not a mistake, it is by design. A good design.

 

[FA_Q2]

It couldn't be anymore obvious that Trump is asking the judicial branch of government to interfere on his behalf with the decision of a social media outlet.

https://www.bremertonschools.org/cms/lib/WA01001541/Centricity/Domain/222/Fourteen%20Defining%20Characteristics%20of%20Fascism%20slides.pdf

#6 is a dead ringer, but you might be able to argue that taking that right away from Trump was a fascist attempt to silence Trump?

Except, you would need to find some other fascist trait other than control of government.

If you choose to spam instead of debate then I've lost patience with you. Be forewarned.

Forewarned. What an idiot. I was originally sarcastic in asking if you were unable to actually converse.

Color me shocked, you actually are incapable of having a conversation.