trump begs Florida judge to restore his Twitter account

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

This makes no sense whatsoever.

Let’s try this:

The Framers had a justified fear of government, some had experienced firsthand the tyranny of unbridled government.

Because the Framers knew that government had the potential to become tyrannical, they drafted the Bill of Rights to safeguard our protected liberties from government excess and overreach.

Because government alone has the potential to violate our rights, by enacting laws and subjecting citizens to criminal prosecution in an effort to silence opposition to government, doctrines such as freedom of speech apply solely to government – not to private persons or organizations who do not have the same power government does to exact punitive measures against citizens.

In the context of private society, therefore, citizens have always had the right to speak freely and express themselves without ‘government permission.’

It was the Framers’ intent that private citizens would determine what speech is appropriate and what speech is not, free from interference by government or the courts.

The Framers’ vision for their new country was quite brilliant: a free people protected from government tyranny by the Bill of Rights at liberty to engage in unfettered debate, discourse, and argument.

Indeed, the Framers wanted to foster aggressive, passionate, bare-knuckled debate among a free people perceived to be the foundation of a healthy democracy.

"Balancing the exchange of ideas among private speakers is not a legitimate governmental interest," U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle wrote.

Exactly.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Conservatives are wrong on the issues – most are demagogues and liars.

But I have more respect for them than fence-sitting cowards because they have their convictions and have the courage to take a stand on those convictions, no matter how wrongheaded or reprehensible.

All the fence-sitting cowards do is deride ‘both sides,’ they contribute nothing and resolve even less.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Conservatives can’t subject private social media to free speech doctrine because they hate social media while at the same time exempting private religious organizations from Establishment Clause doctrine to appease the religious right.

Again, conservatives can’t have it both ways.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Be very careful I am the monopoly

You are a retard.

 

[Nostra]

Here you go. Read for yourself how the Democrats want to limit protections from section 230 based on content.

This is the Democratsâ plan to limit Section 230

The Senate bill would defend civil rights and take on a range of online harms.

www.protocol.com

"The so-called SAFE TECH Act was introduced Friday by Sens. Mark Warner, Mazie Hirono and Amy Klobuchar. Under the bill, online platforms would not be able to claim Section 230 immunity for alleged violations of federal or state civil rights laws, antitrust laws, cyberstalking laws, human rights laws or civil actions regarding a wrongful death. The law would strip companies of immunity for any speech they were paid to carry, such as ads or marketplace listings, and it would make clear that Section 230 does not shield companies from complying with court orders."

Nowhere does it have anything from the 3 back bencher Dimtards in the article saying they want to limit harmful speech, which was your claim.

And the article focuses on gun sales. Never mentions hate/violent speech from terrorist organizations who still have Twitter and/or Facebook accounts.


Major fail, Dipshit.

Try again.

 

[Uncensored2008]

wait....you want to force private companies to do things by government force, and you are calling someone else a nazi?

Really?

View attachment 547038

LOL;

Another fascist calls the government Monopoly "private."

 

[Nostra]

I'm only waiting because you're too afraid to admit that you are full of shit.

A coward like yourself won't answer simple questions.

I'm under no obligation to answer dumbass questions by you.

Sorry if that hurts your feels, Cupcake.

 

[bodecea]

We can do a class-action.

 

[dblack]

Conservatives are wrong on the issues – most are demagogues and liars.

But I have more respect for them than fence-sitting ...

Of course you do. They're the other half of your tag team. That tag team that is destroying our country. Fuck you both, very much!

 

[dblack]

LOL;

Another fascist calls the government Monopoly "private."

The Monopoly™

You guys crack me up. What Qanon shit are you smoking now?

 

[colfax_m]

Nowhere does it have anything from the 3 back bencher Dimtards in the article saying they want to limit harmful speech, which was your claim.

And the article focuses on gun sales. Never mentions hate/violent speech from terrorist organizations who still have Twitter and/or Facebook accounts.


Major fail, Dipshit.

Try again.

Gun sales was merely an example and it was about limiting harmful speech.

That’s the purpose of limiting protection from section 230, to make it so not all speech is protected by it.

