trump begs Florida judge to restore his Twitter account

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No, conservatives just want impartial treatment.

lol

By government force.

 

[dblack]

At least neither are fence-sitting cowards.

LOL - yeah. I'm thinking of starting a "fence-sitters" union. We can sit around and laugh at all the partisan hypocrites spinning their fake arguments.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

They certainly are.

The constitution does not, ill repeat, give the government power over how those 2 companies regulate their PRIVATE SERVERS.

Again, you posting content is not on 'the public' airwaves. It is, quite literally, on servers that Facebook owns or rents. You want the government to force FB and Twitter to dispense with that property as the government chooses rather than as the actual owners choose. That is counter to the constitution and it is counter to property rights.

Private serves using public airwaves to conduct business.

Jack Dorsey cannot drive his privately owned auto down the highway any way he chooses.
Because the roads are public conveyances. He is bound by the law. Period.

 

[justinacolmena]

That’s why the doctrine of free speech applies only to government

Unfortunately, you and others on the right have undermined that power

So the right is undermining the power of the government, and no one should be allowed to speak or express an opinion except by official permission of the government, in your most learned opinion.

 

[FA_Q2]

At least neither are fence-sitting cowards.

The ignorance it takes to equate not agreeing with the duopoly power structure as 'fence sitting' is asinine. Particularly when you back an organization that has no core values whatsoever and will turn on any deeply held position for political expediency in an instant. As proven over and over and over and over and over......

That is far close to 'fence sitting' than taking a principled stance.

 

[colfax_m]

Who said they are arguing only one point?

I quoted Trump, and his attorneys describing what they are arguing in the lawsuit. You are just a single digit IQ moron on the innerwebs.

The lawsuit says so. I read it. You didn’t.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The remedy to racist segregation and Jim Crow laws was not to simply boycott the Alabama state government, for example. The remedy was having the federal government step in and smash racist segregationist laws and practices.

Just like they should smash down the Big Tech Oligarchs who rule the public airwaves like little tin
dictators revoking the right to free speech for some while welcoming others, like the Taliban,
who are the scourge of the planet at this point.

You love to claim the remedy for pirating the air waves is simply to not do business with those
anti-Constitutional pirates but that's self serving bullshit!

The remedy for pirating the public air waves is for the government to step in and remove the
strangle hold the pirates, like Jack Dorsey, have while petty friends of tyrants, like you, cheer.

Don’t join, delete your account, start a boycott.

What’s un-Constitutional is for government to ‘step in’ and compel social media to accommodate whomever and to compel social media to propagate rightwing hate speech and lies.

Just because you and others on the right incorrectly perceive social media as being ‘mean’ to conservatives is not ‘justification’ for government to violate the First Amendment.

More government, bigger government at the expense of individual liberty – and yes, the liberty of private social media – is not the answer.

Indeed, with social media despised by Democrats and Republicans alike, it’s this very situation the Framers envisioned when drafting the First Amendment.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

You do have access to the public airwaves - the internet in this case. What you do not have access to is Facebook and Twitters PRIVATELY OWNED database. You can speak in the public square all you want, you do not have a right to use my poster board to do so.

Then government is completely within their rights to force Twitter and Facebook to obey free speech
laws just as the government smashed Jim Crow laws in the fifties.

Private businesses in Jim Crow states were free to refuse to serve blacks...until the government pointed
out that segregation was illegal discrimination.

No chance that will happen under a dunce like Joe Biden but the legal rationale is sound even if
anti free speech groupies still insist otherwise.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Wrong, asshole. Originally the reason they couldn't be sued was the fact that they didn't modify content. Now they do. bring on the lawsuits.

Wrong again. but keep trying, you will get it right eventually. They have always been liable for things like child porn on their platform.

 

[Nostra]

How can the feds get involved if it’s not illegal?

Dope. Talking in circles isn’t going to hide your ignorance.

WTF are you babbling about, Moron?

Congress would call hearings to investigate whether or not they need to pass laws to regulate it. Ya know, just like they already have with Twitter and Facebook.

My God, if you got any dumber your IQ would be in negative numbers.

 

[FA_Q2]

Private serves using public airwaves to conduct business.

Jack Dorsey cannot drive his privately owned auto down the highway any way he chooses.
Because the roads are public conveyances. He is bound by the law. Period.

And so is Twitter and Facebook. But just like them and the road, You do not get to decide who gets to sit in the passenger seat of his privately owned vehicle. Again, the road being equated to the airwaves is not synonymous with the private servers that FB hosts. It is synonymous with the internet itself, which you have access to and cannot be denied access based on your view. You just do not have access to someone's private servers, their car in this analogy.

