Harvard law professor: Twitter cannot violate the First Amendment

[Faun]

I disagree.
You are not required to use Facebook OR Twitter.
It's not their fault that you didn't create or patronize a competing service

Thats a problem when Apple & Google completely control the ability to compete. They are the gatekeepers protecting their attack dogs.

Google removes Parler from app store, could also be removed from Apple's if it doesn't implement a moderation plan

Google removed Parler for posing a "public safety threat." And Apple reportedly ordered it to implement a moderation plan within the next 24 hours.

www.usatoday.com

Again.......Are you against Capitalism ?
You WANT the government to step in and dictate what businesses can do more than they already do? I DON'T.

If people do not like Facebook or Twitter......LEAVE !!!!!

I've been saying over and over for 5 years now....THE RIGHT NEEDS TO CREATE THEIR OWN SOCIAL MEDIA SITES.

But NO. The Right clings to the leftwing sites like their life depends on it, crying and moaning the whole time. Who's the FOOL ?

These decisions are being made as political persecution. It has NOTHING to do with capitalism and everything to do with discrimination

Maybe Trump should take Twitter to court and lose a gazillion times like he did with the made-up fraud thing.

Twitter should and likely would lose.

Nah, Twitter has a contract with Trump that Trump violated: the Twitter TOS. And that contracts makes Twitter the arbiter of violations of its own TOS.

Twitter would easily win. Which is why Trump doesn't bother.

They do not get to censor based on their opinion.

Twitter has 15 categories of speech that will get you banned. And per their TOS, they get to decide when their Terms of Service have been violated.

So they most definitely have the authority to ban anyone who violates their terms of service. As Trump's ban demonstrates elegantly.

That would result in a dictatorship of the worst kind.

I don't think 'dictatorship' means what you think it means. These are private companies restricting access to a private website. Dictatorship has nothing to do with it.

Wrong.
When it comes to the Internet, the FCC is the arbiter, not Twitter, and NEVER is it legal for any company like Twitter to be it own arbiter, and Twitter would have to prove in court that Trump violated those terms, which I don't he did. And even if he did, it would still be a crime by Twitter because they allow much more provocative Tweets all the time.

And it is you who do not understand what a dictatorship is. In a society that no longer has individual face to fact contact, but instead entirely relies on electronic media, then illegal censorship of that media ensures a dictatorship. In fact, we have pretty much always been a dictatorship since Hearst took over mass media and created the illegal and fake Spanish American war, with like like "Remember the Maine".

And again, these are NOT private companies but the means by which the public is allowed access to the public internet, so has to be very strongly regulated against discrimination or partisan censorship.

And again, I am totally against Trump and this has nothing to do with Trump.
Twitter is just way beyond what the law can allow.

Idiotic. Of course Twitter is a private company. Companies like Twitter are not public just because they're on the Internet. That's like saying McDonald's is a public company because they're on public roads.

So McDonalds can refuse to serve anyone who has a different political opinion than they do? They are “private”, using your definition.

No, but then you're an idiot if you think Impeached Trump was banned from Twitter over his political opinion and not for violating their terms of service and inciting violence.

not for political opinions, but they can refuse to serve people for reasons such as violating ⁷

So, If McDonalds puts in their terms of service: “If you support Dimwingers, we reserve the right to not serve you” you agree they can refuse that service.

Got it.

I agree you're a moron.

That’s the best dodge you can come up with?

sad.

LOL

You posted nothing to dodge, dumbfuck. Unless you're even dumber than I thought and you actually think "dimwinger" is a real word.

 

[Skylar]

That is silly.
I negotiated internet access all the time because I regularly implemented network protocols for companies, schools, governments, etc.
I know exactly what the laws and regulations said when I was doing it, (and they likely have no changed).

No, you don't.

You've cited employment law as why Trump couldn't be banned from Twitter. Trump isn't an employee of Twitter.

You cited federal discrimination protections as forbidding Twitter from banning Trump. There are no such federal discrimination protections for political beliefs.

You insisted that the 14th amendment extends the bill of rights restrictions to every individual. It doesn't. The 14th amendment never even mentions extending such restictinos to people. You imagined it.

You cited the incorporation doctrine as the Supreme Court extending the Bill of Rights restrictions to individuals. The incorporation doctrine does no such thing. It selectively extends the Bill of Rights restictions to the States. Not to individuals.

You insisted that Twitter isn't a private company. It is.

Virtually every assertion regarding the law you've made has been pseudo-legal gibberish that demonstrates a profound ignorance of the actual law, how any of this works, or even the basic legal principles involved.

What else have you got?

Totally wrong.
I never cited employment laws, and actually political discrimination is allowed over employment is you employ fewer than 5 people.

You cited employement law specifically and repeatedly. And were comically, laughably, ineptly wrong.

For example, a private enterprise can not fire employees who appear on TV to lobby for a cause or party that the company dislikes.

Going on to include huge block posts of employment regulation in defense of your 'Twitter can't ban Trump' pseudo-legal gibberish....here.

Harvard law professor: Twitter cannot violate the First Amendment

A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe: To begin with, the First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter. So, when the company adds warnings to tweets or even — going a step further for users other than Trump — removes tweets, it can’t possibly...

www.usmessageboard.com

If even you are going to ignore your pseudo-legal nonsense, surely you'll understand why we have no use for it.

Trump isn't an employee of Twitter. Employment law doesn't apply to non-employees. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

The 14th amendment does not have to mention extending individual rights protections from other individuals.
That obviously was the intent of the 14th amendment and the result once non-governmental groups like the KKK were the ones abusing rights.

The intent of the 14th amendment was to extend the Bill of Rights restrictions to the States. As demonstrated by those that crafted 14th amendment saying as much when they introduced it to the Congress....

Senator Howard went so far as to read the 1st through 8th amendment.

"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature - to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....

The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental guarantees. "

- Senator Howard introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate

And of course, the 14th amendment itself:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You've made up the pseudo-legal gibberish that the 14th amendment extended the Bill of Rights restrictions to individual........citing Rigby5 as your sole legal authority.

And Rigby5 doesn't know what he's talking about. Nor is his imagination a legal authority.

Is that it? Just you making shit up? If so, that was easy.

 

[Rigby5]

“Democrats often say that we don’t remove enough content, and Republicans often say we remove too much,” Zuckerberg said in his opening remarks. “The fact that both sides criticize us doesn’t mean that we’re getting this right, but it does mean there are real disagreements about where the limits of online speech should be.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/10/28/twitter-facebook-google-senate-hearing-live-updates/

Something is broke and needs to get fixed. These media giants are wielding way too much power, and proved it with all the
right wing censoring prior to the election. Their is a fix, but it takes a government that isn't corrupt.
I don't think our government will fix it.

