Trump to sue Facebook, Twitter, Google over alleged censorship

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You want to use government to force them to accommodate your politics. You're no different than the people who want to force bakers to accommodate gay weddings.

Wrong.

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

Public accommodations laws with regard to private businesses open to the general public are perfectly Constitutional pursuant to Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

Private social media are not the same as businesses open to the general public – their standing in the law is the same as organizations such as the Boy Scouts of America, who are likewise at liberty to determine membership.

 

[dblack]

You want to use government to force them to accommodate your politics. You're no different than the people who want to force bakers to accommodate gay weddings.

Wrong.

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

Public accommodations laws with regard to private businesses open to the general public are perfectly Constitutional pursuant to Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

Private social media are not the same as businesses open to the general public – their standing in the law is the same as organizations such as the Boy Scouts of America, who are likewise at liberty to determine membership.

Yes, yes - I understand, C. It's different when you do it.

 

[Slade3200]

.. So would you allow hardcore porn to flow through the feeds of social media platforms for our children to be exposed to? ...

Lefties need to leave kids alone. I am absolutely disgusted at how lefties keep connecting kids to porn. Please stop with the perverted discussions of kids and porn.

Does that mean you would allow these platforms to remove that kind of content when it is posted? and not sell ads that feature that kind of vulgarity?

I do not engage in the vulgarity that you wish to discuss. I wish lefties would stop exploiting Western Civilization, our Constitution, and God given Freedom in order to advance their perverted agenda with children. Commies have no place here, send them back.

Oh, come on Ev its not like you to not answer a direct question. Its an easy one as well and like it or not it is an unfortunate part of our world, ignoring it does not make it go away. There are ugly things out there and when you have a platform that exposes information to millions of people then you have a responsibility to either do something or nothing about it. So what would you do if you owned one of these platforms... Allow this kind of disgusting vulgarity to spread throughout it or not? Simple question. Answer it please

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Censorship is censorship, regardless of who does it. Only a commie would be on the side of censorship.

Wrong.

Private social media are at liberty to edit their content as they see fit; just as they’re at liberty to determine who participates or not.

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

Maybe you should learn the definition of censorship. Definition of CENSORSHIP You're welcome.

You should definitely lean the law so you don’t sound like an ignorant partisan hack.

 

[EvMetro]

Not going here with your moronic circular bullshit. They ARE enforcing and the fact that they banned Trump is proof of that. Now take your idiotic shit down the road or post an intelligent reply.

Just because you and other ignorant rightists incorrectly perceive private social media being ‘mean’ to Trump and other conservatives doesn’t justify meritless ‘lawsuits’ or that government ‘regulate’ private social media in violation of social media’s right to freedom of association and freedom of the press.

As long as it is not done arbitrarily. FB and tech companies CENSORED falsehoods dependent on WHO made the post not by whether or not the post was true or not. Many of the CENSORED posts have been proven to be true.

Worse yet, lives have been lost because of doctors and scientists are being censored, and because of big tech overriding doctors in order to push their political agenda.

 

[airplanemechanic]

who will be his lawyer? lin wood? orly taitz? sidney krackhead?

Nope, he has screwed them over pay so now he must find another sucker, that can spell his or her own name correctly.

It would be good to see the courts establish that companies cant set their own terms of service. Will trump have to prove that the election was stolen ?
That would be amazing.

Companies are able to set their own rules of service as long as they are not enforce arbitrarily and capriciously. In this case these media outlets have been selective about who they censor. That is discrimination and it is illegal.

Making false claims that lead to an insurrection seems to be enough for facebook and the rest. Who else has done that ?

we can all look forward to the suit, where they will have to define their "class".

There won't be a problem with that--they are not the only people that have been censored for their political beliefs.

yeah. they got kicked out of the bar for shitting on the tables, repeatedly. not for their political beliefs.

Blow it out your ass moron. You're not worth anymore time.

bye bye, lamer.

i guess we will have to wait for the suit and see how they try to get their class defined, and certified, and somehow get the 1st amendment shoehorned into this.

you were no help, despite your bombastic statements suggesting that you were somehow "in the know".

LOL

Apparently, these snowflakes think lying conservatives needs to be a protected class.

We just wonder why lying liberals are one.

