trump begs Florida judge to restore his Twitter account

[meaner gene]

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

It is subjective.

It's not subjective, it's not even a reasonable argument. It's no different than holding a trucker responsible for the products he's carrying being defective. All he does is carry content.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

NYT may not do as it pleases in terms of content publishing. Twitter is a content publisher

They are too different to compare. I cannot go on to the NYT website or newspaper and publish anything I choose without first gaining their approval, which is not true about FB or Twitter.

 

[justinacolmena]

Now...THAT's a Fascist move.

Not really. People have to have their freedom to move or post their stuff online elsewhere without being slandered, libeled, and banned from the Timwitter platform.

 

[colfax_m]

Trump is suing Twitter as a private citizen.

Actually, he’s trying to sue as the 45th president of the US, which seems to be some special category he invented for himself.

 

[Donald H]

You mean like the "no fly" list?

Maybe, but that would be covered under government edict for the greater good.

Was it opposed by one political party or was it only oppose by the fringe libertarians?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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.

I disagree with you. Disagreements in civilized countries are settled by the courts. I will accept whatever decision the courts rule. And you are wrong because you dismissed my example as it was too complex for you. Dumb people (you) don't get to tell me what is and isn't happening.

 

[meaner gene]

I do not make the rules but typically how are disputes settled in modern westernized countries? Our courts.

Our courts have limits on remedies they can implement. If a divorced father has custody of his children on weekends, a court can't order that he take them to church.

 

[bodecea]

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.

So, now we can go to a court if we get banned from, let's say....USMB?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

It's not subjective, it's not even a reasonable argument. It's no different than holding a trucker responsible for the products he's carrying being defective. All he does is carry content.

I disagree. Why are you an expert on what is and is not reasonable? I find you to be very stupid. So excuse me for dismissing you and your idiocy.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

They are too different to compare. I cannot go on to the NYT website or newspaper and publish anything I choose without first gaining their approval, which is not true about FB or Twitter.

I disagree and in modern countries the courts settle disagreements. Why are you against the courts settling this dispute?

 

[colfax_m]

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

No, it’s up for the legislature to decide.

And they did.

 

[bodecea]

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

What's the point of a business having a TOS if a child self-serving "billionaire" can not be held responsible while the rest of us are?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Our courts have limits on remedies they can implement. If a divorced father has custody of his children on weekends, a court can't order that he take them to church.

But the court may order that he gets them on some weekdays too. So let's allow attorneys on both sides to make their arguments and whatever decision the court renders I will live with. Why can you not do the same? What are you scared of leftist?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

No, it’s up for the legislature to decide.

And they did.

We have a dispute and the Internet is too knew. Why are you afraid to allow the courts to decide? Pretty sure this is going to the courts in France very soon.

 

[FA_Q2]

I disagree with you. Disagreements in civilized countries are settled by the courts. I will accept whatever decision the courts rule. And you are wrong because you dismissed my example as it was too complex for you. Dumb people (you) don't get to tell me what is and isn't happening.

Do you always need to resort to insults. Did I call you an idiot because we disagree?

I disregarded your example because it is spurious. It was not complex at all. I never stated the courts will not rule on this nor that such would be the law. That has nothing to do with anything as we are on a discussion board to discuss the merits of positions such as the one we are advocating.

I can create a message board that is 100 percent pro Biden, declare that no one can post anything related to Trump on the site and that is 100 percent legal. I am still not a content creator and you still cannot sue me as one. That is because curating content, for the 3rd time, IS NOT BEING A PUBLISHER. Period.

That you call me 'dumb' for rejecting your simplistic and irrelevant 'example' as to complex while you do not address the glaring hole is rather ironic.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

So, now we can go to a court if we get banned from, let's say....USMB?

Of course. If you want to spend the attorney fees and such. We are a very litigious society. But you misunderstood. Twitter would not be sued for banning people. They may do that. But as such they would not face the same protections they face now and would be able to be sued as the NYT may be sued by me if they said I kill puppies when they have zero proof that I do and in fact love dogs.

 

[BluesLegend]

This from the moron that just said Trump was still the POTUS.

OMG the irony, that's not what I said liar!

 

[colfax_m]

We have a dispute and the Internet is too knew. Why are you afraid to allow the courts to decide? Pretty sure this is going to the courts in France very soon.

Calling it a dispute isn’t useful. People can dispute whether the earth is round.

The courts don’t decide whether it is or not.

Trump is trying to break the internet. That’s what I’m worried about.

 

[struth]

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

if the rational to ban him is that he called for violence it should be, since he never did in the first place

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Do you always need to result to insults. Did I call you an idiot because we disagree?

I disregarded your example because it is spurious. It was not complex at all. I never stated the courts will not rule on this nor that such would be the law. That has nothing to do with anything as we are on a discussion board to discuss the merits of positions such as the one we are advocating.

I can create a message board that is 100 percent pro Biden, declare that no one can post anything related to Trump on the site and that is 100 percent legal. I am still not a content creator and you still cannot sue me as one. That is because curating content, for the 3rd time, IS NOT BEING A PUBLISHER. Period.

That you call me 'dumb' for rejecting your simplistic and irrelevant 'example' as to complex while you do not address the glaring hole is rather ironic.

You dismissed my opinion. I do not care what you think or believe. I believe Twitter is taking advantage and is a content provider and should be regulated as such. You disagree. Let the courts decide. You consider my example to be irrelevant and I disagree. Courts should decide. As far as simplistic, I kept it that way because you're stupid. I can easily provide a more complex one.