trump begs Florida judge to restore his Twitter account

[Nostra]

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

Who is crying, Dipshit?

It is relevant to the discussion I was having with someone else, so piss off, Troll.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

There’s no law they’re claiming protection under. It is not illegal for people or corporations to have political bias.

 

[colfax_m]

Who is crying, Dipshit?

It is relevant to the discussion I was having with someone else, so piss off, Troll.

You. It’s not relevant. It’s just more whining.

 

[Rigby5]

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

You can't get rid of libel laws because they are based the inherent rights of those being harmed by the libel.
No such victim exists in the case of banning Trump.
Trump did nothing illegal, harmful, prosecutable, etc.
Libel is prosecutable.
What Twitter did was arbitrary.
Libel is not arbitrary but necessary to defend rights of those being illegally harmed.

 

[Nostra]

You. It’s not relevant. It’s just more whining.

 

[tshrimp]

There’s no law they’re claiming protection under. It is not illegal for people or corporations to have political bias.

As long as they are consistent in how they enforce the rules that is true, but doesn't make it any less unethical.

 

[colfax_m]

You can't get rid of libel laws because they are based the inherent rights of those being harmed by the libel.
No such victim exists in the case of banning Trump.
Trump did nothing illegal, harmful, prosecutable, etc.
Libel is prosecutable.
What Twitter did was arbitrary.
Libel is not arbitrary but necessary to defend rights of those being illegally harmed.

Ah, so you’re not in favor of freedom of speech then.

 

[Rigby5]

There’s no law they’re claiming protection under. It is not illegal for people or corporations to have political bias.

It most certainly is illegal for them to discriminate in their business based on those political baises.

 

[colfax_m]

As long as they are consistent in how they enforce the rules that is true, but doesn't make it any less ethical.

Bias is by definition inconsistency. There’s no law against what we are talking about.

Ethically, you are more than free to question it. I do too.

 

[colfax_m]

It most certainly is illegal for them to discriminate in their business based on those political baises.

Of course it isn’t.

 

[postman]

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

As Alec Trebek would say.
Name three factions that haven't urged their supporters to overthrow of the united states government.

 

[colfax_m]

Go on. Keep whining.

 

[Nostra]

As Alec Trebek would say.
Name three factions that haven't urged their supporters to overthrow of the united states government.

Is that the only criteria in Twitter's TOS to get banned, Dumbass?

 

[Nostra]

Go on. Keep whining.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

As long as they are consistent in how they enforce the rules that is true, but doesn't make it any less unethical.

Oh, you care about ethics now, do ya?

How about the "ethics" of a President undermining our democracy with lies?

4 years of "Show me where that's illegal!". But NOW you care about Twitter's ethics.

Hahahaha ooooooookay!

 

[Rigby5]

As long as they are consistent in how they enforce the rules that is true, but doesn't make it any less unethical.

And of course that is the rub, in that Twitter has not banned anyone else, even though many have crossed the line into promoting criminal acts.
In fact, anyone promoting US troops being deployed without local permission, anywhere except where the UN has agreed to, is in violation of the law and should legally be censored.

 

[postman]

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

Substantial Interest: Standing

, of the US Constitution: Analysis and Interpretation

law.justia.com

Constitutional Standards: Injury in Fact, Causation, and Redressability.

The Court ... has now settled upon the rule that, “at an irreducible minimum,” the constitutional requisites under Article III for the existence of standing are that the plaintiff must personally have:
1) suffered some actual or threatened injury;
2) that injury can fairly be traced to the challenged action of the defendant; and
3) that the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.

 

[postman]

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

It is only illegal if it will likely leads to imminent violence, injury or death. Or more of the COVID cure quacks would be in jail.

 

[Rigby5]

We should unfetter domestic energy production and leave the middle east. Let's do what the French and Brits did in handing the whole middle east mess to us and hand it to someone else

We will shortly run out of oil/gas, so using up our gas/oil when its cheap, makes no sense.
We should be importing exclusively and ban and domestic production, UNTIL the global shortage raises the prices.
There is no "middle east mess".
It has nothing to do with us and is fine all by itself.
The only problem is we dliberately lied about Saddam having WMD so that we could illegally invade and topple his government.
That was likely done because he was compensating victims of illegal Israel collective retaliation against the families of activists.

 

[postman]

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

It means it's not a religious thing to be against it. Adam and Eve can be viewed as only sinners want to wear clothes.