You have a fight between the truthers, and the propagandists. One side wants lies removed from the platforms, the other wants to be able to spread lies without being challenged.

One side wants "alternative facts" while the other wants only real facts. That's because the different ideologies requite different information to influence the electorate.

Wow! Spoken like a true leftwinger.
What I hear is you saying that everything from the right is "alternative facts" and the lies from the left are the "real facts".
See, here is the issue, dude...It's called freedom of speech, and YOU and your ilk don't get to decide.
Nor do I and my ilk decide. Do you not see the direction our country is going with it? It's concerning, or should be concerning to all.

"See, here is the issue, dude...It's called freedom of speech"

It is? You're a mod here, maybe you can answer... why am I not free to call other posters here a pedophile? Isn't banning my access to post here for doing that harnessing my freedom of speech?

Banning your access here would be an illegal violation of your free speech unless you caused it to be warranted by first harming the rights of someone else, whom this board is legally obligated to protect.

Nope. Your free speech rights are protected from government interference. So the State or Federal government couldn't silence you.

This board is neither. If you get banned, you're banned. There's no FCC 'but they banned me' court.

Remember, your pseudo-legal gibberish about the 14th amendment extending the Bill of Rights to individuals.....is imaginary nonsense. You made that up. And your imagination legally obligates no one to do anything.

Wrong.
This board is acting under the pleasure of the federal government, and is regulated by the FCC.
There are many specific things this board and any internet provider has to maintain in order to continue to be allowed internet access.
Discrimination of any sort, especially of political expression, is absolutely forbidden.

There are no federal protections for political belief. You've imagined them.

And the board can ban anyone that they feel is violating their terms of service. They get to decide when that happens....not you.

Same with Trump and Twitter. The binding agreement between Twitter and Trump is TOS. And the arbiter of that TOS is Twitter.

Not you.

But it goes much further than just the fact this board has agreed to and signed contract preventing discrimination along the lines of political expression.
It also simply is illegal.
Obviously if individual rights are so important that the federal, state, and municipal governments are expressly forbidden from infringement, then clearly no one else either.
For government obviously has more reason and justification than anyone else could possibly have.

A good example of how the protection of individual rights now is paramount, even without specific legislation, all one has to do is look at the SCOTUS rulings on contraceptives.
Specifically Griswold vs Connecticut.
{...

Your interpretation of the 'penumbra' theory is that anything you imagine is law.

That's not how Griswold v. Connecticut worked. Your imagination didn't suddenly become a legal authority in Griswold. Nor did it extend the Bill of Rights to individuals, but was instead a limiting of STATE power over an individual.

Your insistence that the 14th amendment extended the restrictions of the Bill of Rights to individuals.......is your own pseudo-legal gibberish. It has never been recognized by the Supreme Court, isn't part of the selective incorporation doctrine, and is never mentioned in the 14th amendment.

The 14th amendment extends the restrictions in the Bill of Rights to the STATE. As demonstrated by Griswold v. Connecticut.....in which Connecticut was restricted when acting against a citizen of its State.

Again, you simply don't know what you're talking about. Not even the basics of the legal principles you're trying to discuss.

Is this really it? Just you making up pseudo-legal gibberish and imagining your person opinion as the law of the land? If so, that was easy.

Liar.
Twitter does not own the internet and it is Twitter that is required to conform to the rules and laws governing the internet.
Only an idiot would claim that anyone providing an internet service could legally discriminate based on political beliefs.
Even a baker making a wedding cake can't get away with such a stupid, obvious, and illegal abuse of rights.

And you totally missed the whole point of Griswold, which is that you do NOT need specific legislation prohibiting the violation of inherent rights in order to prosecute any and all violations of individual rights.

You seem to be totally ignorant of the whole concept of authority in a democratic republic, which is the defense of individual rights, and nothing else.

 

[Skylar]

Liar.
Twitter does not own the internet and it is Twitter that is required to conform to the rules and laws governing the internet.

There's no federal protections from discrimination for political belief. And Twitter can and does enforce its own TOS.

Trump was banned for violating the TOS he had agreed to abide. WIth Twitter being the sole arbitrator of that TOS.

Not you. You keep inserting your personal opinion as a legal authority. And it never is.

Only an idiot would claim that anyone providing an internet service could legally discriminate based on political beliefs.
Even a baker making a wedding cake can't get away with such a stupid, obvious, and illegal abuse of rights.

The baker making the wedding cake was subject to STATE laws. Not federal ones. Your ignorance is astounding.

You don't even understand the difference between state and federal, citing STATE laws as examples of FEDERAL protections. There are no LGBT federal protections from discrimination, just as there are no federal protections from discrimination for political belief.

Which is why LGBT folks can be discriminated against in States with no protections against such discrimination.

And you totally missed the whole point of Griswold, which is that you do NOT need specific legislation prohibiting the violation of inherent rights in order to prosecute any and all violations of individual rights.

Between a STATE and an individual. Not between individuals. It was Griswold v. Connecticut. With the Supreme Court finding that the STATE OF CONNECTICUT was limited by the Bill of Rights restrictions.

Not individuals. The absurdity of your entire argument is demonstrated in even the name of the case you're citing.

You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Faun]

I disagree.
You are not required to use Facebook OR Twitter.
It's not their fault that you didn't create or patronize a competing service

Thats a problem when Apple & Google completely control the ability to compete. They are the gatekeepers protecting their attack dogs.

Google removes Parler from app store, could also be removed from Apple's if it doesn't implement a moderation plan

Google removed Parler for posing a "public safety threat." And Apple reportedly ordered it to implement a moderation plan within the next 24 hours.

www.usatoday.com

Again.......Are you against Capitalism ?
You WANT the government to step in and dictate what businesses can do more than they already do? I DON'T.

If people do not like Facebook or Twitter......LEAVE !!!!!

I've been saying over and over for 5 years now....THE RIGHT NEEDS TO CREATE THEIR OWN SOCIAL MEDIA SITES.

But NO. The Right clings to the leftwing sites like their life depends on it, crying and moaning the whole time. Who's the FOOL ?

These decisions are being made as political persecution. It has NOTHING to do with capitalism and everything to do with discrimination

Maybe Trump should take Twitter to court and lose a gazillion times like he did with the made-up fraud thing.

Twitter should and likely would lose.

Nah, Twitter has a contract with Trump that Trump violated: the Twitter TOS. And that contracts makes Twitter the arbiter of violations of its own TOS.

Twitter would easily win. Which is why Trump doesn't bother.

They do not get to censor based on their opinion.

Twitter has 15 categories of speech that will get you banned. And per their TOS, they get to decide when their Terms of Service have been violated.

