trump begs Florida judge to restore his Twitter account

[Kilroy2]

arguing that the social media company was "coerced" by members of the U.S. Congress to suspend his account is so frivolous that it is typical Trump.

Now the lawyers would have to show how Congress coerced them. It is interesting that the case is about US congress was forcing them to suspend his account.


Thus really the only way that they would have a chance as Congress cannot prohibit free speech as stated in the first amendment. It is the same reason that you really cannot sue them if someone else writes something on their platform.

Facebook is a private company and is not the government.

Free speech amendment only address what the government can and cannot do.

Yet Trump is trying to force the Congress to regulate social media. Saying that tweeter interferes with his free speech. When he was the president he would have problems with that. The right wing should have a problem with that.

Yet Trump appears on Fox and related shows, talks to the press, holds rallies and various other ways that he is able to express himself.

Congress cannot force social media to prohibit or allow free speech.

So trump is trying to do an end around play and blaming Congress. Yet it is not Congress banning him, it is tweeter who as a private company can determine if the content is bad PR for a private company.

Now they might be sued by people who seem them as having deep pocket.

Trump wants to attack private enterprise and make them do something that he wants.

Now that he is a citizen, it is his prerogative to file a case but if he wants to be President again then that is an authoritarian thing to do.

 

[justinacolmena]

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

Shut down a media outlet?

See #6 in the link. Would be fascists are indicting themselves.

They should have told the truth to begin with that it was a Democratic Party only platform, rather than allowing Republicans to register, collecting their personal and private information as well as surveillance intelligence on us and then shadow-banning us from all the major Silicon Valley San-Francisco-headquartered social platforms.

 

[FA_Q2]

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

should be != enforced through government dictate

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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.

So you don't trust our court system? OK

I do. I do not always agree with them. For example Tom Brady sued the NFL and lost and remained suspended. I disagreed with the decision but I accepted it. Many thought that was stupid too. We don't get to decide what is or is not stupid. Our courts do and they can easily throw the case out if they want to. Why are you so against this path?

 

[ClaireH]

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?

Your point would be more valid if they banned all equally which does not appear to be the case. If they’re sticking with the claim they’re merely a platform, they shouldn’t alter the information in any shape or form. I don’t understand why there isn’t an urgent demand on the Hill to update the laws for information in the digital age.

 

[Donald H]

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

Your example isn't asking the courts to strip away your wife's rights. It's asking the court to decide on your common property.
Trump is appealing to the judicial as a an American citizen to strip away the rights of social media.

Are you trying to equate fascist demands to a divorce court?

Government control in a fascist system actually does sometimes attempt to interfere with a person's right to divorce. See the link.

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

#5. Widespread sexism.

You've actually hinted at your priorities when you suggest that all the property is yours because you worked for it.

 

[colfax_m]

So you don't trust our court system? OK

I do. I do not always agree with them. For example Tom Brady sued the NFL and lost and remained suspended. I disagreed with the decision but I accepted it. Many thought that was stupid too. We don't get to decided what is or is not stupid. Our courts do and they can easily throw the case out if they want to. Why are you so against this path?

The law is clear. If a judge tries to rewrite it, we have a problem.

 

[meaner gene]

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.

I'm no arguing reasonable. I'm arguing the definition of carrying vs creating content.
And a trucker, like twitter, doesn't create content.

Why waste a courts time asking a packed supreme court to find a way to treat twitter, differently than a trucker.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Your example isn't asking the courts to strip away your wife's rights. It's asking the court to decide on your common property.
Trump is appealing to the judicial as a an American citizen to strip away the rights of social media.

Are you trying to equate fascist demands to a divorce court?

Government control in a fascist system actually does sometimes attempt to interfere with a person's right to divorce. See the link.

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

Nope. Trump is arguing that Twitter is a content provider vs. a disseminator. Nothing more. I agree with him. They may still keep Trump suspended. That has zero to do with how they are regulated. You're discussing apples and oranges with me.

 

[colfax_m]

Your point would be more valid if they banned all equally which does not appear to be the case. If they’re sticking with the claim they’re merely a platform, they shouldn’t alter the information in any shape or form. I don’t understand why there isn’t an urgent demand on the Hill to update the laws for information in the digital age.

People keep using the word platform like it has any impact on this issue whatsoever.

It doesn’t.

A platform or publisher or anyone else on the internet has all the rights they need in order to take off any content they want.

 

[meaner gene]

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

This is like being against Texas doing a 2020 vote audit. It's a waste of time and money as other audits have proven.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I'm no arguing reasonable. I'm arguing the definition of carrying vs creating content.
And a trucker, like twitter, doesn't create content.

Why waste a courts time asking a packed supreme court to find a way to treat twitter, differently than a trucker.

It is up to the courts to accept or throw out cases. You don't get to decide what is and isn't worth their time. Not how our system works. Trucker? LOL

You have lost your mind.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

Why bother when you cannot even discuss let alone defend your position. Just declare it so and demand that everyone else is to dumb to understand. The true mark of genius, right...

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

This is like being against Texas doing a 2020 vote audit. It's a waste of time and money as other audits have proven.

You don't get to decide that. Why do you not see that? You do not get to decide what the courts will or won't take on. You may think it is stupid and frivolous but that is not up to you. The fact that you cannot see that is mind boggling.

 

[colfax_m]

Nope. Trump is arguing that Twitter is a content provider vs. a disseminator. Nothing more. I agree with him. They may still keep Trump suspended. That has zero to do with how they are regulated. You're discussing apples and oranges with me.

I don’t think you understand much about the lawsuit or the regulation involved.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Why bother when you cannot even discuss let alone defend your position. Just declare it so and demand that everyone else is to dumb to understand. The true mark of genius, right...

Disputes are handled by the courts in our country. The NFL had a 99.9% chance to win their case against Tom Brady but he still sued. He lost. Why is it up to you to decide what is and is not a case? If the court deems it to be frivolous they may throw the case out and the plaintiff pays the court and legal fees. Why are you against this exactly?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I don’t think

You don't think. That is true.

 

[bodecea]

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.

You are declaring that Twitter should be shut down. That's fascist.

 

[bodecea]

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

Hasn't anyone told him he's no longer President? Is he THAT delusional?

 

[colfax_m]

You don't think. That is true.

You don’t comment at all about government action doctrine?

Pretty weird omission if you think you understand the argument in the lawsuit.

Do you?