Nunes sues Twitter, some users, seeks over $250M alleging anti-conservative 'shadow bans,' smears

[iceberg]

great. take away their money, their control is gone also.

The government has endless money and they are the ones fighting for control.

But to you that is great.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

i didn't say government, i said twitter/facebook and so forth. last i checked, sandy, that ain't the gov.

you keep getting pissed off at shit i've never said. very annoying for you to "but you love that shit" when you're not even getting it right.

It is the government wanting to control Twitter and FB and so forth. That is what this is all about.

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

and it has been that way for a long long long time illustrated by my MS conversation. what i have been saying you're either choosing to ignore, not capable of comprehending, or intentionally twisting around is that its not economically feasible to sue someone in here.

it is on facebook/twitter. their own actions to play favorites have brought this upon them. the people are asking the gov to get involved vs. in the MS days, businesses did.

the gov is gonna do what the gov is gonna do, has done, and will continue to do.

I find your “it is what the government does” reasoning to be a bit weak.

This is the reasoning that allows them to keep taking more and more of our rights and liberties all the while the populous just smiles and ask “what can I give up next to the government?”.

Sooner or later we will run out of rights you do not give a shit about and they will come for ones you do care about.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

that's ok. i find your constant bitching at me for something i'm not saying to be annoying as fuck.

guess we're even.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The government has endless money and they are the ones fighting for control.

But to you that is great.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

i didn't say government, i said twitter/facebook and so forth. last i checked, sandy, that ain't the gov.

you keep getting pissed off at shit i've never said. very annoying for you to "but you love that shit" when you're not even getting it right.

It is the government wanting to control Twitter and FB and so forth. That is what this is all about.

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

and it has been that way for a long long long time illustrated by my MS conversation. what i have been saying you're either choosing to ignore, not capable of comprehending, or intentionally twisting around is that its not economically feasible to sue someone in here.

it is on facebook/twitter. their own actions to play favorites have brought this upon them. the people are asking the gov to get involved vs. in the MS days, businesses did.

the gov is gonna do what the gov is gonna do, has done, and will continue to do.

I find your “it is what the government does” reasoning to be a bit weak.

This is the reasoning that allows them to keep taking more and more of our rights and liberties all the while the populous just smiles and ask “what can I give up next to the government?”.

Sooner or later we will run out of rights you do not give a shit about and they will come for ones you do care about.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

that's ok. i find your constant bitching at me for something i'm not saying to be annoying as fuck.

guess we're even.

You just said it is what the government does, now you pretend you didn’t.

Whatever.




Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[iceberg]

i didn't say government, i said twitter/facebook and so forth. last i checked, sandy, that ain't the gov.

you keep getting pissed off at shit i've never said. very annoying for you to "but you love that shit" when you're not even getting it right.

It is the government wanting to control Twitter and FB and so forth. That is what this is all about.

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

and it has been that way for a long long long time illustrated by my MS conversation. what i have been saying you're either choosing to ignore, not capable of comprehending, or intentionally twisting around is that its not economically feasible to sue someone in here.

it is on facebook/twitter. their own actions to play favorites have brought this upon them. the people are asking the gov to get involved vs. in the MS days, businesses did.

the gov is gonna do what the gov is gonna do, has done, and will continue to do.

I find your “it is what the government does” reasoning to be a bit weak.

This is the reasoning that allows them to keep taking more and more of our rights and liberties all the while the populous just smiles and ask “what can I give up next to the government?”.

Sooner or later we will run out of rights you do not give a shit about and they will come for ones you do care about.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

that's ok. i find your constant bitching at me for something i'm not saying to be annoying as fuck.

guess we're even.

You just said it is what the government does, now you pretend you didn’t.

Whatever.

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

yes, to your last statement as you give me the full court press. i wasn't referring to the gov when i talked of twitter and facebook being sued nor if they should be allowed to be sued by how they treat their customers.

you put the gov in there to make it look like i said something i didn't so you could rage at said statement i never made.

you're good at that.