So they most definitely have the authority to ban anyone who violates their terms of service. As Trump's ban demonstrates elegantly.

That would result in a dictatorship of the worst kind.

I don't think 'dictatorship' means what you think it means. These are private companies restricting access to a private website. Dictatorship has nothing to do with it.

Wrong.
When it comes to the Internet, the FCC is the arbiter, not Twitter, and NEVER is it legal for any company like Twitter to be it own arbiter, and Twitter would have to prove in court that Trump violated those terms, which I don't he did. And even if he did, it would still be a crime by Twitter because they allow much more provocative Tweets all the time.

And it is you who do not understand what a dictatorship is. In a society that no longer has individual face to fact contact, but instead entirely relies on electronic media, then illegal censorship of that media ensures a dictatorship. In fact, we have pretty much always been a dictatorship since Hearst took over mass media and created the illegal and fake Spanish American war, with like like "Remember the Maine".

And again, these are NOT private companies but the means by which the public is allowed access to the public internet, so has to be very strongly regulated against discrimination or partisan censorship.

And again, I am totally against Trump and this has nothing to do with Trump.
Twitter is just way beyond what the law can allow.

Idiotic. Of course Twitter is a private company. Companies like Twitter are not public just because they're on the Internet. That's like saying McDonald's is a public company because they're on public roads.

So McDonalds can refuse to serve anyone who has a different political opinion than they do? They are “private”, using your definition.

No, but then you're an idiot if you think Impeached Trump was banned from Twitter over his political opinion and not for violating their terms of service and inciting violence.

not for political opinions, but they can refuse to serve people for reasons such as violating ⁷

Did twitter ban that lefty hack “comedian” who held up a severed head of Trump?

Nope.

You lose again, Fawnboi.

LOLOL

It's adorable how you claim victory after getting your ass kicked. Unlike Impeached Trump, Griffin didn't incite any violence. But keep lying to yourself that Impeached Trump was banned because he posted a political opinion.

Lets hear Trump inciting violence, Halfwit.

lemme guess, if Trump held up the severed head of Pedo Joe you would be the first to say there was nothing violent about it, right?

You lose again, Simpleton.

Dumbfuck, I never said holding up a fake severed head didn't symbolize violence. You must have marshmallow for brains. Over and over again, you argue shit nobody said.

As far as inciting violence, here's Twitter's explanation for why they banned Impeached Trump...

Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

Suspension of @realDonaldTrump

blog.twitter.com

​

President Trump’s statement that he will not be attending the Inauguration is being received by a number of his supporters as further confirmation that the election was not legitimate and is seen as him disavowing his previous claim made via two Tweets (1, 2) by his Deputy Chief of Staff, Dan Scavino, that there would be an “orderly transition” on January 20th.The second Tweet may also serve as encouragement to those potentially considering violent acts that the Inauguration would be a “safe” target, as he will not be attending. The use of the words “American Patriots” to describe some of his supporters is also being interpreted as support for those committing violent acts at the US Capitol.The mention of his supporters having a “GIANT VOICE long into the future” and that “They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” is being interpreted as further indication that President Trump does not plan to facilitate an “orderly transition” and instead that he plans to continue to support, empower, and shield those who believe he won the election. Plans for future armed protests have already begun proliferating on and off-Twitter, including a proposed secondary attack on the US Capitol and state capitol buildings on January 17, 2021.​

Dumbfuck, I never said holding up a fake severed head didn't symbolize violence.


Sure you did. You are just too stupid to keep up with your own posts.

Sadly, it appears your brain has dissolved into liquid. Twitter has every right to define and enforce their own terms of service to protect there own company as long as they don't discriminate against people based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. If people don't want to agree to abide by their terms of service, they don't have to sign up.

 

[Skylar]

Everyone has a tell. Rigby5's is the word 'obviously'. Whenever he's using that word to justify his arguments.......he's just making shit up.

 

[Rigby5]

That is silly.
I negotiated internet access all the time because I regularly implemented network protocols for companies, schools, governments, etc.
I know exactly what the laws and regulations said when I was doing it, (and they likely have no changed).

No, you don't.

You've cited employment law as why Trump couldn't be banned from Twitter. Trump isn't an employee of Twitter.

You cited federal discrimination protections as forbidding Twitter from banning Trump. There are no such federal discrimination protections for political beliefs.

You insisted that the 14th amendment extends the bill of rights restrictions to every individual. It doesn't. The 14th amendment never even mentions extending such restictinos to people. You imagined it.

You cited the incorporation doctrine as the Supreme Court extending the Bill of Rights restrictions to individuals. The incorporation doctrine does no such thing. It selectively extends the Bill of Rights restictions to the States. Not to individuals.

You insisted that Twitter isn't a private company. It is.

Virtually every assertion regarding the law you've made has been pseudo-legal gibberish that demonstrates a profound ignorance of the actual law, how any of this works, or even the basic legal principles involved.

What else have you got?

Totally wrong.
I never cited employment laws, and actually political discrimination is allowed over employment is you employ fewer than 5 people.

You cited employement law specifically and repeatedly. And were comically, laughably, ineptly wrong.

For example, a private enterprise can not fire employees who appear on TV to lobby for a cause or party that the company dislikes.

Going on to include huge block posts of employment regulation in defense of your 'Twitter can't ban Trump' pseudo-legal gibberish....here.

Harvard law professor: Twitter cannot violate the First Amendment

A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe: To begin with, the First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter. So, when the company adds warnings to tweets or even — going a step further for users other than Trump — removes tweets, it can’t possibly...

www.usmessageboard.com

If even you are going to ignore your pseudo-legal nonsense, surely you'll understand why we have no use for it.

Trump isn't an employee of Twitter. Employment law doesn't apply to non-employees. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

The 14th amendment does not have to mention extending individual rights protections from other individuals.
That obviously was the intent of the 14th amendment and the result once non-governmental groups like the KKK were the ones abusing rights.

The intent of the 14th amendment was to extend the Bill of Rights restrictions to the States. As demonstrated by those that crafted 14th amendment saying as much when they introduced it to the Congress....

Senator Howard went so far as to read the 1st through 8th amendment.

"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature - to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....

The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental guarantees. "

- Senator Howard introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate

And of course, the 14th amendment itself:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You've made up the pseudo-legal gibberish that the 14th amendment extended the Bill of Rights restrictions to individual........citing Rigby5 as your sole legal authority.

And Rigby5 doesn't know what he's talking about. Nor is his imagination a legal authority.

Is that it? Just you making shit up? If so, that was easy.

You are an idiot.
The point of employment law is NOT employment!
The point is that you can not discriminate in employment because any sort of discrimination is illegal.
Where do you think employment law against discrimination gets its justification FROM?

