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.
You obviously are ready to go to war over it.Then the government should not exempt them from the law on publishers. They do that. And this proves it. There are multiple anti trust suits against them.That's this board, not a monopoly like Facebook or youTube or Twitter.What are you smoking?No they want free speech.Wait...we have a so called president that has been banned from multiple social media platforms and the Republicans in congress still want him to remain in office? They still want him to have control of nuclear weapons? ARE THESE PEOPLE CRAZY?
Thankfully they already have that.
If someone were banned from this board would they still have their rights to free speech fully intact? Yes or no will do.
Also the government doesn't get to write the TOS for this board or twitter.
Is Trump going to sue and when he doesn't then what?
But you know the truth that they can't handle dissension so they silence it. Cowardice and Communist
Are there any free speech cases? That's what the topic is and many, many, many people have been banned from twitter. How many sued their way back on under the 1st amendment?
Funny, you didn't address the point about you libs knowing that you can't handle the Truth.
Oh. Ok. We do know the truth. Better?
EDIT: Oh and handle it or whatever you want to hear.
Sorry. The constant censorship and the constant support from the left for it, shows that you can't handle the Truth.
I don't think twitter appreciates threats over their platform. In the end it's their decision. You guys got parlor though I guess there was some censorship issues because some were pushing the notion of not voting in the Georgia runoff. You know, cuz the steal and shit.
'Free Speech' Social Network Parler Allegedly Censoring #WriteInTrumpforGA
Social network Parler has allegedly hidden posts on its website that are tagged as #WriteInTrumpForGA.www.newsweek.com
I guess the "truth" that the owners of Parlor were worried about came true.
You don't get to on one hand, claim to be able to handle the truth, and on the other gloat about successful censorship.
Well, you do. But you look like a deluded fool.
Do you want a Civil War?
Like I said, I don't blame twitter for banning people who promote violence. It's really their decision and anyone who joins agrees to their TOS.
We don't care that you have excuses for your censorship.
Do you want a Civil War?
Yes. I want a civil war because twitter has the right to ban people who violate their TOS.
You are making it impossible for those with real grievances to be heard. You are making it impossible for large numbers of people to get their voices heard.
Don't lie to yourself about what you are doing.
If you don't want a Civil War, then stop acting like you do.
I just told you I'm ready to go to war over twitters TOS, why are you not taking this seriously? That is what you keep wanting to talk about after all.
I've posted section 230 before. Go read it, numskull.The government writes part of their terms of service - the part that says you can't sue them. they are government protected monopolies.That's this board, not a monopoly like Facebook or youTube or Twitter.What are you smoking?No they want free speech.Wait...we have a so called president that has been banned from multiple social media platforms and the Republicans in congress still want him to remain in office? They still want him to have control of nuclear weapons? ARE THESE PEOPLE CRAZY?
Thankfully they already have that.
If someone were banned from this board would they still have their rights to free speech fully intact? Yes or no will do.
Also the government doesn't get to write the TOS for this board or twitter.
Is Trump going to sue and when he doesn't then what?
Great. Then you know exactly what to quote to and link so we can finally get an idea of how bogus your dumbass argument is.
The Dixie Chics are free to say whatever they want. they have another thing coming if the believe people aren't allowed to criticize them.To all you righties whining about censorship, two things:
1) Now you know how the Dixie Chick's felt.
2) Twitter is a private enterprise and can do what they like. Don't like it? Start your own platform, Whiners.
Wrong.Newsweek is the media. The media has no credibility to many here, myself included.Then the government should not exempt them from the law on publishers. They do that. And this proves it. There are multiple anti trust suits against them.That's this board, not a monopoly like Facebook or youTube or Twitter.What are you smoking?No they want free speech.Wait...we have a so called president that has been banned from multiple social media platforms and the Republicans in congress still want him to remain in office? They still want him to have control of nuclear weapons? ARE THESE PEOPLE CRAZY?
Thankfully they already have that.
If someone were banned from this board would they still have their rights to free speech fully intact? Yes or no will do.
Also the government doesn't get to write the TOS for this board or twitter.
Is Trump going to sue and when he doesn't then what?
But you know the truth that they can't handle dissension so they silence it. Cowardice and Communist
Are there any free speech cases? That's what the topic is and many, many, many people have been banned from twitter. How many sued their way back on under the 1st amendment?
Funny, you didn't address the point about you libs knowing that you can't handle the Truth.
Oh. Ok. We do know the truth. Better?
EDIT: Oh and handle it or whatever you want to hear.
Sorry. The constant censorship and the constant support from the left for it, shows that you can't handle the Truth.
I don't think twitter appreciates threats over their platform. In the end it's their decision. You guys got parlor though I guess there was some censorship issues because some were pushing the notion of not voting in the Georgia runoff. You know, cuz the steal and shit.