 

[playtime]

 

[ABikerSailor]

The Donald destroy the rule of law in this country. He's also a fuckin' liar!

The Dumbocrats destroyed the rule of law and you know it. It was MaObama who proudly declared “if Congress won’t act, I have a phone and a pen”. The Donald has restored the rule of law in this country. Amazing that that pisses you off.

Trump has restored the rule of law in this country? Really? Because all he ever does is sign EO's, and uses that to convince his followers that he's doing something. Whenever Obama used EO's, you conservatives bitched. I guess it's okay as long as it's your side that is doing it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well, first off my dick is never angry.

Second, the Repubs claim to be the party of small government and more freedoms.

Also, they are the ones in power doing this now. I was just as upset with that Dems and Reno.

We freely and happily give up way too many of our rights

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

i imagine we've all had an angry dick at times.

ANYWAY -

the dems claim to be the party for the poor. the left claims to care about freedom of speech. no one is who they ought to be anymore so to single people out and go GRRRR comes across as an angry dick being waved around. while yes the (R)s are the ones doing it now they are doing it because a class of people are being silenced in our "open" media. MS was just companies getting pissed they couldn't out-do MS so they went the legal route. these are direct consumer related complaints. in all my time at MS i don't recall too many consumers being mad that the OS included things like paint, wordpad, IE, mail and a way to play music. but all this had to be removed so the consumer would choose what they wanted OF WHICH they could do anyway. only the lazy didn't go look.

in the end i don't disagree that the gov needs to stay out. but for things like the catholic kids and the renegade indian, that isn't the gov suing them now is it? a vast majority of lawsuits are coming yes from the right but really our government saying WE'RE GOING TO COURT!!!

it's the people being silenced doing that. if it's twitters right to shadow ban them (and it is i suppose) then it's their right to take it to court and find out what rights if any are being violated now isn't it? whether you and i agree with their moves or not doesn't matter.

it's about to get very expensive for facebook, google, twitter and even MS as they try to checkmark "news" for people. "the people" obviously don't want that and this is their return fire.

How long till they move to sites like this one?

The once “free” speech of the Internet is being given back one piece at a time and far too many people are happy about doing so


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

good question. social sites centralize communication but twitter is nothing but an RSS feed on 'roids. technically it is not at all spectacular. but moving to these sites did prompt people to abandon sites like this because there simply wasn't enough traffic. this site succeeds for a variety of reasons, some i appreciate, some i wish would stop (people anyway) but i can ignore 'em and to shut them up cause i don't like 'em well, that means i could be shut up also, huh?

kinda the problem on twitter, facebook and many social sites. one mindset *is* telling the other to shut up and people say "free service" so they roll with it. HOWEVER, if using my privacy and surfing habits to make money, well it's not "free" anymore, is it? i am in some form paying for the service. now if i'm paying for it, the rules change.

this is what the big boys get to figure out. agree/disagree like/love/hate - doesn't matter. it's happening and it's going to come full force into their face like a nuclear boomerang. and it will be very expensive. in the end the gov WILL tell them how to operate and this idea of "run their business their way" is going to fade. it happens as a normal life cycle and it's happening again. you saw reno/ms, this is a repeat.

circle of life.

it's not right, left, dem, repub or the like. it's people. now will people come back to forums like these? likely not. those who want to visit them already do. some may look for smaller more meaningful conversations but most are likely just burnt out on a lot of this.

I am not talking about people moving to sites like this, I am talking about sites like this being the next target for law suits and attacks.

Can I sue this site for banning me for a week for something I see people do 100 times a day without repercussions?

Should I be able to sue another website that soft banned me for calling Trump a misogynist jerk?