Apparently you seem to think that laws are just made up and arbitrary, that they can be anything legislators want, and there is no such thing as inherent rights.

Your apparent desire for a dictatorship was pretty obvious when you made the stupid mistake of claiming Twitter can do what ever they want and were the only arbiter of whatever they wanted to do.
My mistake was thinking you were just confused and not diabolical fascist. But I obviously was wrong.
You are way beyond help.

 

[Faun]

“Democrats often say that we don’t remove enough content, and Republicans often say we remove too much,” Zuckerberg said in his opening remarks. “The fact that both sides criticize us doesn’t mean that we’re getting this right, but it does mean there are real disagreements about where the limits of online speech should be.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/10/28/twitter-facebook-google-senate-hearing-live-updates/

Something is broke and needs to get fixed. These media giants are wielding way too much power, and proved it with all the
right wing censoring prior to the election. Their is a fix, but it takes a government that isn't corrupt.
I don't think our government will fix it.

You have a fight between the truthers, and the propagandists. One side wants lies removed from the platforms, the other wants to be able to spread lies without being challenged.

One side wants "alternative facts" while the other wants only real facts. That's because the different ideologies requite different information to influence the electorate.

Wow! Spoken like a true leftwinger.
What I hear is you saying that everything from the right is "alternative facts" and the lies from the left are the "real facts".
See, here is the issue, dude...It's called freedom of speech, and YOU and your ilk don't get to decide.
Nor do I and my ilk decide. Do you not see the direction our country is going with it? It's concerning, or should be concerning to all.

"See, here is the issue, dude...It's called freedom of speech"

It is? You're a mod here, maybe you can answer... why am I not free to call other posters here a pedophile? Isn't banning my access to post here for doing that harnessing my freedom of speech?

Banning your access here would be an illegal violation of your free speech unless you caused it to be warranted by first harming the rights of someone else, whom this board is legally obligated to protect.
So when one person calls another a pedophile, that harms them and requires you to be be banned unless you can prove what you said had a solid basis for your belief.

Its a balance between rights, and if you had no basis for the deliberately harmful slander, then you would have been in violation of the law and the board required to ban you, in order to protect others.

Uttee nonsense. For one, they can ban posters for things like trolling which harms no one. And how is a poster on an anonymous forum such as this harmed by being called a pedophile?

When you sign up to one of these services, you agree to abide by their terms; which is legal as long as their not discriminating based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

 

[Skylar]

That is silly.
I negotiated internet access all the time because I regularly implemented network protocols for companies, schools, governments, etc.
I know exactly what the laws and regulations said when I was doing it, (and they likely have no changed).

No, you don't.

You've cited employment law as why Trump couldn't be banned from Twitter. Trump isn't an employee of Twitter.

You cited federal discrimination protections as forbidding Twitter from banning Trump. There are no such federal discrimination protections for political beliefs.

You insisted that the 14th amendment extends the bill of rights restrictions to every individual. It doesn't. The 14th amendment never even mentions extending such restictinos to people. You imagined it.

You cited the incorporation doctrine as the Supreme Court extending the Bill of Rights restrictions to individuals. The incorporation doctrine does no such thing. It selectively extends the Bill of Rights restictions to the States. Not to individuals.

You insisted that Twitter isn't a private company. It is.

Virtually every assertion regarding the law you've made has been pseudo-legal gibberish that demonstrates a profound ignorance of the actual law, how any of this works, or even the basic legal principles involved.

What else have you got?

Totally wrong.
I never cited employment laws, and actually political discrimination is allowed over employment is you employ fewer than 5 people.

You cited employement law specifically and repeatedly. And were comically, laughably, ineptly wrong.

For example, a private enterprise can not fire employees who appear on TV to lobby for a cause or party that the company dislikes.

Going on to include huge block posts of employment regulation in defense of your 'Twitter can't ban Trump' pseudo-legal gibberish....here.

Harvard law professor: Twitter cannot violate the First Amendment

A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe: To begin with, the First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter. So, when the company adds warnings to tweets or even — going a step further for users other than Trump — removes tweets, it can’t possibly...

www.usmessageboard.com

If even you are going to ignore your pseudo-legal nonsense, surely you'll understand why we have no use for it.

Trump isn't an employee of Twitter. Employment law doesn't apply to non-employees. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

The 14th amendment does not have to mention extending individual rights protections from other individuals.
That obviously was the intent of the 14th amendment and the result once non-governmental groups like the KKK were the ones abusing rights.

The intent of the 14th amendment was to extend the Bill of Rights restrictions to the States. As demonstrated by those that crafted 14th amendment saying as much when they introduced it to the Congress....

Senator Howard went so far as to read the 1st through 8th amendment.

"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature - to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....

The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental guarantees. "

- Senator Howard introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate

And of course, the 14th amendment itself:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You've made up the pseudo-legal gibberish that the 14th amendment extended the Bill of Rights restrictions to individual........citing Rigby5 as your sole legal authority.

And Rigby5 doesn't know what he's talking about. Nor is his imagination a legal authority.

Is that it? Just you making shit up? If so, that was easy.

You are an idiot.
The point of employment law is NOT employment!

The point of employemnt law is to protect employees. Trump isn't an employee of Twitter.

Killing your absurd attempt to apply employment law to Trump's banning from Twitter.

The point is that you can not discriminate in employment because any sort of discrimination is illegal.

Again, no it isn't. Only federally protected classes are federally protected against discirmination . Remember, your 'Bill of Rights restricts individuals per the 14th amendment' claim is just your imagination and meaningless pseudo-legal horseshit.

You can discriminate against LGBT folks in any state without laws to protect them.....as LGBT isn't a protected class either.

Nor is political belief.

You simply don't know what you're talking about, Rigby. "Obviously."

 

[Rigby5]

I disagree.
You are not required to use Facebook OR Twitter.
It's not their fault that you didn't create or patronize a competing service

Thats a problem when Apple & Google completely control the ability to compete. They are the gatekeepers protecting their attack dogs.

Google removes Parler from app store, could also be removed from Apple's if it doesn't implement a moderation plan

Google removed Parler for posing a "public safety threat." And Apple reportedly ordered it to implement a moderation plan within the next 24 hours.

www.usatoday.com

Again.......Are you against Capitalism ?
You WANT the government to step in and dictate what businesses can do more than they already do? I DON'T.

If people do not like Facebook or Twitter......LEAVE !!!!!

I've been saying over and over for 5 years now....THE RIGHT NEEDS TO CREATE THEIR OWN SOCIAL MEDIA SITES.

But NO. The Right clings to the leftwing sites like their life depends on it, crying and moaning the whole time. Who's the FOOL ?