 

[EvMetro]

Oh, come on Ev its not like you to not answer a direct question. Its an easy one as well and like it or not it is an unfortunate part of our world, ignoring it does not make it go away. There are ugly things out there and when you have a platform that exposes information to millions of people then you have a responsibility to either do something or nothing about it. So what would you do if you owned one of these platforms... Allow this kind of disgusting vulgarity to spread throughout it or not? Simple question. Answer it please

I do not engage in the vulgarity that you wish to discuss. I wish lefties would stop exploiting Western Civilization, our Constitution, and God given Freedom in order to advance their perverted agenda with children. Commies have no place here, send them back.

 

[theHawk]

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."

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.

 

[Faun]

Thank God that Donald Trump is standing up for all of our first amendment rights. These companies are confiscating peoples right to free speech and if we let that happen, it's goodbye America.

Neither you, nor Donald Trump, have a coherent understanding of our First Amendment rights.

I would agree that a private company cant really violate a person's 1st Amendment rights (wasnt that the arguement about the NFL and the kneeling? Funny how everyone has switched stances on basically the same issue). That said these social media platforms have set themselves up as the defacto "public square" so there are, and rightfully so, concerns about their ability to squash speech they dont like. And make no mistake that's what's happening. They can say it's about lying or misinformation or violations of their terms of service but it's that they dont like what's being said.

They also enjoy protections against liable and other forms of litigation based on their status as a platform and not a publisher. Once you start picking and choosing which things end up on your platform I think you should probably lose that protection.

The other issue is why would we want them to stifle speech? Regardless of what's being said. I want people like David Duke to run off at the mouth about their dip shit ideas. It lets me know who they. You arent changing his or people like him mind by kicking them off twitter. Dumb ideas only go away when they are drug out into the sunlight and argued in the open so that everyone can see exactly how stupid they are. Pushing them into the dark only lets them ferment and I would argue gives the purveyors of the ideas credibility by making it seem like they are truths society is afraid to admit or deal with.

Companies should, and do, have the right to block speech, like Trump's, which incites violence.

Commies always defend censorship.

While cons are promoting lawlessness.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As long as it is not done arbitrarily. FB and tech companies CENSORED falsehoods dependent on WHO made the post not by whether or not the post was true or not. Many of the CENSORED posts have been proven to be true.

You and your fellow rightwing hypocrites are having a hissy-fit because social media are being ‘mean’ to Trump and not tolerating conservative hate speech – so your anti-big government, anti-government regulation rhetoric goes out the window.

 

[Faun]

One would think a president would understand the limitations on censorship applies to the government, not to the people.

I guess not.

Censorship is censorship, regardless of who does it. Only a commie would be on the side of censorship.

Do you believe hardcore pornagraphy should be censored from preschools, social media and public television stations?

I am not the least bit surprised to see lefties come up with a question like this that is so far from the thread topic. My god. You guys will do anything to justify censorship. Lefties are asking thread diversion questions like this, while schools are handing out condoms to 5th graders. Go on now, post something else that supports and defends censorship.

My question is right on topic... Why don't you go ahead and answer it and I'll explain exactly how it ties in... So would you allow hardcore porn to flow through the feeds of social media platforms for our children to be exposed to? Its a pretty obvious answer. don't be shy

He's obviously too scared to answer it since the only rational answer is yes, that should be censored -- which flies in the face of his diatribe that commies want censorship. Now he reveals he's a commie who wants censorship.

 

[Slade3200]

Oh, come on Ev its not like you to not answer a direct question. Its an easy one as well and like it or not it is an unfortunate part of our world, ignoring it does not make it go away. There are ugly things out there and when you have a platform that exposes information to millions of people then you have a responsibility to either do something or nothing about it. So what would you do if you owned one of these platforms... Allow this kind of disgusting vulgarity to spread throughout it or not? Simple question. Answer it please

I do not engage in the vulgarity that you wish to discuss. I wish lefties would stop exploiting Western Civilization, our Constitution, and God given Freedom in order to advance their perverted agenda with children. Commies have no place here, send them back.

I don't want to discuss the vulgarity. I want to know if you would allow that kind of vulgarity on your platform if you had one that exposed its content to children. Would you allow it to freely flow?

 

[Faun]

And when it it's done by the government, it's illegal; whereas when it's done by a private company, it's legal. Trump's lawsuit will go nowhere but he'll make a ton of money from donations from morons who will hand him money for a legal defense he'll never pay for.

Where do I donate? I've got money standing by.

Google it, I'm sure you'll find it.

 

[Concerned American]

who will be his lawyer? lin wood? orly taitz? sidney krackhead?