What you are trying to do is deem access to private property as public property - the road is public and has regulatory requirements. The car is private.

Granting public power over private servers because they utilize the internet is a massive increase in the scope and power of government.

 

[Nostra]

I missed it, sorry...what post number is it?

Read the thread. Your education isn't my responsibility.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I already showed it by linking to their TOS and how they selectively apply them.

And?

We can all agree that social media are evil and the spawn of Satan.

However evil and Satanic social media might be, it still doesn’t justify government overreach in violation of the First Amendment.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Don’t join, delete your account, start a boycott.

What’s un-Constitutional is for government to ‘step in’ and compel social media to accommodate whomever and to compel social media to propagate rightwing hate speech and lies.

Just because you and others on the right incorrectly perceive social media as being ‘mean’ to conservatives is not ‘justification’ for government to violate the First Amendment.

More government, bigger government at the expense of individual liberty – and yes, the liberty of private social media – is not the answer.

Indeed, with social media despised by Democrats and Republicans alike, it’s this very situation the Framers envisioned when drafting the First Amendment.

You sound just like an Alabama redneck trying to legitimize Jim Crow laws.

The only difference between those defending what Twitter does and the Selma public bus system
is time and the principals involved.

Go ahead and pat yourself on the back for your righteous cause.

 

[Nostra]

The lawsuit says so. I read it. You didn’t.

So Trump and his attorneys are lying about what is in their lawsuit.

Got it.

Link us up to the lawsuit, then cut and paste the part that says they are only arguing it is a govt agency.

 

[Nostra]

And?

We can all agree that social media are evil and the spawn of Satan.

However evil and Satanic social media might be, it still doesn’t justify government overreach in violation of the First Amendment.

I never said anything about the First Amendment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Twitter lies.

CITIZEN FREE PRESS

The Greatest News Site On The Internet. Home of CFP Nation.

citizenfreepress.com

Twitter lies.

Twitter steals.

Twitter drowns puppies in the river.

It still doesn’t justify government overreach in violation of the First Amendment.

 

[Nostra]

The lawsuit says so. I read it. You didn’t.

Only had to get to Page 2 to see where they are arguing exactly what I claimed................double standard using the Taliban as an example.

You lose again, you lying sack of shit.

Defendant’s Censorship And Prior Restraint Of Plaintiff Defendant’s censorship of Plaintiff during his presidency involved tweets that were labeled “misleading information,” were said to violate Defendant’s rules against “glorifying violence” and/or questioned election integrity standards. On January 8, 2021, Twitter announced that it was suspending Plaintiff’s account(s) indefinitely, claiming falsely that Plaintiff had incited violence and, therefore, must be suspended under Twitter’s “standards.” (Homberg Decl. ¶ 20.) The Case 1:21-cv-22441-RNS Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2021 Page 8 of 38 3 ludicrous incongruity of Twitter’s position on the matter came to full focus several months later. On August 8, 2021, a new account named for the Taliban unrecognized state, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (the “Taliban”), a known terrorist organization, appeared on Twitter. (Homberg Decl. ¶ 117, 125.) Over the weeks that followed, Twitter allowed the Taliban to tweet regularly about their military conquests and victories across Afghanistan. (Id.) The Taliban’s Twitter account is active to this day. (Id.)

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.595801/gov.uscourts.flsd.595801.62.0_1.pdf

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

And so is Twitter and Facebook. But just like them and the road, You do not get to decide who gets to sit in the passenger seat of his privately owned vehicle. Again, the road being equated to the airwaves is not synonymous with the private servers that FB hosts. It is synonymous with the internet itself, which you have access to and cannot be denied access based on your view. You just do not have access to someone's private servers, their car in this analogy.

I'm not trying to monitor who sits in your private vehicle and that's not the point.
I'm saying you can't drive in an illegal manner on publicly owned roads just because your
car is your own.

If you want to make analogies make sure they are logically consistent and apropos.

What you are trying to do is deem access to private property as public property - the road is public and has regulatory requirements. The car is private.

Granting public power over private servers because they utilize the internet is a massive increase in the scope and power of government.

Jack Dorsey CAN operate his business as he pleases.
He CANNOT violate freedom of speech laws because his business is private when
his business operates purely due to it's access to public airwaves.

This is not a difficult concept to grasp.

Is the KKK free to spew out their hate pubilically? KKK Series | Federal Bureau of Investigation
Not really. Why not? According to you just being a private enterprise guarantees you can
ignore the Bill of Rights.

That's not so.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Twitter lies.

Twitter steals.

Twitter drowns puppies in the river.

It still doesn’t justify government overreach in violation of the First Amendment.

Guaranteeing freedom of expression and speech is NOT government overreach.