'Free Speech' Social Network Parler Allegedly Censoring #WriteInTrumpforGA
Social network Parler has allegedly hidden posts on its website that are tagged as #WriteInTrumpForGA.
I guess the "truth" that the owners of Parlor were worried about came true.
That's not my problem.
But it is. You have to live in this country too. Half the population and more every day, are coming to grips with the idea, that the media is their enemy.
Do you want a Civil War?
Yeah, it sounds like you do. trump is politically dead. His entire family is politically dead. In one afternoon, his incompetence accomplished that. That is AMAZING!
Why would their terms of service limit what they can do?I've posted section 230 before. Go read it, numskull.The government writes part of their terms of service - the part that says you can't sue them. they are government protected monopolies.That's this board, not a monopoly like Facebook or youTube or Twitter.What are you smoking?No they want free speech.Wait...we have a so called president that has been banned from multiple social media platforms and the Republicans in congress still want him to remain in office? They still want him to have control of nuclear weapons? ARE THESE PEOPLE CRAZY?
Thankfully they already have that.
If someone were banned from this board would they still have their rights to free speech fully intact? Yes or no will do.
Also the government doesn't get to write the TOS for this board or twitter.
Is Trump going to sue and when he doesn't then what?
Great. Then you know exactly what to quote to and link so we can finally get an idea of how bogus your dumbass argument is.
From twitter. Post anything that states twitter can't ban people for breaking their TOS. Jesus shitfuck, what does it take for you to back up an argument you are making?
I've posted section 230 before. Go read it, numskull.The government writes part of their terms of service - the part that says you can't sue them. they are government protected monopolies.That's this board, not a monopoly like Facebook or youTube or Twitter.What are you smoking?No they want free speech.Wait...we have a so called president that has been banned from multiple social media platforms and the Republicans in congress still want him to remain in office? They still want him to have control of nuclear weapons? ARE THESE PEOPLE CRAZY?
Thankfully they already have that.
If someone were banned from this board would they still have their rights to free speech fully intact? Yes or no will do.
Also the government doesn't get to write the TOS for this board or twitter.
Is Trump going to sue and when he doesn't then what?
Great. Then you know exactly what to quote to and link so we can finally get an idea of how bogus your dumbass argument is.
Then break up the monopoly so someone has a chance? It won't happen now.To all you righties whining about censorship, two things:
1) Now you know how the Dixie Chick's felt.
2) Twitter is a private enterprise and can do what it likes. Don't like it? Start your own platform, Whiners.
Why would their terms of service limit what they can do?I've posted section 230 before. Go read it, numskull.The government writes part of their terms of service - the part that says you can't sue them. they are government protected monopolies.That's this board, not a monopoly like Facebook or youTube or Twitter.What are you smoking?No they want free speech.Wait...we have a so called president that has been banned from multiple social media platforms and the Republicans in congress still want him to remain in office? They still want him to have control of nuclear weapons? ARE THESE PEOPLE CRAZY?
Thankfully they already have that.
If someone were banned from this board would they still have their rights to free speech fully intact? Yes or no will do.
Also the government doesn't get to write the TOS for this board or twitter.
Is Trump going to sue and when he doesn't then what?
Great. Then you know exactly what to quote to and link so we can finally get an idea of how bogus your dumbass argument is.
From twitter. Post anything that states twitter can't ban people for breaking their TOS. Jesus shitfuck, what does it take for you to back up an argument you are making?
Wrong. He would have sued twitter for $500 million. Then anyone Twitter ever banned would sue them.I've posted section 230 before. Go read it, numskull.The government writes part of their terms of service - the part that says you can't sue them. they are government protected monopolies.That's this board, not a monopoly like Facebook or youTube or Twitter.What are you smoking?No they want free speech.Wait...we have a so called president that has been banned from multiple social media platforms and the Republicans in congress still want him to remain in office? They still want him to have control of nuclear weapons? ARE THESE PEOPLE CRAZY?
Thankfully they already have that.
If someone were banned from this board would they still have their rights to free speech fully intact? Yes or no will do.
Also the government doesn't get to write the TOS for this board or twitter.
Is Trump going to sue and when he doesn't then what?
Great. Then you know exactly what to quote to and link so we can finally get an idea of how bogus your dumbass argument is.
Repeal 230 and Trump would have been banned the same day. As anyone hosting his content would have been liable for the batshit the man spews.
Why would their terms of service limit what they can do?I've posted section 230 before. Go read it, numskull.The government writes part of their terms of service - the part that says you can't sue them. they are government protected monopolies.That's this board, not a monopoly like Facebook or youTube or Twitter.What are you smoking?No they want free speech.Wait...we have a so called president that has been banned from multiple social media platforms and the Republicans in congress still want him to remain in office? They still want him to have control of nuclear weapons? ARE THESE PEOPLE CRAZY?
