trump begs Florida judge to restore his Twitter account

[lantern2814]

You would be surprised what automated systems can pickup.

He obviously has no concept of key words or phrases that programs can pick up on. That leads right to the post and then Twatter or Fakebook will remove it.

 

[DBA]

Who is going to remove their protection?

Not courts. Courts can’t rewrite laws, right?

It must be legislated to allow the courts to remove Section 230 protection from those that show clear bias in applying their TOS.

 

[lantern2814]

They may. I do not know if they do. I am sure the FBI sees them.....So stop sending those naked pics to colfax_m

Gator thinks all those texts aren’t saved by the carrier. So naive.

 

[366h34d]

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.

First of all, there are no private social media . In addition, there is no religious organization are doing what FB do. You better understand NGO.

 

[lantern2814]

Former President, not President. Do try to become educated someday.

Again moron, elected officials are still referred to by their title after leaving office.

 

[lantern2814]

Gas lighting. "It's your fault you couldn't tell he was kidding."

You need to stop using words you don’t know the meaning of moron. Your lack of intelligence means you can’t differentiate a joke from a serious statement. Seek mental help.

 

[colfax_m]

Gator thinks all those texts aren’t saved by the carrier. So naive.

They’re not. Texts are saved on device. Carriers save who texted who and when.

 

[lantern2814]

They’re not. Texts are saved on device. Carriers save who texted who and when.

You need to stop lying. Your carrier can pull up everything you’ve sent. It’s all saved for at least X amount of time (depending on the company). Why would people keep screaming for those records if they weren’t saved and available?

 

[colfax_m]

Again moron, elected officials are still referred to by their title after leaving office.

Except it’s irrelevant in the context of this lawsuit.

Trump is a citizen. Being a former president is irrelevant.

 

[colfax_m]

You need to stop lying. Your carrier can pull up everything you’ve sent. It’s all saved for at least X amount of time (depending on the company). Why would people keep screaming for those records if they weren’t saved and available?

So they can’t pull up everything you’ve sent.

 

[colfax_m]

It must be legislated to allow the courts to remove Section 230 protection from those that show clear bias in applying their TOS.

The parties have drastically different opinions on how 230 should be reformed. Congress is so dysfunctional they can hardly pass things they agree with let alone come to a compromise on something like 230.

 

[Rigby5]

Who is going to remove their protection?

Not courts. Courts can’t rewrite laws, right?

Must be sarcasm, because courts not only rewrite laws all the time, but that is the precedent set by the 14th amendment, and is how we got school bussing for racial justice.
I just with courts would do it more and end illegal legislation, like the war on drugs, federal firearm regulations, etc.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Wrong.
Twitter and FaceBook have no right to utilize the public internet if their actions, intent, and outcome is to discriminate against different political ideas.
In fact, it would be a criminal violation by the FCC if they continue letting Twitter have any internet access after their obvious violations of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment.

 

[dblack]

The parties have drastically different opinions on how 230 should be reformed.

Drastically?? They seem to be on the same page from what I can tell. They both want to trash it and do some "regulatin'".

 

[Nostra]

Do you not understand what a question is?

I forgot. You have forgotten elementary grammar.

You still are afraid to answer the questions.

Yep. I know what a question is. I also know what an assumption is. Many times an assumption starts out with "I assume....". Rarely is someone stupid enough to state "I assume..." then immediately claim he never made an assumption. But you are that stupid.

 

[colfax_m]

Yep. I know what a question is. I also know what an assumption is. Many times an assumption starts out with "I assume....". Rarely is someone stupid enough to state "I assume..." then immediately claim he never made an assumption. But you are that stupid.

Apparently you don’t understand either.

But at this time, it’s well besides the point.

The real point is rather than answer the question, you will bitch and moan. That’s because you’re too cowardly to answer it.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Wrong.
Private religious groups do not use or abuse public facilities like the internet.
They have obvious bias, but it does not effect anyone else because they are not denying any public services to anyone.

When they do deny public services, such as not baking a cake for a gay wedding, then I agree that should be illegal.
The baker may not be using any public facilities like the internet, but it is still harmful to the gays and not necessary for the religion.

 

[colfax_m]

Drastically?? They seem to be on the same page from what I can tell. They both want to trash it and do some "regulatin'".

Oh hell no. Republicans want social media to not restrict any speech. Democrats want them to restrict more speech they deem harmful.

 

[Nostra]

Apparently you don’t understand either.

But at this time, it’s well besides the point.

The real point is rather than answer the question, you will bitch and moan. That’s because you’re too cowardly to answer it.

I understand both. It would be you who has demonstrated clearly you have no clue what an assumption is.

 

[Nostra]

Oh hell no. Republicans want social media to not restrict any speech. Democrats want them to restrict more speech they deem harmful.

Democrats want them to restrict more speech they deem harmful.

Prove it.

List all the Dimwingers in Congress and the WH who have called for Twitter to enforce their TOS and ban the Taliban and Hamas.