Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yup, you are getting warm. If they discriminate against all white people, they can be held accountable.Once again you are conflating free speech with the First Amendment.They did not infringe on anyone's right to free speech. Only the government can do that
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.
All three and their other side social sites need to be exterminated, period!
Starting with the CEOs and entire executive levels!!!
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/46698670/Hate.0.0.jpg)
lol. i see this is going really well for you twat.Fuck yourself troll. You and Clay enjoy your circle jerk.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?I told you before, Troll, take your circular argument shit down the road. Your tactics are more transparent than Josef Stolen's last speech.I've been a consistent defender of the baker's, and the social media companies', rights. You're the fucking hypocrite.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.Don’t like it – then don’t participate,close your FB accounttell the baker to take a hike,
"They banned trump based onThey banned Trump based on who he was and for his political stance.They cannot discriminate based on who you are. Social media has not discriminated against people based on what they are.
It's gotta be tough for a republican politician to sue any news source not to mention the powerful left wing intrenched blog sources. When you factor in the democrats running the show and the other media sources protecting their own not to mention a politically orientated federal law enforcement, the former president has his hands full.
Those social media sites are privately owned and unless the government forced them to censor Trump, then there is no censorship. Only the government can censor.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.
I am shocked to see that a lefty from this board actually looked into what the lawsuit is actually about, instead of just promoting censorship and expressing hate for Trump. You went a step deeper than the rest of the commies here.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.
Just like their FAILED insurrection.....it went "really well for them".lol. i see this is going really well for you twat.Fuck yourself troll. You and Clay enjoy your circle jerk.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?I told you before, Troll, take your circular argument shit down the road. Your tactics are more transparent than Josef Stolen's last speech.I've been a consistent defender of the baker's, and the social media companies', rights. You're the fucking hypocrite.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.Don’t like it – then don’t participate,close your FB accounttell the baker to take a hike,
Couldn't agree more, C.And?They banned Trump based on who he was and for his political stance.
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.
FB and TwitterBakers have every right to do so – for whatever reason.
Don’t like it – then don’t participate,close your FB accounttell the baker to take a hike, and go somewhere else.
You’re at liberty to denounceFB on other social mediathe baker, call for a boycottof FB, or start yourown social media platformbakery.
What you’re not at liberty to do is violateFB’sthe baker's right to freedom of association and freedom of the press speech with unwarranted, un-Constitutional regulation ofsocial mediabakers.
According to the left, FB does not have the right to discriminate, the same as a privately owned florist shop.And?They banned Trump based on who he was and for his political stance.
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.
A totally laughable and failed strategy. Forums do not become government agents just because they donate a public service in publishing or broadcasting PSAs.I am shocked to see that a lefty from this board actually looked into what the lawsuit is actually about, instead of just promoting censorship and expressing hate for Trump. You went a step deeper than the rest of the commies here.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.
“Today, in conjunction with the America First Policy Institute, I’m filing as the lead class representative, a major class-action lawsuit against the Big Tech giants Facebook, Google, and Twitter, as well as their CEOs,” Trump said.
“There is no better evidence that Big Tech is out of control than the fact that they banned the sitting president of the United States earlier this year,” Trump said, adding, “If they can do it to me, they can do it to anyone, and, in fact, that is exactly what they’re doing.”
"Once again you are con-flating free speech with the First Amendment"Once again you are conflating free speech with the First Amendment.They did not infringe on anyone's right to free speech. Only the government can do that
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.
Ah...and now the trump fluffers are in the threats of physical violence stage. The orange thugs are getting there faster and faster these days.All three and their other side social sites need to be exterminated, period!
Starting with the CEOs and entire executive levels!!!
www.npr.org
Oooooh! I guess that means we can discriminate against some black people if we want, as long as we don’t discriminate against ALL of them! Brilliant!Yup, you are getting warm. If they discriminate against all white people, they can be held accountable.Once again you are conflating free speech with the First Amendment.They did not infringe on anyone's right to free speech. Only the government can do that
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.
I am sure you know some white men on FB, amIright? So, evidently, FB is not discriminating against all white people. Try again.
I believe that is item 9 on the GOP platform. Not sure, will have to check.I guess that means we can discriminate against some black people if we want, as long as we don’t discriminate against ALL of them! Brilliant!
It isn't quite the way you think it is. The government made offers of immunity to these companies if they comply with requests and restrictions made by the government. This makes these tech companies an arm of the government subject to Constitutional restrictions.Dumb Donald has never read nor does he comprehend COTUS.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.
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.
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."