Thankfully they already have that.
If someone were banned from this board would they still have their rights to free speech fully intact? Yes or no will do.
Also the government doesn't get to write the TOS for this board or twitter.
Is Trump going to sue and when he doesn't then what?
Great. Then you know exactly what to quote to and link so we can finally get an idea of how bogus your dumbass argument is.
From twitter. Post anything that states twitter can't ban people for breaking their TOS. Jesus shitfuck, what does it take for you to back up an argument you are making?
Then break up the monopoly so someone has a chance? It won't happen now.To all you righties whining about censorship, two things:
1) Now you know how the Dixie Chick's felt.
2) Twitter is a private enterprise and can do what it likes. Don't like it? Start your own platform, Whiners.
Why would their terms of service limit what they can do?I've posted section 230 before. Go read it, numskull.The government writes part of their terms of service - the part that says you can't sue them. they are government protected monopolies.That's this board, not a monopoly like Facebook or youTube or Twitter.What are you smoking?No they want free speech.Wait...we have a so called president that has been banned from multiple social media platforms and the Republicans in congress still want him to remain in office? They still want him to have control of nuclear weapons? ARE THESE PEOPLE CRAZY?
Thankfully they already have that.
If someone were banned from this board would they still have their rights to free speech fully intact? Yes or no will do.
Also the government doesn't get to write the TOS for this board or twitter.
Is Trump going to sue and when he doesn't then what?
Great. Then you know exactly what to quote to and link so we can finally get an idea of how bogus your dumbass argument is.
From twitter. Post anything that states twitter can't ban people for breaking their TOS. Jesus shitfuck, what does it take for you to back up an argument you are making?
Because Trump agreed to their TOS when he joined Twitter.
How about giving him a real answer.I've posted section 230 before. Go read it, numskull.The government writes part of their terms of service - the part that says you can't sue them. they are government protected monopolies.That's this board, not a monopoly like Facebook or youTube or Twitter.What are you smoking?No they want free speech.Wait...we have a so called president that has been banned from multiple social media platforms and the Republicans in congress still want him to remain in office? They still want him to have control of nuclear weapons? ARE THESE PEOPLE CRAZY?
Thankfully they already have that.
If someone were banned from this board would they still have their rights to free speech fully intact? Yes or no will do.
Also the government doesn't get to write the TOS for this board or twitter.
Is Trump going to sue and when he doesn't then what?
Great. Then you know exactly what to quote to and link so we can finally get an idea of how bogus your dumbass argument is.
Repeal 230 and Trump would have been banned the same day. As anyone hosting his content would have been liable for the batshit the man spews.
Meaningless. If I have terms of service that say, "no blacks," does that make it legal?Why would their terms of service limit what they can do?I've posted section 230 before. Go read it, numskull.The government writes part of their terms of service - the part that says you can't sue them. they are government protected monopolies.That's this board, not a monopoly like Facebook or youTube or Twitter.What are you smoking?No they want free speech.Wait...we have a so called president that has been banned from multiple social media platforms and the Republicans in congress still want him to remain in office? They still want him to have control of nuclear weapons? ARE THESE PEOPLE CRAZY?
Thankfully they already have that.
If someone were banned from this board would they still have their rights to free speech fully intact? Yes or no will do.
Also the government doesn't get to write the TOS for this board or twitter.
Is Trump going to sue and when he doesn't then what?
Great. Then you know exactly what to quote to and link so we can finally get an idea of how bogus your dumbass argument is.
From twitter. Post anything that states twitter can't ban people for breaking their TOS. Jesus shitfuck, what does it take for you to back up an argument you are making?
Because Trump agreed to their TOS when he joined Twitter.
Sure I do, moron. You're an idiot if you believe they are always enforceable.Why would their terms of service limit what they can do?I've posted section 230 before. Go read it, numskull.The government writes part of their terms of service - the part that says you can't sue them. they are government protected monopolies.That's this board, not a monopoly like Facebook or youTube or Twitter.What are you smoking?No they want free speech.Wait...we have a so called president that has been banned from multiple social media platforms and the Republicans in congress still want him to remain in office? They still want him to have control of nuclear weapons? ARE THESE PEOPLE CRAZY?
Thankfully they already have that.
If someone were banned from this board would they still have their rights to free speech fully intact? Yes or no will do.
Also the government doesn't get to write the TOS for this board or twitter.
Is Trump going to sue and when he doesn't then what?
Great. Then you know exactly what to quote to and link so we can finally get an idea of how bogus your dumbass argument is.
From twitter. Post anything that states twitter can't ban people for breaking their TOS. Jesus shitfuck, what does it take for you to back up an argument you are making?
Because Trump agreed to their TOS when he joined Twitter.
Yeah, we've been here. I don't think he knows what TOS are.