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

maybe. but isn't it someones "right" to sue? sooner or later we just go past that being a viable option. my point is there comes a time you crossover from one phase to the next. while someone could try to sue me in here they won't get far and even if they did, what would they get vs. the cost to get it? not much, quite a bit, don't do it. facebook/twitter and so forth have much deeper pockets. right or wrong, the lawsuits are coming. also, when the news is intentionally shading one mindset for another, when are they held accountable or is that ok also? we have a government and judicial system and hell, a religion so we can at least run under the pretense of ultimate justice for the wrongs we've endured in life. when one extreme gets too loud, the other extreme takes it down. nature of the beast.

also - just because you don't see a mod "do something" doesn't mean they didn't. they don't need to make every move public and i don't need to see them apply their rules to me to all just so i feel better about being here. when i get my occasional "cut it out" it's because of something i did. while i see others who do the same (and a lot worse) i have zero idea what if anything the mods have done to them as well.

why should i know? i'll worry about myself and move on. if it gets to the point where i don't like it here, i'll leave. but not many run under that mindset and many have an "entitled" sense about them.

should you be able to sue a site for something like that? well you can try. chance winning and your cost involved will keep that from happening.

that really doesn't apply to the big boys - like it or not.

I really don't see the difference. The problem in this country is you can sue for anything. I like the model of loser pays all. Sue anybody you like, but if you lose your case, you are responsible for the costs associated with the person(s) you tried to sue.

If I go to Burger King and they tell me they're out of tomatoes so I can't have a real whopper, I can't sue them for that. If I post an opinion piece to my paper and they don't find it interesting enough to run it, I can't sue for that either. If Twitter decides they don't want conservative posts in their forums, it's their right.

 

[iceberg]

i imagine we've all had an angry dick at times.

ANYWAY -

the dems claim to be the party for the poor. the left claims to care about freedom of speech. no one is who they ought to be anymore so to single people out and go GRRRR comes across as an angry dick being waved around. while yes the (R)s are the ones doing it now they are doing it because a class of people are being silenced in our "open" media. MS was just companies getting pissed they couldn't out-do MS so they went the legal route. these are direct consumer related complaints. in all my time at MS i don't recall too many consumers being mad that the OS included things like paint, wordpad, IE, mail and a way to play music. but all this had to be removed so the consumer would choose what they wanted OF WHICH they could do anyway. only the lazy didn't go look.

in the end i don't disagree that the gov needs to stay out. but for things like the catholic kids and the renegade indian, that isn't the gov suing them now is it? a vast majority of lawsuits are coming yes from the right but really our government saying WE'RE GOING TO COURT!!!

it's the people being silenced doing that. if it's twitters right to shadow ban them (and it is i suppose) then it's their right to take it to court and find out what rights if any are being violated now isn't it? whether you and i agree with their moves or not doesn't matter.

it's about to get very expensive for facebook, google, twitter and even MS as they try to checkmark "news" for people. "the people" obviously don't want that and this is their return fire.

How long till they move to sites like this one?

The once “free” speech of the Internet is being given back one piece at a time and far too many people are happy about doing so


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

good question. social sites centralize communication but twitter is nothing but an RSS feed on 'roids. technically it is not at all spectacular. but moving to these sites did prompt people to abandon sites like this because there simply wasn't enough traffic. this site succeeds for a variety of reasons, some i appreciate, some i wish would stop (people anyway) but i can ignore 'em and to shut them up cause i don't like 'em well, that means i could be shut up also, huh?

kinda the problem on twitter, facebook and many social sites. one mindset *is* telling the other to shut up and people say "free service" so they roll with it. HOWEVER, if using my privacy and surfing habits to make money, well it's not "free" anymore, is it? i am in some form paying for the service. now if i'm paying for it, the rules change.

this is what the big boys get to figure out. agree/disagree like/love/hate - doesn't matter. it's happening and it's going to come full force into their face like a nuclear boomerang. and it will be very expensive. in the end the gov WILL tell them how to operate and this idea of "run their business their way" is going to fade. it happens as a normal life cycle and it's happening again. you saw reno/ms, this is a repeat.

circle of life.

it's not right, left, dem, repub or the like. it's people. now will people come back to forums like these? likely not. those who want to visit them already do. some may look for smaller more meaningful conversations but most are likely just burnt out on a lot of this.

