trump begs Florida judge to restore his Twitter account

[colfax_m]

I gave you my opinion, leftist. I believe the courts should decide. You dont like it so you called it boring. You're a coward who places people he disagrees with on this board on ignore. You will never live that down. NEVER.

Cancel Culture Cowardly Colfax

You have a non-opinion. That’s real cowardice. It’s pretty scary for some people to think for themselves.

 

[meaner gene]

So now you are projecting. We don't know that. Elections have consequences. We have our court system in place. I say let it play out and so far the SCOTUS has not been overly friendly to Trump. So I do not understand your trepidation.

Actually the USSC has been overly influenced by Trumps being able to appoint three of it's members, thereby tipping the court in his favor.

As for them not being friendly to Trump, there is a limit of how far they put their thumb on the scales of justice. And Trumps arguments were so ridiculous they shouldn't have even gone to the court, as they were decided by the lower courts. But Trumps control of DOJ required higher courts to entertain them.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I think we can all offer our opinions, that is sort of the whole point of this forum is it not?

But in the end only what the judge thinks matters.

Correct but the leftists here don't want it to go to a judge because it "clogs up the court system"....LOL

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Yes and no. Federal civil practice rule 11 was changed in 1993 making such fees or sanctions optional instead of mandatory. So someone could escape such payments for frivolous lawsuits.

Optional based on what? Elaborate

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We all know social media is in bed with the Democrats

This is a lie.

It’s perfectly appropriate and warranted that social media decide not to facilitate rightwing hate speech, racism, bigotry, misinformation, and lies – having nothing to do with Democrats.

In fact, Democrats hate social media as much as Republicans.

That’s why we have a First Amendment.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

You have a non-opinion. That’s real cowardice. It’s pretty scary for some people to think for themselves.

My opinion is that based on its subjective banning methodology Twitter is a content provider not a disseminator and should be regulated as such. You missed that one I guess? Time to put me on ignore again?

 

[colfax_m]

Nonsense.

Private social media determining who will or will not participate is fundamentally American – it’s consistent with the First Amendment right to freedom of association.

Ding! Correct. Trump is arguing that private social media is actually government run so they abdicate their first amendment rights.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Actually the USSC has been overly influenced by Trumps being able to appoint three of it's members, thereby tipping the court in his favor.

As for them not being friendly to Trump, there is a limit of how far they put their thumb on the scales of justice. And Trumps arguments were so ridiculous they shouldn't have even gone to the court, as they were decided by the lower courts. But Trumps control of DOJ required higher courts to entertain them.

What cases have they decided in his favor? Again, you do not get to decide what is and isn't ridiculous. You disagreeing with something doesn't make it "ridiculous". You leftists are such stupid people.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Ding! Correct. Trump is arguing that private social media is actually government run so they abdicate their first amendment rights.

And the courts will then decide that way. Why are you so scared to have the courts opine on the matter? Ding Dong.

 

[ClaireH]

Actually the USSC has been overly influenced by Trumps being able to appoint three of it's members, thereby tipping the court in his favor.

As for them not being friendly to Trump, there is a limit of how far they put their thumb on the scales of justice. And Trumps arguments were so ridiculous they shouldn't have even gone to the court, as they were decided by the lower courts. But Trumps control of DOJ required higher courts to entertain them.

So due to this rationale you don’t want it to go to the USSC because you claim a foul outcome would result? Not likely, regardless of political persuasion. All judges know, particularly USSC judges, their court records will be well scrutinized by many who are alive today and many yet to be born. Not as trivial of a matter as you’ve implied.

 

[meaner gene]

You do not get to decide what is and is not frivolous. Neither do I. We have a system in place. Man are you a giant dummy.

This is a longtime Trump strategy. Use his deep pockets, to file lawsuit after lawsuit, motion after motion, appeal after appeal, in order to win by overwhelming the defendant.

 

[colfax_m]

My opinion is that based on its subjective banning methodology Twitter is a content provider not a disseminator and should be regulated as such. You missed that one I guess? Time to put me on ignore again?

The courts don’t regulate. The legislature and executive do.

Oops. So much for the “the courts should decide” argument.

 

[ClaireH]

Ding! Correct. Trump is arguing that private social media is actually government run so they abdicate their first amendment rights.

How can you say it’s not being government run when they have direct access to control the content? This was covered by various media sources recently.

This will also weigh in:

When does Twitter blocking violate the First Amendment? - Podcast | Constitution Center

Podcast for When does Twitter blocking violate the First Amendment? from the National Constitution Center

constitutioncenter.org

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Oh there's evidence. It may not be conclusive evidence, but there is evidence nonetheless.

Clinton tells Trump to delete his Twitter account, and quietly adds Internet judo to her arsenal

www.latimes.com

That is proof positive right there that the Democrat party wanted to silence Trump. But it is not about Trump.

This is about the government being allowed to coerce and pressure social media to control narratives and silence opposing voices, including private citizens.

This is a lie - as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

Clinton is not ‘the government’; Clinton is not ‘Democrats.’

It’s proof positive of just how stupid and dishonest conservatives truly are.

 

[Donald H]

Yet we spent $32mil on the idiocy. So I don't see anything wrong with Trump or anyone else going to the courts to solve their dispute with social media companies like Twitter.

I would have to wonder if the same thing could be applied to OANN or Newsmax? On general principle I would suggest that they shouldn't be subject to a private citizen's ability to take it to the courts.

Except in a case in which there are established laws being broken by the media outlet. Nobody's right to suggest 'inciting violence' should be curtailed. Likewise Trump's right shouldn't be questioned in my opinion.

That which should be questioned is the court dictating to the media outlets, social or otherwise.
You own the opposite position on that.

But in any case the fkng spammers have taken over here and you're started to go off with them.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Correct but the leftists here don't want it to go to a judge because it "clogs up the court system"....LOL

Sure, just like the other 1000s of crazy lawsuits we read about.

Like the lady that sued Jelly Belly for using "evaporated cane juice" instead of the word "sugar" on their food label

or

the guy that sued Jr Mints for too much empty space in their boxes.

It would be good if there was a system to keep this dumb shit out of the system.

 

[Donald H]

Are you hitting on me? Weird.

To each their own, prancing Nancy boy.

There! That's how both sides 'go off'.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

This is a longtime Trump strategy. Use his deep pockets, to file lawsuit after lawsuit, motion after motion, appeal after appeal, in order to win by overwhelming the defendant.

So now you believe Twitter will be overwhelmed? LOL

You're all over the place

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is about the government being allowed to coerce and pressure social media to control narratives and silence opposing voices, including private citizens.

Another lie.

Government is not being ‘allowed’ to do anything by anyone – including ‘coerce’ or ‘pressure’ social media to do anything.

This is the stuff of tinfoil hat lunacy.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

The courts don’t regulate. The legislature and executive do.

Oops. So much for the “the courts should decide” argument.

Court may certainly keep the legislative branch in check. Oooops I guess you don't know how our Gov't works. So again, if the courts have no say here they throw the case out. What is your issue with this?