Nope, he has screwed them over pay so now he must find another sucker, that can spell his or her own name correctly.

It would be good to see the courts establish that companies cant set their own terms of service. Will trump have to prove that the election was stolen ?
That would be amazing.

Companies are able to set their own rules of service as long as they are not enforce arbitrarily and capriciously. In this case these media outlets have been selective about who they censor. That is discrimination and it is illegal.

No it is not discrimination and not illegal.

Then florists and bakers don't have to serve gays and pizza shop owners don't have to serve Kaepernick supporters.

 

[Moonglow]

who will be his lawyer? lin wood? orly taitz? sidney krackhead?

Nope, he has screwed them over pay so now he must find another sucker, that can spell his or her own name correctly.

It would be good to see the courts establish that companies cant set their own terms of service. Will trump have to prove that the election was stolen ?
That would be amazing.

Companies are able to set their own rules of service as long as they are not enforce arbitrarily and capriciously. In this case these media outlets have been selective about who they censor. That is discrimination and it is illegal.

No it is not discrimination and not illegal.

Then florists and bakers don't have to serve gays and pizza shop owners don't have to serve Kaepernick supporters.

There is only a first amendment for one of those subjects so the other is not covered.

 

[busybee01]

Thank God that Donald Trump is standing up for all of our first amendment rights. These companies are confiscating peoples right to free speech and if we let that happen, it's goodbye America.

Neither you, nor Donald Trump, have a coherent understanding of our First Amendment rights.

I would agree that a private company cant really violate a person's 1st Amendment rights (wasnt that the arguement about the NFL and the kneeling? Funny how everyone has switched stances on basically the same issue).

Yes. This issue positively drips with hypocrisy.

That said these social media platforms have set themselves up as the defacto "public square" so there are, and rightfully so, concerns about their ability to squash speech they dont like. And make no mistake that's what's happening. They can say it's about lying or misinformation or violations of their terms of service but it's that they dont like what's being said.

Yeah. Sorry. I don't buy the "public square" conceit. I don't buy it from liberals when they use it. And I don't buy it from hypocritical conservatives.

They also enjoy protections against liable and other forms of litigation based on their status as a platform and not a publisher. Once you start picking and choosing which things end up on your platform I think you should probably lose that protection.

Yeah, the good old "You didn't build that" line. We all enjoy government "protection". If you don't like how people take advantage of the "protections" government offers, then repeal them. But for fuck's don't use them as an excuse to lord it over us. This is classic liberal statism.

The other issue is why would we want them to stifle speech?

What we want them to do shouldn't be a matter of legal mandates. Let the market decide.

Whether you believe social media is the "public square" or not is kinda irrelevant. It just is what it is. People arent going to the town square to discuss issues of the day they do it via the internet and by and large via social media platforms. And trust me it hurts my soul to say the Government needs to regulate a private business in this manner.

They are violating the conditions of those protections though. Essentially they lobbied Congress saying they couldnt be held accountable for what was said on their platforms because they dont regulate it. They just provide the means for people to communicate. Basically the same way you cant sue the cell phone company because some guy uses their service to set up a murder. They have changed that so the protection should go away and I agree it Congress should act to make that happen.

I would agree but the "market" isnt free currently. See Parlor as a prime example.

Thank God that Donald Trump is standing up for all of our first amendment rights. These companies are confiscating peoples right to free speech and if we let that happen, it's goodbye America.

Neither you, nor Donald Trump, have a coherent understanding of our First Amendment rights.

I would agree that a private company cant really violate a person's 1st Amendment rights (wasnt that the arguement about the NFL and the kneeling? Funny how everyone has switched stances on basically the same issue).

Yes. This issue positively drips with hypocrisy.

That said these social media platforms have set themselves up as the defacto "public square" so there are, and rightfully so, concerns about their ability to squash speech they dont like. And make no mistake that's what's happening. They can say it's about lying or misinformation or violations of their terms of service but it's that they dont like what's being said.

Yeah. Sorry. I don't buy the "public square" conceit. I don't buy it from liberals when they use it. And I don't buy it from hypocritical conservatives.

They also enjoy protections against liable and other forms of litigation based on their status as a platform and not a publisher. Once you start picking and choosing which things end up on your platform I think you should probably lose that protection.

Yeah, the good old "You didn't build that" line. We all enjoy government "protection". If you don't like how people take advantage of the "protections" government offers, then repeal them. But for fuck's don't use them as an excuse to lord it over us. This is classic liberal statism.