I am not talking about people moving to sites like this, I am talking about sites like this being the next target for law suits and attacks.

Can I sue this site for banning me for a week for something I see people do 100 times a day without repercussions?

Should I be able to sue another website that soft banned me for calling Trump a misogynist jerk?

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

maybe. but isn't it someones "right" to sue? sooner or later we just go past that being a viable option. my point is there comes a time you crossover from one phase to the next. while someone could try to sue me in here they won't get far and even if they did, what would they get vs. the cost to get it? not much, quite a bit, don't do it. facebook/twitter and so forth have much deeper pockets. right or wrong, the lawsuits are coming. also, when the news is intentionally shading one mindset for another, when are they held accountable or is that ok also? we have a government and judicial system and hell, a religion so we can at least run under the pretense of ultimate justice for the wrongs we've endured in life. when one extreme gets too loud, the other extreme takes it down. nature of the beast.

also - just because you don't see a mod "do something" doesn't mean they didn't. they don't need to make every move public and i don't need to see them apply their rules to me to all just so i feel better about being here. when i get my occasional "cut it out" it's because of something i did. while i see others who do the same (and a lot worse) i have zero idea what if anything the mods have done to them as well.

why should i know? i'll worry about myself and move on. if it gets to the point where i don't like it here, i'll leave. but not many run under that mindset and many have an "entitled" sense about them.

should you be able to sue a site for something like that? well you can try. chance winning and your cost involved will keep that from happening.

that really doesn't apply to the big boys - like it or not.

I really don't see the difference. The problem in this country is you can sue for anything. I like the model of loser pays all. Sue anybody you like, but if you lose your case, you are responsible for the costs associated with the person(s) you tried to sue.

If I go to Burger King and they tell me they're out of tomatoes so I can't have a real whopper, I can't sue them for that. If I post an opinion piece to my paper and they don't find it interesting enough to run it, I can't sue for that either. If Twitter decides they don't want conservative posts in their forums, it's their right.

Not arguing against of that.

Only saying defending all the lawsuits is going to make this a very expensive decision.

 

[P@triot]

lest ye forget, freedom of speech is a right - but you can't yell 'fire!' in a crowded theater & one can get sued for using their speech ( slander)

Oh sweetie...one cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theater because it is private property. When you purchase a ticket, you agree to abide by their rules.

And slander does not land one in jail. It is 100% criminally legal. It just opens one up to civil liability.

 

[P@triot]

how many 'real' CONservatives are there who cry about wanting a smaller less intrusive gov'ment & calling others 'faux' conservatives.... while voting to have the gov'ment all up inside a woman's uterus?

A little basic science for you left-wing science deniers...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The Donald destroy the rule of law in this country. He's also a fuckin' liar!

The Dumbocrats destroyed the rule of law and you know it. It was MaObama who proudly declared “if Congress won’t act, I have a phone and a pen”. The Donald has restored the rule of law in this country. Amazing that that pisses you off.

oh yea rule of law restored...

1) Trump has repeatedly attempted to interfere in the Russia investigation, and admitted as much—that’s a clear case of obstructing justice.

2) Because Trump never divested from his business interests, he violates the Constitution every time the Trump Organization has business dealings with foreign or American government officials.

3) Trump tried to cover up his campaign’s contacts with a Russian national—which, at very least, constituted a violation of federal law.

4) Trump has demonstrated a pattern of behavior amounting to advocating violence, undercutting equal protection, and, as a result, failing basic Constitutional duties.

5) Trump’s pardon of Joe Arpaio violates the Fifth Amendment and harms the guarantee of Constitutional rights.

6) Trump cannot be permitted to recklessly and needlessly endanger millions of Americans with his unstable behavior.

7) Trump’s threats against political opponents are threats against American democracy.

8) Trump’s threats against freedom of the press are also threats against American democracy.

9) Trump’s policy endangers thousands of immigrant children and families, and defies basic Constitutional values.