These decisions are being made as political persecution. It has NOTHING to do with capitalism and everything to do with discrimination

Maybe Trump should take Twitter to court and lose a gazillion times like he did with the made-up fraud thing.

Twitter should and likely would lose.

Nah, Twitter has a contract with Trump that Trump violated: the Twitter TOS. And that contracts makes Twitter the arbiter of violations of its own TOS.

Twitter would easily win. Which is why Trump doesn't bother.

They do not get to censor based on their opinion.

Twitter has 15 categories of speech that will get you banned. And per their TOS, they get to decide when their Terms of Service have been violated.

So they most definitely have the authority to ban anyone who violates their terms of service. As Trump's ban demonstrates elegantly.

That would result in a dictatorship of the worst kind.

I don't think 'dictatorship' means what you think it means. These are private companies restricting access to a private website. Dictatorship has nothing to do with it.

Wrong.
When it comes to the Internet, the FCC is the arbiter, not Twitter, and NEVER is it legal for any company like Twitter to be it own arbiter, and Twitter would have to prove in court that Trump violated those terms, which I don't he did. And even if he did, it would still be a crime by Twitter because they allow much more provocative Tweets all the time.

And it is you who do not understand what a dictatorship is. In a society that no longer has individual face to fact contact, but instead entirely relies on electronic media, then illegal censorship of that media ensures a dictatorship. In fact, we have pretty much always been a dictatorship since Hearst took over mass media and created the illegal and fake Spanish American war, with like like "Remember the Maine".

And again, these are NOT private companies but the means by which the public is allowed access to the public internet, so has to be very strongly regulated against discrimination or partisan censorship.

And again, I am totally against Trump and this has nothing to do with Trump.
Twitter is just way beyond what the law can allow.

Idiotic. Of course Twitter is a private company. Companies like Twitter are not public just because they're on the Internet. That's like saying McDonald's is a public company because they're on public roads.

So McDonalds can refuse to serve anyone who has a different political opinion than they do? They are “private”, using your definition.

Legally, in terms of federal protections? Yes.

Political beliefs aren't a protected class.

Which is only your first problem. As Trump was banned for TOS violations. So you're stuck at square -1. As the scenario you imagined didn't happen. And even if it had, there's nothing in the law to prevent it.

Lies again.
Classes are groups of people, like sex, race, etc.
Political expression is actions, and clearly there are protections for actions that apply to ALL people, not just a particular class.
And political expression has always been the single most important individual right that ever existed.
Anyone who does not understand that simple fact is a clear and present danger to any democratic republic.

 

[Skylar]

I disagree.
You are not required to use Facebook OR Twitter.
It's not their fault that you didn't create or patronize a competing service

Thats a problem when Apple & Google completely control the ability to compete. They are the gatekeepers protecting their attack dogs.

Google removes Parler from app store, could also be removed from Apple's if it doesn't implement a moderation plan

Google removed Parler for posing a "public safety threat." And Apple reportedly ordered it to implement a moderation plan within the next 24 hours.

www.usatoday.com

Again.......Are you against Capitalism ?
You WANT the government to step in and dictate what businesses can do more than they already do? I DON'T.

If people do not like Facebook or Twitter......LEAVE !!!!!

I've been saying over and over for 5 years now....THE RIGHT NEEDS TO CREATE THEIR OWN SOCIAL MEDIA SITES.

But NO. The Right clings to the leftwing sites like their life depends on it, crying and moaning the whole time. Who's the FOOL ?

These decisions are being made as political persecution. It has NOTHING to do with capitalism and everything to do with discrimination

Maybe Trump should take Twitter to court and lose a gazillion times like he did with the made-up fraud thing.

Twitter should and likely would lose.

Nah, Twitter has a contract with Trump that Trump violated: the Twitter TOS. And that contracts makes Twitter the arbiter of violations of its own TOS.

Twitter would easily win. Which is why Trump doesn't bother.

They do not get to censor based on their opinion.

Twitter has 15 categories of speech that will get you banned. And per their TOS, they get to decide when their Terms of Service have been violated.

So they most definitely have the authority to ban anyone who violates their terms of service. As Trump's ban demonstrates elegantly.

That would result in a dictatorship of the worst kind.

I don't think 'dictatorship' means what you think it means. These are private companies restricting access to a private website. Dictatorship has nothing to do with it.

Wrong.
When it comes to the Internet, the FCC is the arbiter, not Twitter, and NEVER is it legal for any company like Twitter to be it own arbiter, and Twitter would have to prove in court that Trump violated those terms, which I don't he did. And even if he did, it would still be a crime by Twitter because they allow much more provocative Tweets all the time.

And it is you who do not understand what a dictatorship is. In a society that no longer has individual face to fact contact, but instead entirely relies on electronic media, then illegal censorship of that media ensures a dictatorship. In fact, we have pretty much always been a dictatorship since Hearst took over mass media and created the illegal and fake Spanish American war, with like like "Remember the Maine".

And again, these are NOT private companies but the means by which the public is allowed access to the public internet, so has to be very strongly regulated against discrimination or partisan censorship.

And again, I am totally against Trump and this has nothing to do with Trump.
Twitter is just way beyond what the law can allow.

Idiotic. Of course Twitter is a private company. Companies like Twitter are not public just because they're on the Internet. That's like saying McDonald's is a public company because they're on public roads.

So McDonalds can refuse to serve anyone who has a different political opinion than they do? They are “private”, using your definition.

Legally, in terms of federal protections? Yes.

Political beliefs aren't a protected class.

Which is only your first problem. As Trump was banned for TOS violations. So you're stuck at square -1. As the scenario you imagined didn't happen. And even if it had, there's nothing in the law to prevent it.

Lies again.
Classes are groups of people, like sex, race, etc.

Federal discrimination protections apply to religions beliefs. You can't be discriminated against because your religious beliefs because religion is a protected class. Political beliefs aren't. You made that up, insisting that your personal opinion is the law.

It isn't.

What else have you got?

 

[Skylar]

So is there anyone here that can make a cohesive legal argument against Trump's twitter ban that is based on the *actual* law, the *actual* constitution and the *actual* supreme court rulings?

Rather than random pseudo-legal gibberish of each?

 

[Faun]

“Democrats often say that we don’t remove enough content, and Republicans often say we remove too much,” Zuckerberg said in his opening remarks. “The fact that both sides criticize us doesn’t mean that we’re getting this right, but it does mean there are real disagreements about where the limits of online speech should be.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/10/28/twitter-facebook-google-senate-hearing-live-updates/

Something is broke and needs to get fixed. These media giants are wielding way too much power, and proved it with all the
right wing censoring prior to the election. Their is a fix, but it takes a government that isn't corrupt.
I don't think our government will fix it.

