GOP working on legislation to strip Twitter of federal liability protections

[Damaged Eagle]

The precedent has been set that a privately owned business can not discriminate against someone because you don't agree with the content of what they have to say so long as they stay within the general rules set for everyone that utilizes that business. Like no swear words, no nudity, no graphic content, etc,...

That’s not the precedent at all. The law states you can’t discriminate based on some characteristics, for instance race or gender. Some states say sexual orientation, some don’t.

Content of speech is not one of those characteristics.

View attachment 342004

I see... So what you're saying is it's alright to discriminate so long as it's an approved group to discriminate against.

Do you really believe that'll work out well for you?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Who said anything about discrimination of a group?

Targeting a cultural grouping and deleting/removing their inputs, even though they follow the general rules outlined, just because you don't like their rhetoric/beliefs is still discrimination.

They are still a grouping no matter what color their skin, sex, age, and whatnot.

Do you need a refresher course in Sociology, Psychology, or Anthropology, 101?

*****CHUCKLE******

 

[colfax_m]

The precedent has been set that a privately owned business can not discriminate against someone because you don't agree with the content of what they have to say so long as they stay within the general rules set for everyone that utilizes that business. Like no swear words, no nudity, no graphic content, etc,...

That’s not the precedent at all. The law states you can’t discriminate based on some characteristics, for instance race or gender. Some states say sexual orientation, some don’t.

Content of speech is not one of those characteristics.

View attachment 342004

I see... So what you're saying is it's alright to discriminate so long as it's an approved group to discriminate against.

Do you really believe that'll work out well for you?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Who said anything about discrimination of a group?

View attachment 342012

Targeting a cultural grouping and deleting/removing their inputs, even though they follow the general rules outlined, just because you don't like their rhetoric/beliefs is still discrimination.

They are still a grouping no matter what color their skin, sex, age, and whatnot.

Do you need a refresher course in Sociology, Psychology, or Anthropology, 101?

*****CHUCKLE******

But that’s not what’s happening here.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

First, public accommodation laws don’t apply to every business

EXACTLY!!! THAT IS THE FUCKING POINT!!!!

WHAT IS IT WITH YOU COMMIE LEFTISTS!!??!!?? YOU MAKE THE RULES AS YOU GO TO SUIT YOU ONLY!!!

Second, public accommodation laws don’t apply to discrimination based on political views.

YES THEY FUCKING DO!!!

Third, this is not an instance of discrimination based solely on political view even if that were possible.

IT IS BASED ON THE PERSON MAKING THE STATEMENT,WHICH TWITTER OPPOSES!!!

IT IS PURE POLITICS!!!!!

.

 

[easyt65]

I must say it's a curious reaction by the Liar-in-Chief in response to having his lies about voting exposed.

You would be confused by a US President taking action to ensure continued freedom of speech for all citizens.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Every business retains the right to toss out people based on a multitude of factors, especially individual behavior. That’s no different than what Twitter is doing. People have attempted to sue Twitter on grounds of title 2 of the Civil Rights Act and I believe they’ve always failed.

Yet, others succeed against other businesses, because they have the "wrong" political views.

.

 

[colfax_m]

Gaetz is virtue signaling. His little hissy fit has no chance at doing anything.

Second, if his bill did pass, the result would be the immediate removal of Trump from the platform.

The sole intention of this episode is to intimidate Twitter like the thugs they are.

Like what LGBTQRSTUVs do with bakeries? Intimidate them like the thugs they are?

This has nothing to do with that

So legislation has nothing to do with other legislation built off the same premise?
Lol ok

The rationale for public accommodation laws does not apply to social media websites.

This is not the same premise.

The argument is Twitter owns this site to Twitter can do what the fuck they want.

That argument doesn't also apply to other businesses wanting to do what they want?

Just like every other commie leftist out there, you have played both sides of the issue. How perfect.
.

Every business retains the right to toss out people based on a multitude of factors, especially individual behavior. That’s no different than what Twitter is doing. People have attempted to sue Twitter on grounds of title 2 of the Civil Rights Act and I believe they’ve always failed.

The only reason you support twitter in this is you know they only seem to gun for views you disagree with.

Fucking fascist.

You know that’s not true. Or maybe you’re ignorant and don’t.

You also seem ignorant about fascism. Fascism would be using government to threaten citizens because you don’t like what they say.

 

[colfax_m]

Every business retains the right to toss out people based on a multitude of factors, especially individual behavior. That’s no different than what Twitter is doing. People have attempted to sue Twitter on grounds of title 2 of the Civil Rights Act and I believe they’ve always failed.

Yet, others succeed against other businesses, because they have the "wrong" political views.

.

Their political views are irrelevant. Their behavior is.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

The precedent has been set that a privately owned business can not discriminate against someone because you don't agree with the content of what they have to say so long as they stay within the general rules set for everyone that utilizes that business. Like no swear words, no nudity, no graphic content, etc,...