10) Trump committed at least two felonies to illegally cheat his way into office.

Do you make this stuff up as you go along, or do you write it out first? How about a link of at least two of the items on your list?

Trump never interfered with any investigation. He had the constitutional right to fire Comey, and the only regret I have is that he didn't do it sooner. That's not obstruction because the investigation continued, and he never fired Mueller.

Trump handed over his businesses to his son who currently runs them, and he never had any campaign contracts with anybody from Russia. What constitutional rights did Trump violate by a pardon? Would you like me to give you a list of pardons from Clinton? You know.....Marc Rich and such? Arpaio wasn't a fugitive from the law hiding out in another country. Immigrants have no constitutional rights in the US. And they have limited rights if they cross our border. Invaders are not protected by the US Constitution, and the document charges our representatives with the responsibility to protect this country from them.

All 10 of these items are detailed here.
Have at it.

A fox news poll says most think Trump interfered with investigation. And Barr is helping.

Trump admits to emoluments violations; wants the case thrown out.

Yeah, well I stopped at the first one where it said Trump told Comey to stop the Flynn investigation. That's what Comey said, and Trump denied it.

My suggestion to you is that you get better sources than Need to Impeach dot com.

 

[iceberg]

The Donald destroy the rule of law in this country. He's also a fuckin' liar!

The Dumbocrats destroyed the rule of law and you know it. It was MaObama who proudly declared “if Congress won’t act, I have a phone and a pen”. The Donald has restored the rule of law in this country. Amazing that that pisses you off.

Trump has restored the rule of law in this country? Really? Because all he ever does is sign EO's, and uses that to convince his followers that he's doing something. Whenever Obama used EO's, you conservatives bitched. I guess it's okay as long as it's your side that is doing it.

nope. its just as wrong and stupid now. but when one side gets away with it, the other side says "hold my beer"

 

[P@triot]

^^^ fake news ^^^ the issue of 'obstruction' has NOT been debunked by anybody. even barr said that it hasn't been absolved. the job is up to congress to determine.

Let’s see if we can dumb this down for you. President Trump has been thoroughly and unequivocally exonerated by an exhaustive investigation. There was never any “Russian collusion”. So why in the fuck would Trump ‘obstruct’ an investigation for something that he knew never happened?

Do you see how dumb you sound right now?

do you support the entire report be released so it can be viewed by congress & the public, or are you afraid (like a lot of (R)s) of the real innards & what mueller has factually written?

I am all for full transparency of government. Unlike you.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How long till they move to sites like this one?

The once “free” speech of the Internet is being given back one piece at a time and far too many people are happy about doing so


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

good question. social sites centralize communication but twitter is nothing but an RSS feed on 'roids. technically it is not at all spectacular. but moving to these sites did prompt people to abandon sites like this because there simply wasn't enough traffic. this site succeeds for a variety of reasons, some i appreciate, some i wish would stop (people anyway) but i can ignore 'em and to shut them up cause i don't like 'em well, that means i could be shut up also, huh?

kinda the problem on twitter, facebook and many social sites. one mindset *is* telling the other to shut up and people say "free service" so they roll with it. HOWEVER, if using my privacy and surfing habits to make money, well it's not "free" anymore, is it? i am in some form paying for the service. now if i'm paying for it, the rules change.

this is what the big boys get to figure out. agree/disagree like/love/hate - doesn't matter. it's happening and it's going to come full force into their face like a nuclear boomerang. and it will be very expensive. in the end the gov WILL tell them how to operate and this idea of "run their business their way" is going to fade. it happens as a normal life cycle and it's happening again. you saw reno/ms, this is a repeat.

circle of life.

it's not right, left, dem, repub or the like. it's people. now will people come back to forums like these? likely not. those who want to visit them already do. some may look for smaller more meaningful conversations but most are likely just burnt out on a lot of this.

I am not talking about people moving to sites like this, I am talking about sites like this being the next target for law suits and attacks.

