Trump to sue Facebook, Twitter, Google over alleged censorship

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Then it’s discrimination.

Better call the mentally ill fat moron then, because he is calling it censorship.

 

[Faun]

Have to love that Fox News inserts the word "alleged" in their title. Hah. He is banned from some sites, how else is one defining censorship?

Trump to sue Facebook, Twitter, Google over alleged censorship, says they've 'ceased to be private'

Former President Donald Trump on Wednesday announced that he will lead a lawsuit over alleged censorship against Twitter, Facebook and Google, three tech companies that removed him from their platforms after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol by a mob of his supporters.

www.foxnews.com

Former President Donald Trump on Tuesday is announcing that he will lead a lawsuit over alleged censorship against Twitter, Facebook and Google -- three tech companies that removed him from their platforms after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol by a mob of his supporters.

The lawsuit will be a class-action, with Trump as the lead plaintiff, claiming that he's been censored by the companies, the Associated Press reported. He will speak about the legal action from his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey.

Twitter, YouTube and Facebook each barred Trump over his false claims that the presidential election was stolen, alleging that he contributed to the violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6. YouTube is owned by Google.

Dumb Donald has never read nor does he comprehend COTUS.

The First Amendment does not prevent the private sector from censoring anyone; only, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Then it’s discrimination. Dems love that one.
They wouldn’t bake his republican cake.

Discrimination against what class of people?

 

[dblack]

Then it’s discrimination. Dems love that one.
They wouldn’t bake his republican cake.

Dems defending the autonomy of private business, Trumpsters identifying as progressive statists. Cats and dogs, living together!

It's all a jumble these days.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

How private social media edit their content is not ‘censorship.’

Censorship is what it is, regardless of who does it.

Straight from the lefty biased wikipedia:

"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies. Governments and private organizations may engage in censorship."

Nonsense.

Private publishers editing their content isn’t ‘censorship’ – what a given publisher might not publish is being published by others and is still generally disseminated to the public.

Only government has the authority to censor by preempting speech or publication through force of law, where all publishers are prohibited from disseminating information, subjecting them to punitive measures if they do.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They banned Trump based on who he was and for his political stance.

And?

FB and Twitter have every right to do so – for whatever reason.

Don’t like it – then don’t participate, close your FB account and go somewhere else.

You’re at liberty to denounce FB on other social media, call for a boycott of FB, or start your own social media platform.

What you’re not at liberty to do is violate FB’s right to freedom of association and freedom of the press with unwarranted, un-Constitutional regulation of social media.

 

[Calypso Jones]

It sounds like YOU hate this country

only because you have traded the truth for a lie.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The lawsuit isn’t strictly about the First Amendment. It’s about Facebook et all censoring conservatives when they never violated the their own terms. They can prove that. In addition to that, they will argue those platforms hide behind section 230 protections while infringing on Americans’ freedom of speech.

More ignorance, stupidity, and dishonesty from the right.

Only government is subject to First Amendment limits and restrictions, not private entities; social media cannot ‘violate’ anyone’s freedom of speech.

 

[EvMetro]

How private social media edit their content is not ‘censorship.’

Censorship is what it is, regardless of who does it.

Straight from the lefty biased wikipedia:

"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies. Governments and private organizations may engage in censorship."

Nonsense.

Private publishers editing their content isn’t ‘censorship’ – what a given publisher might not publish is being published by others and is still generally disseminated to the public.

Only government has the authority to censor by preempting speech or publication through force of law, where all publishers are prohibited from disseminating information, subjecting them to punitive measures if they do.

Censorship is what it is, regardless of who does it.

Straight from the lefty biased wikipedia:

"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies. Governments and private organizations may engage in censorship."

 

[colfax_m]

How private social media edit their content is not ‘censorship.’

Censorship is what it is, regardless of who does it.

Straight from the lefty biased wikipedia:

"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies. Governments and private organizations may engage in censorship."

Nonsense.

Private publishers editing their content isn’t ‘censorship’ – what a given publisher might not publish is being published by others and is still generally disseminated to the public.

Only government has the authority to censor by preempting speech or publication through force of law, where all publishers are prohibited from disseminating information, subjecting them to punitive measures if they do.

Apparently the lawsuit is alleging that these social media companies are state actors by virtue of working with the government (specifically with the CDC which was under the purview of Trump) on messaging for COVID.

It’s a fringe theory. Not likely to succeed. Especially given the conservatives generally favor less restrictive state action doctrine than the liberal justices.

 

[dblack]

They banned Trump based on who he was and for his political stance.

And?

FB and Twitter have every right to do so – for whatever reason.

Don’t like it – then don’t participate, close your FB account and go somewhere else.

You’re at liberty to denounce FB on other social media, call for a boycott of FB, or start your own social media platform.
What you’re not at liberty to do is violate FB’s right to freedom of association and freedom of the press with unwarranted, un-Constitutional regulation of social media.

Couldn't agree more, C.

FB and Twitter Bakers have every right to do so – for whatever reason.

