trump begs Florida judge to restore his Twitter account

[bodecea]

Already produced. Read the thread.

996 posts....a nice way for you to blow smoke and not really have done anything.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

Yes you are because FB already does operate based on the law. There are a million laws that govern everything from how the data they send and receive through the internet is handled to how the company needs to report its income. You are not asking for laws that govern how FB uses its property in a public space. You are asking for laws about who has access to use FB for their own purposes. That is the difference in who in in the car vs the rules of the road. You want laws that requires FB to open its property so that others have access to use, edit and disseminate information through their servers.

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

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.

It is your analogy, not mine and it is hopelessly flawed from the get go considering that driving is not a right protected under the constitution so regulations there are not really analogous to speech or property issues.

However, it is not violating freedom of speech when you curate content on your property, it really is that simple. It is the same as stating if you set up a publics speaking event for republicans and deny a democrat the right to use the stage. The event is public. The admittance is public. The surrounding area is public. Your event is private and you get to decide who can and cannot use the event.

The internet is public. FB database is not. FB must follow the law in operating the web page. That does not mean they need to host whatever content you please. If they choose to be an advocacy group that is totally within private property rights.

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.

Yes, yes the KKK is. That is, however, not really relevant to weather or not the KKK has a right to force Facebook to host their hate spewing content as your position demands that they do.

 

[Nostra]

The motion you linked to proves the main point is not what you claim.

It proves exactly what I claimed, Dumbass.

 

[colfax_m]

It proves exactly what I claimed, Dumbass.

It doesn’t. The Taliban is mentioned in a couple of lines in the statement of fact.

It has nothing to do with the dozens of pages of legal argument which you clearly didn’t read.

 

[Nostra]

But you already backed off any claim that there would be any legislation. You bitched about me assuming that’s what you meant. Now here to I see bitching at me because I didn’t assume it.

You’re a real asshole.

I never claimed there would be legislation, so it is impossible for me to back off a claim I never made.

Once again you are lying about my posts. Typical tactic you use when getting your ass kicked on the facts.

 

[Nostra]

It doesn’t. The Taliban is mentioned in a couple of lines in the statement of fact.

It has nothing to do with the dozens of pages of legal argument which you clearly didn’t read.

The Taliban is mentioned in a couple of lines in the statement of fact.

BINGO! I said they used Twitter's double standard regarding enforcing their TOS in the lawsuit, and used the Taliban to illustrate it.

Glad you finally agree with me.

 

[colfax_m]

I never claimed there would be legislation, so it is impossible for me to back off a claim I never made.

Once again you are lying about my posts. Typical tactic you use when getting your ass kicked on the facts.

Yet again, you’re shaking around.

Thanks for admitting you’re basically saying nothing.

The vast majority of your posts are “I never said” and very few actually say anything.

You have no point.

 

[colfax_m]

The Taliban is mentioned in a couple of lines in the statement of fact.

BINGO! I said they used Twitter's double standard regarding enforcing their TOS in the lawsuit, and used the Taliban to illustrate it.

Glad you finally agree with me.

It’s not part of their argument.

You claimed it was THE main point in the lawsuit. It’s not even close.

Or are you also backing off this assertion?

 

[Nostra]

Yet again, you’re shaking around.

Thanks for admitting you’re basically saying nothing.

The vast majority of your posts are “I never said” and very few actually say anything.

You have no point.

Not the vast majority. Another lie by you.

The only ones I say I never said something is when you have lied about my posts. Granted, there have been numerous such lies by you in this thread.

 

[bripat9643]

This is another example of rightwing hypocrisy.

If private social media are to be designated as government actors subject to First Amendment free speech doctrine, the so too would private religious organizations functioning in a government capacity be subject to First Amendment Establishment Clause doctrine, where private religious organizations wouldn’t be allowed to refuse to provide services based on religious objections.

Conservatives can’t have it both ways.

They already are government actors, you brain dead twit.

 

[Nostra]

It’s not part of their argument.

You claimed it was THE main point in the lawsuit. It’s not even close.

Or are you also backing off this assertion?

I cut and pasted them using it in their lawsuit, Dumbass. It is clearly part of the argument.

Man, you really are stupid.

 

[colfax_m]

Not the vast majority. Another lie by you.

The only ones I say I never said something is when you have lied about my posts. Granted, there have been numerous such lies by you in this thread.

You post vague and meaningless nonsense and don’t spent any time elaborating.

Then you piss and moan rather than actually make a point.

You have no point and will yet again refuse to make one.

Just more pissing and moaning.

 

[Clipper]

When Twatter bans idiots who spewed the totally debunked “Russian collusion” crap then come talk to us. Until then, Trump has every right to sue Twatter (which has admitted to working with the government to ban conservatives and also had to admit they intentionally buried the NY Post’s story on Hunter Biden by lying about how the Post’s information was obtained). But you love seeing Death to America and left wing bullshit posted with no repercussions.

The first judge who looks at that suit will toss it in the trash can where it & Trump both belong.

 

[colfax_m]

I cut and pasted them using it in their lawsuit, Dumbass. It is clearly part of the argument.

Man, you really are stupid.

It’s not even in the legal argument section. It’s in a statement of fact.

You understand that’s different, right?

Did you lead the legal argument? Are you still claiming it’s their main point?

 

[bodecea]

The first judge who looks at that suit will toss it in the trash can where it & Trump both belong.

And then they well all whine some more.

 

[Synthaholic]

 

[colfax_m]

The first judge who looks at that suit will toss it in the trash can where it & Trump both belong.

Right now Trump is fighting to keep the lawsuit in Florida since the TOS states that any litigation against Twitter must be filed in California.

 

[Clipper]

Their terms of service violate the First Amendment, you fucking NAZI.

The way you hate the First Amendment is truly nauseating. This country has come down a long way when vermine like you feel comfortable posting NAZI shit like that in a public forum.

Where in the 1st ammendment are privately owned companies mentioned, Trump asslicking clown.

 

[Nostra]

You post vague and meaningless nonsense and don’t spent any time elaborating.

Then you piss and moan rather than actually make a point.

You have no point and will yet again refuse to make one.

Just more pissing and moaning.

Once again you demonstrate that my point is beyond your very limited cognitive abilities.

 

[Clipper]

["Trump needs to reach up really high to get out from under the rock he lives under."]


Funny.......I was thinking the same thing of you.

That's how you think of anyone who isn't a Trump ball washer like you are, sucker.