Are you on Twitter?

[Carl in Michigan]

Not sure anyone really cares about the law in this..but Trump's XO is a fart in the wind..nothing more:

Legal experts 'ratio' Trump's executive order aimed at social media companies

The executive order, signed Thursday, would direct several parts of the federal government to examine the conduct of Internet companies with an eye toward further restrictions. But any such move would accomplish very little under a law passed at the dawn of the Internet age and because an executive order cannot change the law.
In 1996, Congress said websites cannot be held legally responsible for the content posted by their users. That's true whether Internet companies simply automatically pass along whatever is submitted or screen it beforehand.
The law also protects a website's efforts to remove content that's obscene, violent or otherwise violates its terms of service. Congress especially wanted to prevent the posting of child pornography.
Trump's order, however, said those companies lose that legal protection if they restrict the views that can be expressed on their websites. Online platforms "are engaging in selective censorship that is hurting our national discourse," the order says.
But legal experts said that's not how the law works.
"Twitter, Facebook and the like are immune as platforms regardless of whether they edit, including in a politicized way," said Prof. Eugene Volokh, a conservative legal scholar at UCLA. "Like it or not, this was a deliberate decision by Congress."
Some might prefer a different model, in which websites that restrict a user's speech become liable for the speech they allow. "But Congress rejected this model," Volokh said.
That's been the settled law for more than 25 years, according to Prof. Eric Goldman, who teaches Internet law at Santa Clara University.
"The whole point of the law was to give Internet companies the power to decide what they thought was fit for their audience," he said. "It was intended to encourage and protect editorial discretion, not to eliminate it."
While the executive order directs the Federal Communications Commission to consider imposing new rules, Goldman said, "The FCC has no authority over this, because Congress hasn't delegated that authority. The FCC's opinion doesn't count."

"Legal experts say"....

Given the shit show that the "experts" have made of the last few months, I'd pas on lending any such "experts" any credibility.

That was exactly what I saw, then moved on

 

[Mr Natural]

No, I’m not on Twitter.

Twitter is for chumps.

 

[L.K.Eder]

when Trump moves to gab, he will no longer be persecuted. go there as well, as welcome committee.

 

[wamose]

Twitter is for the far left. I have no idea why Trump doesnt take his followers elsewhere and use twitter only to redirect his potential audience

Because He’s a petty little man who will not condone anyone questioning or disagreeing with anything He says.

Trump is touchy for sure but he isn't about to take anyone's shit, especially if he thinks it's unjustified. Democrats, on the other hand, are bigots who have no use for other peoples opinions. Most of those west coast platforms are dominated by rabid Democrats and they'll always favor the radical liberal point of view no matter what jive they throw around. They don't care about the first amendment any more than they care about fairness or the logic of any Republican position. Therefore, it would be crazy to think these assholes will wake up and change their narrow minded ways. They are the elitist establishment and one percenters that Democrats claim to despise. The whole D party is a collection of contradictions and hypocrisy.

 

[Propofol]

No, I’m not on Twitter.

Twitter is for chumps.

Agreed