You have a fight between the truthers, and the propagandists. One side wants lies removed from the platforms, the other wants to be able to spread lies without being challenged.

One side wants "alternative facts" while the other wants only real facts. That's because the different ideologies requite different information to influence the electorate.

Wow! Spoken like a true leftwinger.
What I hear is you saying that everything from the right is "alternative facts" and the lies from the left are the "real facts".
See, here is the issue, dude...It's called freedom of speech, and YOU and your ilk don't get to decide.
Nor do I and my ilk decide. Do you not see the direction our country is going with it? It's concerning, or should be concerning to all.

"See, here is the issue, dude...It's called freedom of speech"

It is? You're a mod here, maybe you can answer... why am I not free to call other posters here a pedophile? Isn't banning my access to post here for doing that harnessing my freedom of speech?

Banning your access here would be an illegal violation of your free speech unless you caused it to be warranted by first harming the rights of someone else, whom this board is legally obligated to protect.

Nope. Your free speech rights are protected from government interference. So the State or Federal government couldn't silence you.

This board is neither. If you get banned, you're banned. There's no FCC 'but they banned me' court.

Remember, your pseudo-legal gibberish about the 14th amendment extending the Bill of Rights to individuals.....is imaginary nonsense. You made that up. And your imagination legally obligates no one to do anything.

Wrong.
This board is acting under the pleasure of the federal government, and is regulated by the FCC.
There are many specific things this board and any internet provider has to maintain in order to continue to be allowed internet access.
Discrimination of any sort, especially of political expression, is absolutely forbidden.

There are no federal protections for political belief. You've imagined them.

And the board can ban anyone that they feel is violating their terms of service. They get to decide when that happens....not you.

Same with Trump and Twitter. The binding agreement between Twitter and Trump is TOS. And the arbiter of that TOS is Twitter.

Not you.

But it goes much further than just the fact this board has agreed to and signed contract preventing discrimination along the lines of political expression.
It also simply is illegal.
Obviously if individual rights are so important that the federal, state, and municipal governments are expressly forbidden from infringement, then clearly no one else either.
For government obviously has more reason and justification than anyone else could possibly have.

A good example of how the protection of individual rights now is paramount, even without specific legislation, all one has to do is look at the SCOTUS rulings on contraceptives.
Specifically Griswold vs Connecticut.
{...

Your interpretation of the 'penumbra' theory is that anything you imagine is law.

That's not how Griswold v. Connecticut worked. Your imagination didn't suddenly become a legal authority in Griswold. Nor did it extend the Bill of Rights to individuals, but was instead a limiting of STATE power over an individual.

Your insistence that the 14th amendment extended the restrictions of the Bill of Rights to individuals.......is your own pseudo-legal gibberish. It has never been recognized by the Supreme Court, isn't part of the selective incorporation doctrine, and is never mentioned in the 14th amendment.

The 14th amendment extends the restrictions in the Bill of Rights to the STATE. As demonstrated by Griswold v. Connecticut.....in which Connecticut was restricted when acting against a citizen of its State.

Again, you simply don't know what you're talking about. Not even the basics of the legal principles you're trying to discuss.

Is this really it? Just you making up pseudo-legal gibberish and imagining your person opinion as the law of the land? If so, that was easy.

Liar.
Twitter does not own the internet and it is Twitter that is required to conform to the rules and laws governing the internet.
Only an idiot would claim that anyone providing an internet service could legally discriminate based on political beliefs.
Even a baker making a wedding cake can't get away with such a stupid, obvious, and illegal abuse of rights.

And you totally missed the whole point of Griswold, which is that you do NOT need specific legislation prohibiting the violation of inherent rights in order to prosecute any and all violations of individual rights.

You seem to be totally ignorant of the whole concept of authority in a democratic republic, which is the defense of individual rights, and nothing else.

Forums like Twitter have the right to restrict discussion which is threat to public safety.

And political opinions are not a protected class.

 

[Rigby5]

...
Uttee nonsense. For one, they can ban posters for things like trolling which harms no one. And how is a poster on an anonymous forum such as this harmed by being called a pedophile?

When you sign up to one of these services, you agree to abide by their terms; which is legal as long as their not discriminating based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

Silly.
Obviously trolling is the intentionally harming people by not just wasting their time with spam, but also deliberately trying to disturb the peace and make people upset and angry.
And while posters often are not anonymous since they often decide to share personal information, even if they wish to maintain anonymity, they would still value the good name and character of their avatar.
They would value the friendships with others on the board, and it would be illegal to slander or libel the alias the person used to bond on the board.
If they did not value their relationships on a board, then why would anyone bother being on a board?

Obviously boards are bound by more than not discriminating based on race, color, religion, sex, or national orientation. For example, if a board were to infringe upon privacy, then the board would liable for a hefty lawsuit, and likely loose its internet access as well.
Discrimination based political expression is the single most important individual right that exists in a democratic republic, and no board could ever get away with doing that. If they do, then it is time for torches and pitchforks.

 

[Rigby5]

“Democrats often say that we don’t remove enough content, and Republicans often say we remove too much,” Zuckerberg said in his opening remarks. “The fact that both sides criticize us doesn’t mean that we’re getting this right, but it does mean there are real disagreements about where the limits of online speech should be.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/10/28/twitter-facebook-google-senate-hearing-live-updates/

Something is broke and needs to get fixed. These media giants are wielding way too much power, and proved it with all the
right wing censoring prior to the election. Their is a fix, but it takes a government that isn't corrupt.
I don't think our government will fix it.

You have a fight between the truthers, and the propagandists. One side wants lies removed from the platforms, the other wants to be able to spread lies without being challenged.

One side wants "alternative facts" while the other wants only real facts. That's because the different ideologies requite different information to influence the electorate.

Wow! Spoken like a true leftwinger.
What I hear is you saying that everything from the right is "alternative facts" and the lies from the left are the "real facts".
See, here is the issue, dude...It's called freedom of speech, and YOU and your ilk don't get to decide.
Nor do I and my ilk decide. Do you not see the direction our country is going with it? It's concerning, or should be concerning to all.

"See, here is the issue, dude...It's called freedom of speech"

It is? You're a mod here, maybe you can answer... why am I not free to call other posters here a pedophile? Isn't banning my access to post here for doing that harnessing my freedom of speech?

Banning your access here would be an illegal violation of your free speech unless you caused it to be warranted by first harming the rights of someone else, whom this board is legally obligated to protect.

Nope. Your free speech rights are protected from government interference. So the State or Federal government couldn't silence you.

This board is neither. If you get banned, you're banned. There's no FCC 'but they banned me' court.

Remember, your pseudo-legal gibberish about the 14th amendment extending the Bill of Rights to individuals.....is imaginary nonsense. You made that up. And your imagination legally obligates no one to do anything.

