trump begs Florida judge to restore his Twitter account

[AzogtheDefiler]

I already have refuted it.

Ignoring it and calling it stupid is not refuting it.

 

[Nostra]

Ignoring it and calling it stupid is not refuting it.

Colfax hasn't developed past the 6th grade "Yer dumb" method of debate.

 

[bodecea]

It's too easy to expose you as the idiot you are......

I have posted this numerous times in this thread.


October 2020

There is no place on Twitter for violent organizations, including terrorist organizations, violent extremist groups, or individuals who affiliate with and promote their illicit activities. The violence that these groups engage in and/or promote jeopardizes the physical safety and well-being of those targeted. Our assessments under this policy are informed by national and international terrorism designations, as well as our violent extremist group and violent organizations criteria.


You may not threaten or promote terrorism or violent extremism.

Violent extremist groups are those that meet all of the below criteria:

• identify through their stated purpose, publications, or actions as an extremist group;
• have engaged in, or currently engage in, violence and/or the promotion of violence as a means to further their cause; and
• target civilians in their acts and/or promotion of violence.

Other violent organizations

Other violent organizations are those that meet all of the below criteria:

• a collection of individuals with a shared purpose; and
• have systematically targeted civilians with violence.

We examine a group’s activities both on and off Twitter to determine whether they satisfy the above criteria.

What is in violation of this policy?​

Under this policy, you can’t state an intention to inflict violence on a specific person or group of people. We define intent to include statements like “I will”, “I’m going to”, or “I plan to”, as well as conditional statements like “If you do X, I will”. Violations of this policy include, but are not limited to:

• threatening to kill someone;
• threatening to sexually assault someone;
• threatening to seriously hurt someone and/or commit a other violent act that could lead to someone’s death or serious physical injury; and
• asking for or offering a financial reward in exchange for inflicting violence on a specific person or group of people.

Then I agree, the organizations Taliban and ISIS and AQ should be gone.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Then I agree, the organizations Taliban and ISIS and AQ should be gone.

Doesn’t matter what you think. Twitter is private company and may do as it wishes….sound familiar?

 

[Nostra]

Then I agree, the organizations Taliban and ISIS and AQ should be gone.

Took quite a lot to get you to say terrorist organizations shouldn't be able to use Twitter to further their goals.

 

[colfax_m]

Ignoring it and calling it stupid is not refuting it.

Shoulda read all the posts.

The claim that the 14th amendment could imply that Twitter doesn’t get to discriminate is silly. If it were the case; we wouldn’t have needed the civil rights act. It simply doesn’t apply to individuals. This isn’t a matter of equal protection under the law, since there is now law they’re asking to be protected by.

Second, Rigby often likes to claim that Twitter has signed some kind of agreement to not discriminate as part of using the “public” internet. This simply doesn’t exist and asking for any proof of its existence is met with insult or ignored.

Rigby brings up a point about political advertisement. My reply was that this is specifically addressed under FCC regulations, which despite their claim of “voluminous” regulations (not incorrect) I was able to identify the specific regulation for this pretty quickly, and I posted it.

Last, I’d say that Twitter actually is a bit of a private club. No one can post on Twitter except those who have agreed to the TOS. Now, since no one reads the TOS, it seems like a trivial distinction, but it’s quite important. The TOS is a legal contract. You must agree a legal before using Twitter. Those terms, which everyone on Twitter including Trump, say is that Twitter is the boss. They have no obligation to you.

 

[Nostra]

Shoulda read all the posts.

The claim that the 14th amendment could imply that Twitter doesn’t get to discriminate is silly. If it were the case; we wouldn’t have needed the civil rights act. It simply doesn’t apply to individuals. This isn’t a matter of equal protection under the law, since there is now law they’re asking to be protected by.

Second, Rigby often likes to claim that Twitter has signed some kind of agreement to not discriminate as part of using the “public” internet. This simply doesn’t exist and asking for any proof of its existence is met with insult or ignored.

Rigby brings up a point about political advertisement. My reply was that this is specifically addressed under FCC regulations, which despite their claim of “voluminous” regulations (not incorrect) I was able to identify the specific regulation for this pretty quickly, and I posted it.