Can I sue this site for banning me for a week for something I see people do 100 times a day without repercussions?

Should I be able to sue another website that soft banned me for calling Trump a misogynist jerk?

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

maybe. but isn't it someones "right" to sue? sooner or later we just go past that being a viable option. my point is there comes a time you crossover from one phase to the next. while someone could try to sue me in here they won't get far and even if they did, what would they get vs. the cost to get it? not much, quite a bit, don't do it. facebook/twitter and so forth have much deeper pockets. right or wrong, the lawsuits are coming. also, when the news is intentionally shading one mindset for another, when are they held accountable or is that ok also? we have a government and judicial system and hell, a religion so we can at least run under the pretense of ultimate justice for the wrongs we've endured in life. when one extreme gets too loud, the other extreme takes it down. nature of the beast.

also - just because you don't see a mod "do something" doesn't mean they didn't. they don't need to make every move public and i don't need to see them apply their rules to me to all just so i feel better about being here. when i get my occasional "cut it out" it's because of something i did. while i see others who do the same (and a lot worse) i have zero idea what if anything the mods have done to them as well.

why should i know? i'll worry about myself and move on. if it gets to the point where i don't like it here, i'll leave. but not many run under that mindset and many have an "entitled" sense about them.

should you be able to sue a site for something like that? well you can try. chance winning and your cost involved will keep that from happening.

that really doesn't apply to the big boys - like it or not.

I really don't see the difference. The problem in this country is you can sue for anything. I like the model of loser pays all. Sue anybody you like, but if you lose your case, you are responsible for the costs associated with the person(s) you tried to sue.

If I go to Burger King and they tell me they're out of tomatoes so I can't have a real whopper, I can't sue them for that. If I post an opinion piece to my paper and they don't find it interesting enough to run it, I can't sue for that either. If Twitter decides they don't want conservative posts in their forums, it's their right.

Not arguing against of that.

Only saying defending all the lawsuits is going to make this a very expensive decision.

So what's the alternative, they just give in?

That's what made Sarah Palin give up her Governors job. They kept suing her into the next century even though she was never held liable for anything. They knew they could wear her down financially with lawsuits.

That's why I said we need a loser pays all law in this country. That way people (especially government) can't use it as a financial tool to defeat their foes.

 

[P@triot]

Because Trump never divested from his business interests, he violates the Constitution every time the Trump Organization has business dealings with foreign or American government officials.

Do us a favor sparky. Don’t ever mention the U.S. Constitution. You’re too ignorant of the document - that you have never read - to mention it. That’s an insult.

Hitlery Clinton violated the Emoluments Clause. President Trump hasn’t come even remotely close to violating it. You’re a fuck’n moron. Truly. He is not required to “divest” in any capacity. That’s not what the Emoluments Clause is about, you dumb dillhole.

the case in going thru the courts now.

That means nothing. I could bring a case to court against you for being ugly. Doesn’t mean I will win. Hell, doesn’t even mean it is legal. The Emoluments Clause does not forbid an elected official from having a business, nor does it require them to “divest” it before taking office.

Ignorant people should stop talking about the U.S. Constitution.

 

[bodecea]

So, how's Snowflake Nunes' lawsuit coming along?

 

[iceberg]

good question. social sites centralize communication but twitter is nothing but an RSS feed on 'roids. technically it is not at all spectacular. but moving to these sites did prompt people to abandon sites like this because there simply wasn't enough traffic. this site succeeds for a variety of reasons, some i appreciate, some i wish would stop (people anyway) but i can ignore 'em and to shut them up cause i don't like 'em well, that means i could be shut up also, huh?

kinda the problem on twitter, facebook and many social sites. one mindset *is* telling the other to shut up and people say "free service" so they roll with it. HOWEVER, if using my privacy and surfing habits to make money, well it's not "free" anymore, is it? i am in some form paying for the service. now if i'm paying for it, the rules change.

this is what the big boys get to figure out. agree/disagree like/love/hate - doesn't matter. it's happening and it's going to come full force into their face like a nuclear boomerang. and it will be very expensive. in the end the gov WILL tell them how to operate and this idea of "run their business their way" is going to fade. it happens as a normal life cycle and it's happening again. you saw reno/ms, this is a repeat.

circle of life.

it's not right, left, dem, repub or the like. it's people. now will people come back to forums like these? likely not. those who want to visit them already do. some may look for smaller more meaningful conversations but most are likely just burnt out on a lot of this.

