trump begs Florida judge to restore his Twitter account

[postman]

Trump can sue for whatever he likes. Your opinion is irrelevant.

Not according to Article 3 of the constitution.

 

[colfax_m]

Not true.
If you follow the chain of authorization of both, it comes down to the same 1st amendment.
Neither any arbitrarily censor political views, content, etc.
That should be obvious.
Social media is exacty intended to preplace the original political sandwich boards that used to be used instead.
Social media is exactly what the 1st amendment was aimed at, even though it did not yet even exist.

Forcing Twitter to perpetuate speech they don't want to is a violation of Twitter's first amendment rights.

 

[postman]

Wrong.
If Twitter censors political views they do not like, that is identical to producing tweets of political views they do like.
They ARE controlling content.
And that is illegal.

There are other republicans supporting Trump on twitter. So they are not censoring political views. They're banning people who violate terms of service.

 

[postman]

As for hookers, suspicion has nothing to do with it.
If they deliberately go to pimps with a bargain deal to profit share on special hooker flights, that obviously would be prosecutable.

You present such a ridiculous case so as to make it irrelevant. An airline as a common carrier can't discriminate against hookers, even if they suspect or know they're crossing state lines for immoral purposes.

Your having them promote such flights is a ridiculous stretch of the imagination. You might as well give a case of them advertising a "kidnappers" special, discount flights for people transporting kidnapped children. Just as ridiculous.

 

[tshrimp]

I agree but Twitter can't legitimately ban him except as an explicitly political act. that ignores the
Bill of Rights.
The Taliban is allowed on Twitter but Trump is not and the left is defending this purely political
act to their death.

Agree. It is more about a personal preference. He should be able to post on Twitter, but just wish he wouldn't . The left is, without a doubt, silencing the right. They don't even try and hide it.

 

[Nostra]

There are other republicans supporting Trump on twitter. So they are not censoring political views. They're banning people who violate terms of service.

They're banning people who violate terms of service.

Some people..............if they are Republican.

 

[postman]

The hipster billionaire should put in his TOS he can post child porn. Problem solved.

No more than he can put in his terms of service that he is above the law.

 

[Rigby5]

https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-rules-twitter-can-be-sued-for-failing-to-take-down-child-porn-videos/

That is AFTER they have been alerted to the infraction and still refuse to do anything about it.
That does not require or justify prior restraint, meaning to censor before an infraction has been notified.

 

[postman]

They're banning people who violate terms of service.

Some people..............if they are Republican.

They are not required to ban everybody that violates their terms of service, just the one's that they are made aware of. Just like Gators post about child pornography.

 

[postman]

That is AFTER they have been alerted to the infraction and still refuse to do anything about it.
That does not require or justify prior restraint, meaning to censor before an infraction has been notified.

But it does allow them to ban all future posts from that person by banning them for violation of terms of service.

 

[Nostra]

They are not required to ban everybody that violates their terms of service, just the one's that they are made aware of. Just like Gators post about child pornography.

So they have never heard of Maxine Watters, Hamas, and the Taliban?

 

[tshrimp]

Not according to Article 3 of the constitution.

What part of Article 3 would that be?

U.S. Constitution - Article III | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

The original text of Article III of the Constitution of the United States.

constitution.congress.gov

 

[colfax_m]

So they have never heard of Maxine Watters, Hamas, and the Taliban?

You can keep crying about this. It’s irrelevant.

 

[Rigby5]

I don't think the "words" of nudists are the issue.

And you can't force a baker to make special gay wedding cakes.
But the baker runs his business to his liking. He owns it all by himself

Twitter and Facebook can do what they like too....except for the fact that they must access
the public airwaves in order to run their fascist anti free speech businesses'.

So that's a vital distinction.

Wrong in general bakers do have to bake gay wedding cakes.
In one particular case, it was proven the religious views of the bakers had not gotten adequate consideration.
That does not then transfer or apply to any other baker at all.
The baker, butcher, candle stick maker, do NOT get to run their business arbitrarily the way they want.
They are bound by the agreement to be fair to the whole public, when licensed to open for business.

But I agree with you that if Twitter or Facebook wish to run their business along fascist values, then the FCC can reasonably deny them internet access.

 

[tshrimp]

There are other republicans supporting Trump on twitter. So they are not censoring political views. They're banning people who violate terms of service.

I am guessing you don't know many right wingers who post on Twitter. It is a constant censorship on our end. They claim violation of TOS, but it isn't. I personally don't use Twitter, or much social media. But see it regularly via people I know.

 

[colfax_m]

Let’s be all in on freedom of speech and get rid of all libel laws.

 

[tshrimp]

If you can ban the words of nudists, you can ban any subject, or position as long as it is clearly stated in the "terms of service".

In short, you can't force a kosher deli to serve ham.

Unless it is for a gay wedding .

 

[Rigby5]

Should be prosecuted, YES.

Can be prosecuted, NO.

As the first amendment protects such speech by the general public. But as often pointed out, that private companies by their terms of service, can preclude them.

Wrong.
Deliberately harmful misinformation can and is prosecuted all the time.
In no way does the 1st amendment protect deliberate misinformation that is harmful.

And Twitter is NOT a "private" company at all, but is just a light wrapper put around the public internet.
If they want a private business with their own rules, then they have to create their own alterative internet.
They can't use the public one.

 

[Rigby5]

Really? Every religion I know of, has people brought into the world naked.

What does the fact people have to be naked at times in private, have to do with public nudity?

 

[Rigby5]

You can keep crying about this. It’s irrelevant.

Yes it is relevant because the 14th amendment requires equal protection under the law.
If you censor acts by one political party, then you also have to censor the same acts by other parties.