Don’t like it – then don’t participate, close your FB account tell the baker to take a hike, and go somewhere else.

You’re at liberty to denounce FB on other social media the baker, call for a boycott of FB, or start your own social media platform bakery.

What you’re not at liberty to do is violate FB’s the baker's right to freedom of association and freedom of the press speech with unwarranted, un-Constitutional regulation of social media bakers.

 

[Concerned American]

They banned Trump based on who he was and for his political stance.

And?

FB and Twitter have every right to do so – for whatever reason.

Don’t like it – then don’t participate, close your FB account and go somewhere else.

You’re at liberty to denounce FB on other social media, call for a boycott of FB, or start your own social media platform.

What you’re not at liberty to do is violate FB’s right to freedom of association and freedom of the press with unwarranted, un-Constitutional regulation of social media.

According to the left, FB does not have the right to discriminate, the same as a privately owned florist shop.

 

[dblack]

They banned Trump based on who he was and for his political stance.

And?

FB and Twitter have every right to do so – for whatever reason.

Don’t like it – then don’t participate, close your FB account and go somewhere else.

You’re at liberty to denounce FB on other social media, call for a boycott of FB, or start your own social media platform.

What you’re not at liberty to do is violate FB’s right to freedom of association and freedom of the press with unwarranted, un-Constitutional regulation of social media.

According to the left, FB does not have the right to discriminate, the same as a privately owned florist shop.

Exactly. You agree with the left. Why can't you guys just get along?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Censorship is what it is, regardless of who does it.

Neato, but it isn't a violation of someone's rights "no matter who does it".

 

[Concerned American]

Don’t like it – then don’t participate, close your FB account tell the baker to take a hike,

That is the exact point you hypocrites have been protesting for the last four years when it was one of yours trying to force, a baker, a florist, a pizza shop owner, Hobby Lobby, Chick Fil A and others to serve your degenerate ilk against the owner's conscience. Now the same argument comes back to haunt you and you're whining.

 

[dblack]

Don’t like it – then don’t participate, close your FB account tell the baker to take a hike,

That is the exact point you hypocrites have been protesting for the last four years when it was one of yours trying to force, a baker, a florist, a pizza shop owner, Hobby Lobby, Chick Fil A and others to serve your degenerate ilk against the owner's conscience. Now the same argument comes back to haunt you and you're whining.

I've consistently defended the rights of the bakers, and the social media companies. You're the fucking hypocrite.

 

[Concerned American]

Don’t like it – then don’t participate, close your FB account tell the baker to take a hike,

That is the exact point you hypocrites have been protesting for the last four years when it was one of yours trying to force, a baker, a florist, a pizza shop owner, Hobby Lobby, Chick Fil A and others to serve your degenerate ilk against the owner's conscience. Now the same argument comes back to haunt you and you're whining.

I've been a consistent defender of the baker's, and the social media companies', rights. You're the fucking hypocrite.

I told you before, Troll, take your circular argument shit down the road. Your tactics are more transparent than Josef Stolen's last speech.

 

[dblack]

Don’t like it – then don’t participate, close your FB account tell the baker to take a hike,

That is the exact point you hypocrites have been protesting for the last four years when it was one of yours trying to force, a baker, a florist, a pizza shop owner, Hobby Lobby, Chick Fil A and others to serve your degenerate ilk against the owner's conscience. Now the same argument comes back to haunt you and you're whining.

I've been a consistent defender of the baker's, and the social media companies', rights. You're the fucking hypocrite.

I told you before, Troll, take your circular argument shit down the road. Your tactics are more transparent than Josef Stolen's last speech.

Do you even know what a circular argument is? You've got nothing. You're a fraud. A hypocritical partisan douchebag, with no real convictions. Shall I go on?

 

[Concerned American]

Don’t like it – then don’t participate, close your FB account tell the baker to take a hike,

That is the exact point you hypocrites have been protesting for the last four years when it was one of yours trying to force, a baker, a florist, a pizza shop owner, Hobby Lobby, Chick Fil A and others to serve your degenerate ilk against the owner's conscience. Now the same argument comes back to haunt you and you're whining.

I've been a consistent defender of the baker's, and the social media companies', rights. You're the fucking hypocrite.

I told you before, Troll, take your circular argument shit down the road. Your tactics are more transparent than Josef Stolen's last speech.

Do you even know what a circular argument is? You've got nothing. You're a fraud. A hypocritical partisan douchebag, with no real convictions. Shall I go on?

Fuck yourself troll. You and Clay enjoy your circle jerk.

 

[theHawk]

They did not infringe on anyone's right to free speech. Only the government can do that

Once again you are conflating free speech with the First Amendment.

Businesses can and do infringe on freedom of speech with censorship and banning.

First Amendment applies to the Federal government. But it is possible for non-government entities to violate people’s civil liberties, and be held accountable. There are anti-discrimination laws that corporations must follow. If they discriminate against white people for example, they can be held accountable.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

. But it is possible for non-government entities to violate people’s civil liberties, and be held accountable

Neato. But how does that apply here? Be specific.