Wrong.
This board is acting under the pleasure of the federal government, and is regulated by the FCC.
There are many specific things this board and any internet provider has to maintain in order to continue to be allowed internet access.
Discrimination of any sort, especially of political expression, is absolutely forbidden.

There are no federal protections for political belief. You've imagined them.

And the board can ban anyone that they feel is violating their terms of service. They get to decide when that happens....not you.

Same with Trump and Twitter. The binding agreement between Twitter and Trump is TOS. And the arbiter of that TOS is Twitter.

Not you.

But it goes much further than just the fact this board has agreed to and signed contract preventing discrimination along the lines of political expression.
It also simply is illegal.
Obviously if individual rights are so important that the federal, state, and municipal governments are expressly forbidden from infringement, then clearly no one else either.
For government obviously has more reason and justification than anyone else could possibly have.

A good example of how the protection of individual rights now is paramount, even without specific legislation, all one has to do is look at the SCOTUS rulings on contraceptives.
Specifically Griswold vs Connecticut.
{...

Your interpretation of the 'penumbra' theory is that anything you imagine is law.

That's not how Griswold v. Connecticut worked. Your imagination didn't suddenly become a legal authority in Griswold. Nor did it extend the Bill of Rights to individuals, but was instead a limiting of STATE power over an individual.

Your insistence that the 14th amendment extended the restrictions of the Bill of Rights to individuals.......is your own pseudo-legal gibberish. It has never been recognized by the Supreme Court, isn't part of the selective incorporation doctrine, and is never mentioned in the 14th amendment.

The 14th amendment extends the restrictions in the Bill of Rights to the STATE. As demonstrated by Griswold v. Connecticut.....in which Connecticut was restricted when acting against a citizen of its State.

Again, you simply don't know what you're talking about. Not even the basics of the legal principles you're trying to discuss.

Is this really it? Just you making up pseudo-legal gibberish and imagining your person opinion as the law of the land? If so, that was easy.

Liar.
Twitter does not own the internet and it is Twitter that is required to conform to the rules and laws governing the internet.
Only an idiot would claim that anyone providing an internet service could legally discriminate based on political beliefs.
Even a baker making a wedding cake can't get away with such a stupid, obvious, and illegal abuse of rights.

And you totally missed the whole point of Griswold, which is that you do NOT need specific legislation prohibiting the violation of inherent rights in order to prosecute any and all violations of individual rights.

You seem to be totally ignorant of the whole concept of authority in a democratic republic, which is the defense of individual rights, and nothing else.

Forums like Twitter have the right to restrict discussion which is threat to public safety.

And political opinions are not a protected class.

And where was there ever any threat to public safety?
Twitter had nothing to do with the occupation of congress, nor is the occupation of congress any remote threat to public safety. The only threat came from the violent police.

And stop mentioning "protected classes".
That has almost nothing at all to do with individual protected rights.
For example, the right to vote.
It is illegal to prevent you from voting, and that has nothing at all to what class you may belong to.
Individual rights are an aspect of individuals, not classes.
The fact some individuals have joined together for additional protection, in no way implies individual rights to not exist as you imply.

 

[Rigby5]

{...

The FCC and Freedom of Speech

The FCC receives numerous complaints that television and/or radio networks, stations or their employees or guests have broadcast extreme, incorrect or somehow improper political, economic or social statements.
In some cases, the complaints allege that certain broadcast statements may endanger the United States or its people, or threaten our form of government, our economic system or established institutions like family or marriage. They say these statements are "un-American" and an abuse of freedom of speech. The FCC also receives complaints that some broadcast statements criticize, ridicule, "stereotype" or demean individuals or groups because of the religion, race, nationality, gender, gender identification, or sexual orientation, or other characteristics of the group or individual. Finally, many consumers complain that television or radio broadcasts are obscene, indecent, profane or otherwise offensive.
What is the FCC's Responsibility?
The FCC is barred by law from trying to prevent the broadcast of any point of view. The Communications Act prohibits the FCC from censoring broadcast material, in most cases, and from making any regulation that would interfere with freedom of speech. Expressions of views that do not involve a "clear and present danger of serious, substantive evil" come under the protection of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press and prevents suppression of these expressions by the FCC. According to an FCC opinion on this subject, "the public interest is best served by permitting free expression of views." This principle ensures that the most diverse and opposing opinions will be expressed, even though some may be highly offensive.
The FCC, however, does have enforcement responsibilities in certain limited instances. For example, the Courts have said that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and cannot be banned entirely. It may be restricted, however, in order to avoid its broadcast when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience. Between 6 A.M. and 10 P.M. (when there is the greatest likelihood that children may be watching,) airing indecent material is prohibited by FCC rules. Broadcasters are required to schedule their programming accordingly or face enforcement action. Similarly, the Commission has stated that profane material is prohibited between 6 A.M. and 10 P.M.
Finally, the courts have ruled that obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment and cannot be broadcast at any time. For more information about these rules, see our consumer guide.
What Are the Broadcasters' Responsibilities?
Individual radio and television station licensees are responsible for selecting all broadcast matter and for determining how their stations can best serve their communities. Broadcast licensees are responsible for choosing both the entertainment programming and the programming concerning local issues, news, public affairs, religion, sports and other subjects to be aired by the station. They also decide how their programs, including call-in shows, will be conducted and whether or not to edit or reschedule programs or material (for example, moving a program to a time slot during which children may not be listening or watching).
...}
So clearly Trump can not be banned by Twitter unless it can be proven he was causing a danger to the public.
Which he was not.
And the burden of proof would be on whomever claims Trump was creating a danger to the public.

 

[Rigby5]

{...
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Title 47 United States Code)
Relevant Sections of the Communications Act of 1934
...

Section 312 [47 U.S.C. §312] Administrative sanctions.

(a) The Commission may revoke any station license or construction permit –

(7) for willful or repeated failure to allow reasonable access to or to permit purchase of reasonable amounts of time for the use of a broadcasting station, other than a non-commercial educational broadcast station, by a legally qualified candidate for Federal elective office on behalf of his candidacy.

(f) For purposes of this section:

(1) The term “willful”, when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the conscious and deliberate commission or omission of such act, irrespective of any intent to violate any provision of this Act or any rule or regulation of the Commission authorized by this Act or by a treaty ratified by the United States.

(2) The term “repeated”, when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.
...}

Whether or not Trump is a future candidate is unclear, but obviously the point of this is to prevent political discrimination.

 

[Faun]

...
Uttee nonsense. For one, they can ban posters for things like trolling which harms no one. And how is a poster on an anonymous forum such as this harmed by being called a pedophile?