The other issue is why would we want them to stifle speech?

What we want them to do shouldn't be a matter of legal mandates. Let the market decide.

Whether you believe social media is the "public square" or not is kinda irrelevant. It just is what it is. People arent going to the town square to discuss issues of the day they do it via the internet and by and large via social media platforms. And trust me it hurts my soul to say the Government needs to regulate a private business in this manner.

They are violating the conditions of those protections though. Essentially they lobbied Congress saying they couldnt be held accountable for what was said on their platforms because they dont regulate it. They just provide the means for people to communicate. Basically the same way you cant sue the cell phone company because some guy uses their service to set up a murder. They have changed that so the protection should go away and I agree it Congress should act to make that happen.

I would agree but the "market" isnt free currently. See Parlor as a prime example.

No the government does not need to regulate anything. You have no right to be on Facebook or Twitter. There are many ways to discuss the issues of the day without Facebook or Twitter. This would be pure socialism. Congress should keep their noses out of it. They are not publishers as publishers pay people to write. You can be charged with a federal crime if you use the mail to commit fraud. They have a right to keep misinformation off of their site.

 

[Concerned American]

As long as it is not done arbitrarily. FB and tech companies CENSORED falsehoods dependent on WHO made the post not by whether or not the post was true or not. Many of the CENSORED posts have been proven to be true.

You and your fellow rightwing hypocrites are having a hissy-fit because social media are being ‘mean’ to Trump and not tolerating conservative hate speech – so your anti-big government, anti-government regulation rhetoric goes out the window.

Try again moron. When you choose to discuss stick to the topic and don't let your own personal prejudices enter into the discussion. I have discussed the legality of arbitrarily banning someone from a media site and not exercising their policies EQUALLY. You haven't a clue as to what my anti...whatever is. So please keep your assumptions to yourself as so far you have been totally WRONG.

 

[bodecea]

Thank God that Donald Trump is standing up for all of our first amendment rights. These companies are confiscating peoples right to free speech and if we let that happen, it's goodbye America.

Neither you, nor Donald Trump, have a coherent understanding of our First Amendment rights.

I would agree that a private company cant really violate a person's 1st Amendment rights (wasnt that the arguement about the NFL and the kneeling? Funny how everyone has switched stances on basically the same issue). That said these social media platforms have set themselves up as the defacto "public square" so there are, and rightfully so, concerns about their ability to squash speech they dont like. And make no mistake that's what's happening. They can say it's about lying or misinformation or violations of their terms of service but it's that they dont like what's being said.

They also enjoy protections against liable and other forms of litigation based on their status as a platform and not a publisher. Once you start picking and choosing which things end up on your platform I think you should probably lose that protection.

The other issue is why would we want them to stifle speech? Regardless of what's being said. I want people like David Duke to run off at the mouth about their dip shit ideas. It lets me know who they. You arent changing his or people like him mind by kicking them off twitter. Dumb ideas only go away when they are drug out into the sunlight and argued in the open so that everyone can see exactly how stupid they are. Pushing them into the dark only lets them ferment and I would argue gives the purveyors of the ideas credibility by making it seem like they are truths society is afraid to admit or deal with.

So would you say that violent killing, terrorist recruitment and pornography be permitted to freely flow through these sites? No regulation permitted at all?

Would be fun to see all those posters who have been banned from various forums piggy back on his lawsuit to sue those mods who banned them.

 

[bodecea]

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.

This lawsuit is similar to all other trumptard clowns' lawsuits. In that, it is all to solicit funds. "I am suing the big bad FB. Send Cash!!"

He's already got a fund-raising site up and running for this.

 

[busybee01]

who will be his lawyer? lin wood? orly taitz? sidney krackhead?

Nope, he has screwed them over pay so now he must find another sucker, that can spell his or her own name correctly.

It would be good to see the courts establish that companies cant set their own terms of service. Will trump have to prove that the election was stolen ?
That would be amazing.

Companies are able to set their own rules of service as long as they are not enforce arbitrarily and capriciously. In this case these media outlets have been selective about who they censor. That is discrimination and it is illegal.

No it is not discrimination and not illegal.

Then florists and bakers don't have to serve gays and pizza shop owners don't have to serve Kaepernick supporters.

They are completely different. They can set rules for being served such as wearing shoes and a shirt. They cannot discriminate based on who you are. Social media has not discriminated against people based on what they are.