 

[Rigby5]

This makes no sense whatsoever.

Let’s try this:

The Framers had a justified fear of government, some had experienced firsthand the tyranny of unbridled government.

Because the Framers knew that government had the potential to become tyrannical, they drafted the Bill of Rights to safeguard our protected liberties from government excess and overreach.

Because government alone has the potential to violate our rights, by enacting laws and subjecting citizens to criminal prosecution in an effort to silence opposition to government, doctrines such as freedom of speech apply solely to government – not to private persons or organizations who do not have the same power government does to exact punitive measures against citizens.

In the context of private society, therefore, citizens have always had the right to speak freely and express themselves without ‘government permission.’

It was the Framers’ intent that private citizens would determine what speech is appropriate and what speech is not, free from interference by government or the courts.

The Framers’ vision for their new country was quite brilliant: a free people protected from government tyranny by the Bill of Rights at liberty to engage in unfettered debate, discourse, and argument.

Indeed, the Framers wanted to foster aggressive, passionate, bare-knuckled debate among a free people perceived to be the foundation of a healthy democracy.

"Balancing the exchange of ideas among private speakers is not a legitimate governmental interest," U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle wrote.

Exactly.

Wrong.
The reason originally the Bill of Rights was mostly intended only to restrict the federal government was because all other violation of rights was rampant, and there never would have been any states signing on if they have tried to extend rights at that time.
It took not only a Civil War but protests and laws in the 1960s to reduce state, local, and individual discrimination.

However, being created and maintained by the federal government, the internet can not allow political discrimination.

 

[colfax_m]

I'm under no obligation to answer dumbass questions by you.

Sorry if that hurts your feels, Cupcake.

Of course you’re not obligated.

But that doesn’t immunize you from the logical conclusion that you don’t answer for a reason. That reason being cowardice.

 

[eddiew37]

You are a retard.

I was a republican until the stink made me leave

 

[dblack]

Wrong.
The reason originally the Bill of Rights was mostly intended only to restrict the federal government because all other violation of rights was rampant, and there never would have been any states signing on if they have tried to extend rights at that time.

No, it was because only government has the authority to use violence to achieve its ends. Individuals and businesses do not. Unlike you, they understood the difference.

 

[Rigby5]

Gun sales was merely an example and it was about limiting harmful speech.

That’s the purpose of limiting protection from section 230, to make it so not all speech is protected by it.

Sure there is harmful speech/words/images that can be censored legally, but nothing Trump did, so then Twitter is guilty of "prior restraint".
After Trump does something illegal, then and only then can he be banned, since then you can prove it is necessary in court.
Trump did nothing illegal.
If he did, then prove it in court.

 

[colfax_m]

Sure there is harmful speech/words/images that can be censored legally, but nothing Trump did, so then Twitter is guilty of "prior restraint".
After Trump does something illegal, then and only then can he be banned, since then you can prove it is necessary in court.
Trump did nothing illegal.
If he did, then prove it in court.

Nonsense. I’m still waiting for you to show me the regulations that Twitter supposedly has to abide by that prevent them from banning Trump for any reason they want.

 

[Nostra]

Gun sales was merely an example and it was about limiting harmful speech.

That’s the purpose of limiting protection from section 230, to make it so not all speech is protected by it.

Weird how your 3 back bencher Dimwingers focused on guns and ignored the Taliban and Hamas' blatant violation of Twitter's TOS, huh?

Can you explain that?

 

[Rigby5]

No, it was because only government has the authority to use violence to achieve its ends. Individuals and businesses do not. Unlike you, they understood the difference.

Absolutely wrong.
If someone is a threat to my rights, I have every right to use violence if necessary.
You have it totally backwards.
Government has ZERO authority of its own to use any violence, and it is only authorized to use violence when and if individuals who do have the inherent right of violence, delegate that authority to government, to enforce their rights for them.

 

[Nostra]

Of course you’re not obligated.

But that doesn’t immunize you from the logical conclusion that you don’t answer for a reason. That reason being cowardice.

Once again, you are free to make any erroneous assumption you want. Seems to be the one thing you are good at.