trump begs Florida judge to restore his Twitter account

[dblack]

Muslims did not make people smile when they first came upon the scene 600 years after Christ, making people think they were like them, lying. Muslims will not make Left people smile when they rule over you, or anyone that is not called Muslim. Muslims think that name is greater than any other name, fooling themselves. One name that vibrates the air, cannot be greater than another name, that vibrates the air. People who fool themselves, will strive to fool others. Muslims are making Left people to be a fool in God's eyes. Muslims have wicked, mischievous, deceitful, conniving, fraudulent, minds; teaching Left people how to be like them. That is not good. Jesus will think, HA,HA, a golf ball hit trump in the head, when that was not the case at all? Satan, the dishonest one, did that through the minds of Left people. The Fraudulent Satan is talking through Left people. A fraudulent mind is in the mind of Left people. How can fraud not occur? Fraud will be a certainty. No one can deny it. Fraud occurred with the election. Jesus is not heard, therefore fraud occurred.

WTF??

Please take your medication before posting.

 

[bripat9643]

I believe you miss the news. He moved out of the WH already. Also, Biden is spending 16 hrs per M-F to improve the lives of the American people

He's making their lives worse, NAZI

 

[bripat9643]

LOL

Fucking moron, I even gave you the definition of a common carrier, which in no way applies to Twitter.

Sadly, you're ineducable.

Twitter and Facebook fit the definition, dumbass.

 

[bripat9643]

Ya, that's right. He should quit pretending to be a libertarian and instead admit he is a democrat that is just holding to a libertarian principal regardless of what the parties think about it. He is not a real libertarian or conservative such as yourself when you advocate for government to force people to be 'treated equally.' Just until that is. We are only giving the government ultimate power just until...

You're a dumbass. The idea that you support private business doesn't pass the laugh test.

 

[bripat9643]

I would add a case in point here:

Legislating Morality

I have meant to post this topic for a long time but have failed to do so until I seen Immie recently mention government legislating morality and I could not let another statement like this slide. I have heard time and time again that it is the governments place to legislate morality and that...

www.usmessageboard.com

I was actually surprised by the resulting conversation. The right has always been on the side of big government, just in a different manner than the left.

Horseshit

 

[Faun]

Muslims did not make people smile when they first came upon the scene 600 years after Christ, making people think they were like them, lying. Muslims will not make Left people smile when they rule over you, or anyone that is not called Muslim. Muslims think that name is greater than any other name, fooling themselves. One name that vibrates the air, cannot be greater than another name, that vibrates the air. People who fool themselves, will strive to fool others. Muslims are making Left people to be a fool in God's eyes. Muslims have wicked, mischievous, deceitful, conniving, fraudulent, minds; teaching Left people how to be like them. That is not good. Jesus will think, HA,HA, a golf ball hit trump in the head, when that was not the case at all? Satan, the dishonest one, did that through the minds of Left people. The Fraudulent Satan is talking through Left people. A fraudulent mind is in the mind of Left people. How can fraud not occur? Fraud will be a certainty. No one can deny it. Fraud occurred with the election. Jesus is not heard, therefore fraud occurred.

 

[Faun]

Twitter and Facebook fit the definition, dumbass.

Fucking moron, how much does it cost to tweet on Twitter......

 

[FA_Q2]

Horseshit

No, NAZI!

 

[bripat9643]

Fucking moron, how much does it cost to tweet on Twitter......

They charge advertisers, moron. They sell your data to them. That's the cost.

 

[Faun]

They charge advertisers, moron. They sell your data to them. That's the cost.

Fucking moron, advertisers don't pay to tweet. Which means, despite your best effort which failed you, no one pays to tweet. A requirement of a common carrier. How many times are you going to fail at this same argument?

 

[Rigby5]

LOL

Fucking moron, I even gave you the definition of a common carrier, which in no way applies to Twitter.

Sadly, you're ineducable.

Twitter is exactly what fits the definition of a "common carrier".
A common carrier is one who does not create or own the content of what they transport, but simply at as a service to those who do.
And even if Twitter was not a common carrier for some reason, since they are using and depending on the government internet, they have to follow government internet regulations which prevent political censorship or discrimination.
The only legal way they can delete or ban is if they can prove it would be necessary in order to prevent a crime.