When you sign up to one of these services, you agree to abide by their terms; which is legal as long as their not discriminating based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

Silly.
Obviously trolling is the intentionally harming people by not just wasting their time with spam, but also deliberately trying to disturb the peace and make people upset and angry.
And while posters often are not anonymous since they often decide to share personal information, even if they wish to maintain anonymity, they would still value the good name and character of their avatar.
They would value the friendships with others on the board, and it would be illegal to slander or libel the alias the person used to bond on the board.
If they did not value their relationships on a board, then why would anyone bother being on a board?

Obviously boards are bound by more than not discriminating based on race, color, religion, sex, or national orientation. For example, if a board were to infringe upon privacy, then the board would liable for a hefty lawsuit, and likely loose its internet access as well.
Discrimination based political expression is the single most important individual right that exists in a democratic republic, and no board could ever get away with doing that. If they do, then it is time for torches and pitchforks.

How bizarre. Wasting someone's time could certainly be annoying but it's absolutely not harmful. Not to mention, posters have the ability to ignore trolls. That's quite a ridiculous defense of your nonsense.

 

[Faun]

“Democrats often say that we don’t remove enough content, and Republicans often say we remove too much,” Zuckerberg said in his opening remarks. “The fact that both sides criticize us doesn’t mean that we’re getting this right, but it does mean there are real disagreements about where the limits of online speech should be.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/10/28/twitter-facebook-google-senate-hearing-live-updates/

Something is broke and needs to get fixed. These media giants are wielding way too much power, and proved it with all the
right wing censoring prior to the election. Their is a fix, but it takes a government that isn't corrupt.
I don't think our government will fix it.

You have a fight between the truthers, and the propagandists. One side wants lies removed from the platforms, the other wants to be able to spread lies without being challenged.

One side wants "alternative facts" while the other wants only real facts. That's because the different ideologies requite different information to influence the electorate.

Wow! Spoken like a true leftwinger.
What I hear is you saying that everything from the right is "alternative facts" and the lies from the left are the "real facts".
See, here is the issue, dude...It's called freedom of speech, and YOU and your ilk don't get to decide.
Nor do I and my ilk decide. Do you not see the direction our country is going with it? It's concerning, or should be concerning to all.

"See, here is the issue, dude...It's called freedom of speech"

It is? You're a mod here, maybe you can answer... why am I not free to call other posters here a pedophile? Isn't banning my access to post here for doing that harnessing my freedom of speech?

Banning your access here would be an illegal violation of your free speech unless you caused it to be warranted by first harming the rights of someone else, whom this board is legally obligated to protect.

Nope. Your free speech rights are protected from government interference. So the State or Federal government couldn't silence you.

This board is neither. If you get banned, you're banned. There's no FCC 'but they banned me' court.

Remember, your pseudo-legal gibberish about the 14th amendment extending the Bill of Rights to individuals.....is imaginary nonsense. You made that up. And your imagination legally obligates no one to do anything.

Wrong.
This board is acting under the pleasure of the federal government, and is regulated by the FCC.
There are many specific things this board and any internet provider has to maintain in order to continue to be allowed internet access.
Discrimination of any sort, especially of political expression, is absolutely forbidden.

There are no federal protections for political belief. You've imagined them.

And the board can ban anyone that they feel is violating their terms of service. They get to decide when that happens....not you.

Same with Trump and Twitter. The binding agreement between Twitter and Trump is TOS. And the arbiter of that TOS is Twitter.

Not you.

But it goes much further than just the fact this board has agreed to and signed contract preventing discrimination along the lines of political expression.
It also simply is illegal.
Obviously if individual rights are so important that the federal, state, and municipal governments are expressly forbidden from infringement, then clearly no one else either.
For government obviously has more reason and justification than anyone else could possibly have.

A good example of how the protection of individual rights now is paramount, even without specific legislation, all one has to do is look at the SCOTUS rulings on contraceptives.
Specifically Griswold vs Connecticut.
{...

Your interpretation of the 'penumbra' theory is that anything you imagine is law.

That's not how Griswold v. Connecticut worked. Your imagination didn't suddenly become a legal authority in Griswold. Nor did it extend the Bill of Rights to individuals, but was instead a limiting of STATE power over an individual.

Your insistence that the 14th amendment extended the restrictions of the Bill of Rights to individuals.......is your own pseudo-legal gibberish. It has never been recognized by the Supreme Court, isn't part of the selective incorporation doctrine, and is never mentioned in the 14th amendment.

The 14th amendment extends the restrictions in the Bill of Rights to the STATE. As demonstrated by Griswold v. Connecticut.....in which Connecticut was restricted when acting against a citizen of its State.

Again, you simply don't know what you're talking about. Not even the basics of the legal principles you're trying to discuss.

Is this really it? Just you making up pseudo-legal gibberish and imagining your person opinion as the law of the land? If so, that was easy.

Liar.
Twitter does not own the internet and it is Twitter that is required to conform to the rules and laws governing the internet.
Only an idiot would claim that anyone providing an internet service could legally discriminate based on political beliefs.
Even a baker making a wedding cake can't get away with such a stupid, obvious, and illegal abuse of rights.

And you totally missed the whole point of Griswold, which is that you do NOT need specific legislation prohibiting the violation of inherent rights in order to prosecute any and all violations of individual rights.

You seem to be totally ignorant of the whole concept of authority in a democratic republic, which is the defense of individual rights, and nothing else.

Forums like Twitter have the right to restrict discussion which is threat to public safety.

And political opinions are not a protected class.

And where was there ever any threat to public safety?
Twitter had nothing to do with the occupation of congress, nor is the occupation of congress any remote threat to public safety. The only threat came from the violent police.

And stop mentioning "protected classes".
That has almost nothing at all to do with individual protected rights.
For example, the right to vote.
It is illegal to prevent you from voting, and that has nothing at all to what class you may belong to.
Individual rights are an aspect of individuals, not classes.
The fact some individuals have joined together for additional protection, in no way implies individual rights to not exist as you imply.

Trump used Twitter to encourage the rebellion.

 

[otto105]

Twitter and Facebook should be able to block anyone and everyone they desire.

However, it reveals their intolerance of opposing viewpoints to do so.

The problem the Right has now is that through long term complacency, the Left fully controls not only the Social media,
but also all the cellular networks, the Internet networks AND even the Network backbones that fundamentally
make up the Internet.

In other words.....the Right has absolutely ZERO means of communications that it doesn't totally depend on the Left to allow them to have.
If and when the Left desires, it can globally silence the Right with the flip of a few switches and closed accounts.

Ironically, China is slowly manuevering the World to be dependent on it similarly.

Question is; What the fuck is FOX news, OAN and Newmax?

Just have the orange bunghole use parler.