Last, I’d say that Twitter actually is a bit of a private club. No one can post on Twitter except those who have agreed to the TOS. Now, since no one reads the TOS, it seems like a trivial distinction, but it’s quite important. The TOS is a legal contract. You must agree a legal before using Twitter. Those terms, which everyone on Twitter including Trump, say is that Twitter is the boss. They have no obligation to you.

Gibberish.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Shoulda read all the posts.

The claim that the 14th amendment could imply that Twitter doesn’t get to discriminate is silly. If it were the case; we wouldn’t have needed the civil rights act. It simply doesn’t apply to individuals. This isn’t a matter of equal protection under the law, since there is now law they’re asking to be protected by.

Second, Rigby often likes to claim that Twitter has signed some kind of agreement to not discriminate as part of using the “public” internet. This simply doesn’t exist and asking for any proof of its existence is met with insult or ignored.

Rigby brings up a point about political advertisement. My reply was that this is specifically addressed under FCC regulations, which despite their claim of “voluminous” regulations (not incorrect) I was able to identify the specific regulation for this pretty quickly, and I posted it.

Last, I’d say that Twitter actually is a bit of a private club. No one can post on Twitter except those who have agreed to the TOS. Now, since no one reads the TOS, it seems like a trivial distinction, but it’s quite important. The TOS is a legal contract. You must agree a legal before using Twitter. Those terms, which everyone on Twitter including Trump, say is that Twitter is the boss. They have no obligation to you.

If they are a private club then they should be regulated as such. Thanks for agreeing with me.

 

[eddiew37]

Did you shoot yourself in the head or something?

How did you become the retard you are today?

Republicans work in mysterious ways

 

[colfax_m]

If they are a private club then they should be regulated as such. Thanks for agreeing with me.

Good grief. Thanks for nothing.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

They can't impose a condition like that.

Its amazing how you all you prog NAZIs are so enamored with free enterprise since Twitter started censoring conservatives.

 

[Rigby5]

Then I agree, the organizations Taliban and ISIS and AQ should be gone.

Now, now, the Taliban never threatened anyone except in self defense.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Your device is backed up to a server, moron.

 

[Rigby5]

Shoulda read all the posts.

The claim that the 14th amendment could imply that Twitter doesn’t get to discriminate is silly. If it were the case; we wouldn’t have needed the civil rights act. It simply doesn’t apply to individuals. This isn’t a matter of equal protection under the law, since there is now law they’re asking to be protected by.

Second, Rigby often likes to claim that Twitter has signed some kind of agreement to not discriminate as part of using the “public” internet. This simply doesn’t exist and asking for any proof of its existence is met with insult or ignored.

Rigby brings up a point about political advertisement. My reply was that this is specifically addressed under FCC regulations, which despite their claim of “voluminous” regulations (not incorrect) I was able to identify the specific regulation for this pretty quickly, and I posted it.

Last, I’d say that Twitter actually is a bit of a private club. No one can post on Twitter except those who have agreed to the TOS. Now, since no one reads the TOS, it seems like a trivial distinction, but it’s quite important. The TOS is a legal contract. You must agree a legal before using Twitter. Those terms, which everyone on Twitter including Trump, say is that Twitter is the boss. They have no obligation to you.

Wrong.
That's not how law works.
You don't enforce amendments, you use amendments to justify legislation, like the civil rights act.
How do you think they could authorized the civil rights act, if not for the 14th amendment?
You fail to understand the point of the Equal Protection clause.
It requires government to create the laws necessary to ensure equal treatment.

It most certainly does apply to individuals, or else any private company could refuse Black customers and they could be starved to death.

As for the public internet, since that obviously is a government construction and owned device, then clearly that has to be prohibited from political discrimination.

And wrong again to claim Twitter is a private club. There was no such warning or approval process when I started using it, and I never agreed to any Terms of Service. There is no legal contract involved with Twitter. Sure Twitter has no obligation to any individual, but Twitter also has no right to use the public internet if it violates the FCC fair use regulations. Twitter can do what it wants, but they then will have to create their own copy of the internet network. They can't use the public one and discriminate against political points of view.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Good grief. Thanks for nothing.