 

[Rigby5]

Muslims did not make people smile when they first came upon the scene 600 years after Christ, making people think they were like them, lying. Muslims will not make Left people smile when they rule over you, or anyone that is not called Muslim. Muslims think that name is greater than any other name, fooling themselves. One name that vibrates the air, cannot be greater than another name, that vibrates the air. People who fool themselves, will strive to fool others. Muslims are making Left people to be a fool in God's eyes. Muslims have wicked, mischievous, deceitful, conniving, fraudulent, minds; teaching Left people how to be like them. That is not good. Jesus will think, HA,HA, a golf ball hit trump in the head, when that was not the case at all? Satan, the dishonest one, did that through the minds of Left people. The Fraudulent Satan is talking through Left people. A fraudulent mind is in the mind of Left people. How can fraud not occur? Fraud will be a certainty. No one can deny it. Fraud occurred with the election. Jesus is not heard, therefore fraud occurred.

Wrong.
It is right in the Quran, that Mohammad considered Christianity and Judaism "Brothers of the Book", meaning the same Old Testament, and were equally valid ways to Heaven.
And for proof, all we have to do is look at history, and we see that the reasons the Meccans did not defeat Mohammad in his defense at Medina, was that the 12 Jewish tribes were his allies.
Since the Romans had kicked the Jews out of Palestine around 170 AD, they lived in Saudi Arabia, near Medina. And they were Mohammad's main allies.
In fact, Islam is just a very slight reformed version of Judaism.

 

[Rigby5]

Fucking moron, advertisers don't pay to tweet. Which means, despite your best effort which failed you, no one pays to tweet. A requirement of a common carrier. How many times are you going to fail at this same argument?

Wrong.
Cable TV stations are common carriers and do not charge you do watch TV.
The main income source for TV is by selling advertising, just like the internet.

{...
The Communications Act of 1934 was established to make sure everyone in America would have access to local and long distance phone service. Title II is a section of this Act and defines the obligations and requirements of a company, known as “Common Carriers”, offering telecommunications services. Section 202 makes sure that a common carrier does not discriminate of who can get service or that the service does not give ‘unreasonable’ preference or advantage.
...}

 

[Rigby5]

Is Twitter A Common Carrier?

By DEACON MIKE MANNO Two weeks ago I wrote about Judge Laurence Silberman’s critique of the current state of the U.S. media, which he found to be biased against conservatives and Republicans. By wa...

thewandererpress.com

{...

Is Twitter A Common Carrier?​

April 19, 2021
By DEACON MIKE MANNO

Two weeks ago I wrote about Judge Laurence Silberman’s critique of the current state of the U.S. media, which he found to be biased against conservatives and Republicans. By way of warning, the judge, a member of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, wrote: “The First Amendment is more than just a legal provision: It embodies the most important value of American Democracy. Repression of political speech by large institutions with market power therefore is — I say this advisedly — fundamentally un-American.”
The context of the case in which the judge made those remarks concerned how he saw the judicial misuse of the Supreme Court’s rulings requiring the showing of “actual malice” by certain plaintiffs in defamation cases. That standard, the judge opined, allowed the media to “cast false aspersions on public figures with near impunity.” And, he noted, most of the false aspersions cast were against Republicans and conservatives.
In addition to taking on the press, the judge also criticized social media for its display of favoritism by banning certain persons and issues from their platforms. But now another judge, this time Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Clarence Thomas, took up a similar issue in another case. This one involved actions President Trump took to keep people from commenting on his Twitter feed.
The plaintiffs had alleged that Mr. Trump violated their First Amendment rights by blocking their comments. At the heart of the issue was Twitter’s policy of allowing users to block others from republishing or responding to posts. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals had held that the comment threads were a “public forum” and that the plaintiffs’ rights were violated by the block. The Supreme Court rejected the appeal as moot, since Mr. Trump was out of office (in fact, the case name had been changed to reflect the change of administrations).
Justice Thomas concurred with the decision, and like Judge Silberman, used the opportunity to opine on what he considered possible erroneous protections given to digital platforms, such as Twitter, and how those protections are out of step with the times by “applying old doctrines to new digital platforms. . . . Respondents have a point, for example, that some aspects of Mr. Trump’s account resemble a constitutionally protected public forum. But it seems rather odd to say that something is a government forum when a private company has unrestricted authority to do away with it.”
He continued, “The disparity between Twitter’s control and Mr. Trump’s control is stark, to say the least. Mr. Trump blocked several people from interacting with his messages. Twitter barred Mr. Trump not only from interacting with a few users, but removed him from the entire platform, thus barring all Twitter users from interacting with his messages.”
The case, he said, highlighted the difficulty surrounding digital platforms in trying to apply old legal doctrines to the new digital platforms. He suggested that it did show that some aspects of the president’s account did appear to resemble a public forum which is constitutionally protected. Then he observed that it is difficult to claim something that a private entity has an unrestricted right to do away with is such a protected forum.
Since “unbridled control” of the Twitter account belonged to a private entity, that entity is not ordinarily constrained by the First Amendment. Thus, in general, private parties can do as they wish. But he noted that there are several exceptions to that rule and suggested: “If part of the problem is private, concentrated control over online content and platforms available to the public, then part of the solution may be found in doctrines that limit the right of a private company to exclude.”
Some legal doctrines do limit that right. Foremost among them, and most analogist to the current situation, involves common carriers and public accommodations. In each the entity involved is required to service all customers, and in the case of common carriers, must do so in exchange for certain privileges.
“This Court long ago suggested that regulations like those placed on common carriers may be justified, even for industries not historically recognized as common carriers, when ‘a business, by circumstances and its nature . . . rise from private to be of public concern’.”
One example of business of this type is the telegraph, Justice Thomas wrote, because telegraphs “resembled” and were “analogous enough” to railroads and other common carriers.
Since the government required that common carriers cater to all, the government usually provided some benefit, for example, protection from competition and immunity from certain types of lawsuits. In the case of the telegraph, and now telephonic communications, that protection was against defamation lawsuits. Thus the government places these companies in a special category.
“In many ways, digital platforms that hold themselves out to the public resemble traditional common carriers. Though digital instead of physical, they are at bottom communications networks, and they ‘carry’ information from one user to another. A traditional telephone company laid physical wires to create a network connecting people. Digital platforms lay information infrastructure that can be controlled in much the same way. And unlike newspapers, digital platforms hold themselves out as organizations that focus on distributing the speech of the broader public. Federal law dictates that companies cannot ‘be treated as the publisher or speaker’ of information that they merely distribute.” ...}