Wrong. He would have sued twitter for $500 million. Then anyone Twitter ever banned would sue them.I've posted section 230 before. Go read it, numskull.The government writes part of their terms of service - the part that says you can't sue them. they are government protected monopolies.That's this board, not a monopoly like Facebook or youTube or Twitter.What are you smoking?No they want free speech.Wait...we have a so called president that has been banned from multiple social media platforms and the Republicans in congress still want him to remain in office? They still want him to have control of nuclear weapons? ARE THESE PEOPLE CRAZY?
Thankfully they already have that.
If someone were banned from this board would they still have their rights to free speech fully intact? Yes or no will do.
Also the government doesn't get to write the TOS for this board or twitter.
Is Trump going to sue and when he doesn't then what?
Great. Then you know exactly what to quote to and link so we can finally get an idea of how bogus your dumbass argument is.
Repeal 230 and Trump would have been banned the same day. As anyone hosting his content would have been liable for the batshit the man spews.
As Trump's ban from Twitter demonstrates elegantly, its hardly meaningless. Twitter has the legal power to do exactly what it did when Trump violated the TOS he violated.Meaningless. If I have terms of service that say, "no blacks," does that make it legal?Why would their terms of service limit what they can do?I've posted section 230 before. Go read it, numskull.The government writes part of their terms of service - the part that says you can't sue them. they are government protected monopolies.That's this board, not a monopoly like Facebook or youTube or Twitter.What are you smoking?No they want free speech.Wait...we have a so called president that has been banned from multiple social media platforms and the Republicans in congress still want him to remain in office? They still want him to have control of nuclear weapons? ARE THESE PEOPLE CRAZY?
Thankfully they already have that.
If someone were banned from this board would they still have their rights to free speech fully intact? Yes or no will do.
Also the government doesn't get to write the TOS for this board or twitter.
Is Trump going to sue and when he doesn't then what?
Great. Then you know exactly what to quote to and link so we can finally get an idea of how bogus your dumbass argument is.
From twitter. Post anything that states twitter can't ban people for breaking their TOS. Jesus shitfuck, what does it take for you to back up an argument you are making?
Because Trump agreed to their TOS when he joined Twitter.
BLM, Antifa, and the Democrat party would all be banned as well, moron.Wrong. He would have sued twitter for $500 million. Then anyone Twitter ever banned would sue them.I've posted section 230 before. Go read it, numskull.The government writes part of their terms of service - the part that says you can't sue them. they are government protected monopolies.That's this board, not a monopoly like Facebook or youTube or Twitter.What are you smoking?No they want free speech.Wait...we have a so called president that has been banned from multiple social media platforms and the Republicans in congress still want him to remain in office? They still want him to have control of nuclear weapons? ARE THESE PEOPLE CRAZY?
Thankfully they already have that.
If someone were banned from this board would they still have their rights to free speech fully intact? Yes or no will do.
Also the government doesn't get to write the TOS for this board or twitter.
Is Trump going to sue and when he doesn't then what?
Great. Then you know exactly what to quote to and link so we can finally get an idea of how bogus your dumbass argument is.
Repeal 230 and Trump would have been banned the same day. As anyone hosting his content would have been liable for the batshit the man spews.
Nope. As the laws aren't retroactive, so older posts wouldn't be subject to liability. And Trump is a public figure. So what you can say about him is broad AF.
Trump on the other hand would be a liability nightmare. And would be banned instantly. As anything Trump typed, Twitter could be held liable for.
Ask Sidney Powell how that kind of liability is working out.
Which is why people should be allowed to sue Twitter.As Trump's ban from Twitter demonstrates elegantly, its hardly meaningless. Twitter has the legal power to do exactly what it did when Trump violated the TOS he violated.Meaningless. If I have terms of service that say, "no blacks," does that make it legal?Why would their terms of service limit what they can do?I've posted section 230 before. Go read it, numskull.The government writes part of their terms of service - the part that says you can't sue them. they are government protected monopolies.That's this board, not a monopoly like Facebook or youTube or Twitter.What are you smoking?No they want free speech.Wait...we have a so called president that has been banned from multiple social media platforms and the Republicans in congress still want him to remain in office? They still want him to have control of nuclear weapons? ARE THESE PEOPLE CRAZY?
Thankfully they already have that.
If someone were banned from this board would they still have their rights to free speech fully intact? Yes or no will do.
Also the government doesn't get to write the TOS for this board or twitter.
Is Trump going to sue and when he doesn't then what?
Great. Then you know exactly what to quote to and link so we can finally get an idea of how bogus your dumbass argument is.
From twitter. Post anything that states twitter can't ban people for breaking their TOS. Jesus shitfuck, what does it take for you to back up an argument you are making?
Because Trump agreed to their TOS when he joined Twitter.
And what law is being broken by banning Trump from Twitter?