They claim they are an open space for everyone and then they pick and choose in terms of who to ban. So now they are a private club aka a publisher of content. Roh roh. You said it yourself. Verizon doesn’t pick and choose who uses their services. Twitter does as you admitted. So why should they be regulated the same way?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Wrong.
That's not how law works.
You don't enforce amendments, you use amendments to justify legislation, like the civil rights act.
How do you think they could authorized the civil rights act, if not for the 14th amendment?
You fail to understand the point of the Equal Protection clause.
It requires government to create the laws necessary to ensure equal treatment.

It most certainly does apply to individuals, or else any private company could refuse Black customers and they could be starved to death.

As for the public internet, since that obviously is a government construction and owned device, then clearly that has to be prohibited from political discrimination.

And wrong again to claim Twitter is a private club. There was no such warning or approval process when I started using it, and I never agreed to any Terms of Service. There is no legal contract involved with Twitter. Sure Twitter has no obligation to any individual, but Twitter also has no right to use the public internet if it violates the FCC fair use regulations. Twitter can do what it wants, but they then will have to create their own copy of the internet network. They can't use the public one and discriminate against political points of view.

They can’t but they obviously do and get away with it. How do you explain that?

 

[Rigby5]

They can’t but they obviously do and get away with it. How do you explain that?

I would not go so far as to claim an FCC conspiracy since the FCC has always been very hand-off approach when it comes to the internet.
But I do think Trump is in the right on this and will win in court.
Twitter does not have a leg to stand on in this case.

 

[Colin norris]

AzogtheDefiler would argue that if the paperboy delivers a newspaper with a slanderous article about you in it. That you should be able to sue the paperboy, and let the courts decide if it's frivolous.

Twitter is a privately owned company. The judge isn't interested.

 

[pknopp]

They claim they are an open space for everyone and then they pick and choose in terms of who to ban. So now they are a private club aka a publisher of content. Roh roh. You said it yourself. Verizon doesn’t pick and choose who uses their services. Twitter does as you admitted. So why should they be regulated the same way?

No, they say they are open to anyone that abides by their terms of service. Now argue if you wish that they do not enforce them equally but all Trump had to do was Tweet like an adult.

 

[colfax_m]

Wrong.
That's not how law works.
You don't enforce amendments, you use amendments to justify legislation, like the civil rights act.
How do you think they could authorized the civil rights act, if not for the 14th amendment?
You fail to understand the point of the Equal Protection clause.
It requires government to create the laws necessary to ensure equal treatment.

It most certainly does apply to individuals, or else any private company could refuse Black customers and they could be starved to death.

As for the public internet, since that obviously is a government construction and owned device, then clearly that has to be prohibited from political discrimination.

And wrong again to claim Twitter is a private club. There was no such warning or approval process when I started using it, and I never agreed to any Terms of Service. There is no legal contract involved with Twitter. Sure Twitter has no obligation to any individual, but Twitter also has no right to use the public internet if it violates the FCC fair use regulations. Twitter can do what it wants, but they then will have to create their own copy of the internet network. They can't use the public one and discriminate against political points of view.

Of course someone can enforce an amendment. If someone deprives you of your rights, that is grounds for litigation. The Civil Rights Act (talking about Title 2 since that's what governs places of public accommodation) was justified in court based on the commerce clause, not the 14th amendment, see Heart of Atlanta Motel v United States. The equal protection clause doesn't "require" anything of the sort. What it does is extends US Constitutional protections down to states and mandates that the laws of the states be applied similarly to people in similar situations. It has nothing to do with ensuring equal treatment of individuals.

The private company can't refuse black customers because of Title 2 of the CRA, which again is justified based on the commerce clause.

I'm still looking for whatever regulation that prohibits political discrimination. You've decided against producing such a regulation. It doesn't exist. If it were, it'd be easy to find as that would be a massive deal.

If you started posting on twitter, you signed a TOS. End of story.