I am not talking about people moving to sites like this, I am talking about sites like this being the next target for law suits and attacks.

Can I sue this site for banning me for a week for something I see people do 100 times a day without repercussions?

Should I be able to sue another website that soft banned me for calling Trump a misogynist jerk?

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

maybe. but isn't it someones "right" to sue? sooner or later we just go past that being a viable option. my point is there comes a time you crossover from one phase to the next. while someone could try to sue me in here they won't get far and even if they did, what would they get vs. the cost to get it? not much, quite a bit, don't do it. facebook/twitter and so forth have much deeper pockets. right or wrong, the lawsuits are coming. also, when the news is intentionally shading one mindset for another, when are they held accountable or is that ok also? we have a government and judicial system and hell, a religion so we can at least run under the pretense of ultimate justice for the wrongs we've endured in life. when one extreme gets too loud, the other extreme takes it down. nature of the beast.

also - just because you don't see a mod "do something" doesn't mean they didn't. they don't need to make every move public and i don't need to see them apply their rules to me to all just so i feel better about being here. when i get my occasional "cut it out" it's because of something i did. while i see others who do the same (and a lot worse) i have zero idea what if anything the mods have done to them as well.

why should i know? i'll worry about myself and move on. if it gets to the point where i don't like it here, i'll leave. but not many run under that mindset and many have an "entitled" sense about them.

should you be able to sue a site for something like that? well you can try. chance winning and your cost involved will keep that from happening.

that really doesn't apply to the big boys - like it or not.

I really don't see the difference. The problem in this country is you can sue for anything. I like the model of loser pays all. Sue anybody you like, but if you lose your case, you are responsible for the costs associated with the person(s) you tried to sue.

If I go to Burger King and they tell me they're out of tomatoes so I can't have a real whopper, I can't sue them for that. If I post an opinion piece to my paper and they don't find it interesting enough to run it, I can't sue for that either. If Twitter decides they don't want conservative posts in their forums, it's their right.

Not arguing against of that.

Only saying defending all the lawsuits is going to make this a very expensive decision.

So what's the alternative, they just give in?

That's what made Sarah Palin give up her Governors job. They kept suing her into the next century even though she was never held liable for anything. They knew they could wear her down financially with lawsuits.

That's why I said we need a loser pays all law in this country. That way people (especially government) can't use it as a financial tool to defeat their foes.

stop censoring people?

or keep it up and go to court.

again im not advocating either direction. just where its headed.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I am not talking about people moving to sites like this, I am talking about sites like this being the next target for law suits and attacks.

Can I sue this site for banning me for a week for something I see people do 100 times a day without repercussions?

Should I be able to sue another website that soft banned me for calling Trump a misogynist jerk?

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

maybe. but isn't it someones "right" to sue? sooner or later we just go past that being a viable option. my point is there comes a time you crossover from one phase to the next. while someone could try to sue me in here they won't get far and even if they did, what would they get vs. the cost to get it? not much, quite a bit, don't do it. facebook/twitter and so forth have much deeper pockets. right or wrong, the lawsuits are coming. also, when the news is intentionally shading one mindset for another, when are they held accountable or is that ok also? we have a government and judicial system and hell, a religion so we can at least run under the pretense of ultimate justice for the wrongs we've endured in life. when one extreme gets too loud, the other extreme takes it down. nature of the beast.

also - just because you don't see a mod "do something" doesn't mean they didn't. they don't need to make every move public and i don't need to see them apply their rules to me to all just so i feel better about being here. when i get my occasional "cut it out" it's because of something i did. while i see others who do the same (and a lot worse) i have zero idea what if anything the mods have done to them as well.

why should i know? i'll worry about myself and move on. if it gets to the point where i don't like it here, i'll leave. but not many run under that mindset and many have an "entitled" sense about them.

should you be able to sue a site for something like that? well you can try. chance winning and your cost involved will keep that from happening.

that really doesn't apply to the big boys - like it or not.