 

[Faun]

Twitter is exactly what fits the definition of a "common carrier".
A common carrier is one who does not create or own the content of what they transport, but simply at as a service to those who do.
And even if Twitter was not a common carrier for some reason, since they are using and depending on the government internet, they have to follow government internet regulations which prevent political censorship or discrimination.
The only legal way they can delete or ban is if they can prove it would be necessary in order to prevent a crime.

Moron, the federal government does not own the Internet. And common carriers charge a fee for their services while tweeting is free. As always, you prove you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Good and fair article IMO.......

Does a Twitter ban violate First Amendment rights? A legal expert weighs in

The suspension of President Donald Trump’s social media accounts has prompted some to call the move a “violation of the president’s first amendment right to free speech.”

www.news4jax.com

 

[Faun]

Wrong.
Cable TV stations are common carriers and do not charge you do watch TV.
The main income source for TV is by selling advertising, just like the internet.

{...
The Communications Act of 1934 was established to make sure everyone in America would have access to local and long distance phone service. Title II is a section of this Act and defines the obligations and requirements of a company, known as “Common Carriers”, offering telecommunications services. Section 202 makes sure that a common carrier does not discriminate of who can get service or that the service does not give ‘unreasonable’ preference or advantage.
...}

Retard.

Why It's a Good Thing That Broadband Isn't a Common Carrier | NCTA — The Internet & Television Association

In a recent decision, the D.C. Court of Appeals vacated key elements of the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC’s) 2010 Open Internet order. In doing so, it has revived discourse around the open Internet (commonly referred to as net neutrality), what it really means for consumers and the...

www.ncta.com

Why Aren’t Broadband Providers Considered Common Carriers?

In the 1996 Telecom Act, Congress made a distinction between two types of services: “telecommunications services” and “information services.” “Telecommunications services” transmit a user’s information from one designated point to another without changing the form or content of that information. For example, a phone call transmits the user’s voice from one point to another without changing the content of the voice message, similar to the way a shipping company would deliver a package that you hand to it. “Information services,” on the other hand, offer a user the capability to create, store, or process information. Once that information is created, it might be transmitted via telecommunications, but the creation of the message would be done via information service. Telecommunications services, such as traditional phone service, were subject to common carrier rules. Information services were not. Based on the definitions in the 1996 Telecom Act, the FCC classified cable broadband as an “information service” and as a result it is not treated as a common carrier service and is largely exempt from regulation.​

 

[d0gbreath]

I wonder if the Judge has stopped laughing enough to issue a ruling yet?

 

[dudmuck]

Quit pretending that you're a libertarian. We all know you're just another NAZI prog who endorses censorship.

 

[Nostra]

Penceloverboi has cartoons......