I really don't see the difference. The problem in this country is you can sue for anything. I like the model of loser pays all. Sue anybody you like, but if you lose your case, you are responsible for the costs associated with the person(s) you tried to sue.

If I go to Burger King and they tell me they're out of tomatoes so I can't have a real whopper, I can't sue them for that. If I post an opinion piece to my paper and they don't find it interesting enough to run it, I can't sue for that either. If Twitter decides they don't want conservative posts in their forums, it's their right.

Not arguing against of that.

Only saying defending all the lawsuits is going to make this a very expensive decision.

So what's the alternative, they just give in?

That's what made Sarah Palin give up her Governors job. They kept suing her into the next century even though she was never held liable for anything. They knew they could wear her down financially with lawsuits.

That's why I said we need a loser pays all law in this country. That way people (especially government) can't use it as a financial tool to defeat their foes.

stop censoring people?

or keep it up and go to court.

again im not advocating either direction. just where its headed.

Just curios as to who is funding his lawsuit; us taxpayers or is it coming out of his own pocket?

If it's taxpayers then I'm totally against it. If Nunes wants to use his own money, he's welcome to it.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So, how's Snowflake Nunes' lawsuit coming along?

Iceberg seems to be a huge fan of it

 

[Dragonlady]

And it begins. I predict this will be just the first of a flood of lawsuits against these internet media companies. They brought it on themselves.

Nunes sues Twitter, some users, seeks over $250M alleging anti-conservative 'shadow bans,' smears​

California GOP Rep. Devin Nunes filed a major lawsuit seeking $250 million in compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages against Twitter and a handful of its users on Monday, accusing the social media site of "shadow-banning conservatives" including himself to influence the 2018 elections, systematically censoring opposing viewpoints and totally "ignoring" lawful complaints of repeated abusive behavior.

In a complaint filed in Virginia state court on Monday, obtained by Fox News, Nunes said Twitter was guilty of "knowingly hosting and monetizing content that is clearly abusive, hateful and defamatory – providing both a voice and financial incentive to the defamers – thereby facilitating defamation on its platform."

Although federal law ordinarily exempts services like Twitter from defamation liability, Nunes' suit said the platform has taken such an active role in curating and banning content that it should face liability like any other organization that defames.

"Twitter created and developed the content at issue in this case by transforming false accusations of criminal conduct, imputed wrongdoing, dishonesty and lack of integrity into a publicly available commodity used by unscrupulous political operatives and their donor/clients as a weapon," Nunes' legal team wrote. "Twitter is 'responsible' for the development of offensive content on its platform because it in some way specifically encourages development of what is offensive about the content." ​

Can't go anywhere, Twitter is a private company and can refuse service to whomever they please.

You kids probably should have baked those gay wedding cakes, then you might have a leg to stand on.

If they are acting as editors, then they can be sued for their content.

That's the bottom line.

All of these lawsuitsi by right winger politicians who lie, distort and mislead, and get offended when people call them on their bullshit.

But what Nunes is really pissed about is the Devon Nunes Cow account, and Devon Nunes Mom accounts, which mock him relentlessly. If the poor little snowflake doesn't like being mocked, he should stop being a lying asshole.

Nobody forces you to go on Twitter. I haven't had this much fun since the courts block Trump for blocking Twitter users who disagree with him. First Amendment rights.

 

[iceberg]

So, how's Snowflake Nunes' lawsuit coming along?

Iceberg seems to be a huge fan of it

pointing at a pile of shit headed at you doesnt mean you are a fan of said pile.

god damn you dense up at times.