That’s not the precedent at all. The law states you can’t discriminate based on some characteristics, for instance race or gender. Some states say sexual orientation, some don’t.

Content of speech is not one of those characteristics.

View attachment 342004

I see... So what you're saying is it's alright to discriminate so long as it's an approved group to discriminate against.

Do you really believe that'll work out well for you?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Who said anything about discrimination of a group?

View attachment 342012

Targeting a cultural grouping and deleting/removing their inputs, even though they follow the general rules outlined, just because you don't like their rhetoric/beliefs is still discrimination.

They are still a grouping no matter what color their skin, sex, age, and whatnot.

Do you need a refresher course in Sociology, Psychology, or Anthropology, 101?

*****CHUCKLE******

But that’s not what’s happening here.

Yes it is.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[martybegan]

Gaetz is virtue signaling. His little hissy fit has no chance at doing anything.

Second, if his bill did pass, the result would be the immediate removal of Trump from the platform.

The sole intention of this episode is to intimidate Twitter like the thugs they are.

Like what LGBTQRSTUVs do with bakeries? Intimidate them like the thugs they are?

This has nothing to do with that

So legislation has nothing to do with other legislation built off the same premise?
Lol ok

The rationale for public accommodation laws does not apply to social media websites.

This is not the same premise.

The argument is Twitter owns this site to Twitter can do what the fuck they want.

That argument doesn't also apply to other businesses wanting to do what they want?

Just like every other commie leftist out there, you have played both sides of the issue. How perfect.
.

Every business retains the right to toss out people based on a multitude of factors, especially individual behavior. That’s no different than what Twitter is doing. People have attempted to sue Twitter on grounds of title 2 of the Civil Rights Act and I believe they’ve always failed.

The only reason you support twitter in this is you know they only seem to gun for views you disagree with.

Fucking fascist.

If your side wasn't posting so many lies and so much hate they wouldn't be getting banned.

Follow the rules.

Yes, because progressive losers like you never post "hateful" or "lying" tweets.

Fuck off.

 

[colfax_m]

First, public accommodation laws don’t apply to every business

EXACTLY!!! THAT IS THE FUCKING POINT!!!!

WHAT IS IT WITH YOU COMMIE LEFTISTS!!??!!?? YOU MAKE THE RULES AS YOU GO TO SUIT YOU ONLY!!!

Second, public accommodation laws don’t apply to discrimination based on political views.

YES THEY FUCKING DO!!!

Third, this is not an instance of discrimination based solely on political view even if that were possible.

IT IS BASED ON THE PERSON MAKING THE STATEMENT,WHICH TWITTER OPPOSES!!!

IT IS PURE POLITICS!!!!!

.

Oh, the snowflake is going to all caps.

Public accommodation laws apply to restaurants, lodging, theatres etc. They don’t apply to social media websites.

Federal public accommodation laws don’t apply to political views. Some states may have different laws, I don’t know every state’s laws.

If a person in a store is going around telling everyone that the Holocaust is fake, I’d probably ask them to leave. You want to make that illegal?

 

[martybegan]

F

Gaetz is virtue signaling. His little hissy fit has no chance at doing anything.

Second, if his bill did pass, the result would be the immediate removal of Trump from the platform.

The sole intention of this episode is to intimidate Twitter like the thugs they are.

Like what LGBTQRSTUVs do with bakeries? Intimidate them like the thugs they are?

This has nothing to do with that

So legislation has nothing to do with other legislation built off the same premise?
Lol ok

The rationale for public accommodation laws does not apply to social media websites.

This is not the same premise.

The argument is Twitter owns this site to Twitter can do what the fuck they want.

That argument doesn't also apply to other businesses wanting to do what they want?

Just like every other commie leftist out there, you have played both sides of the issue. How perfect.
.

Every business retains the right to toss out people based on a multitude of factors, especially individual behavior. That’s no different than what Twitter is doing. People have attempted to sue Twitter on grounds of title 2 of the Civil Rights Act and I believe they’ve always failed.

The only reason you support twitter in this is you know they only seem to gun for views you disagree with.

Fucking fascist.

You know that’s not true. Or maybe you’re ignorant and don’t.

You also seem ignorant about fascism. Fascism would be using government to threaten citizens because you don’t like what they say.

Fascism is a mentality, it's the desire to have your view, your way of doing things be the only way of doing things, and using any means required to accomplish that.

You cheer twitter for blocking people you disagree with, because you are a simple minded, narrow cuck.

Go eat a bag of dicks.

 

[colfax_m]

Gaetz is virtue signaling. His little hissy fit has no chance at doing anything.

Second, if his bill did pass, the result would be the immediate removal of Trump from the platform.

The sole intention of this episode is to intimidate Twitter like the thugs they are.

Like what LGBTQRSTUVs do with bakeries? Intimidate them like the thugs they are?

This has nothing to do with that

So legislation has nothing to do with other legislation built off the same premise?
Lol ok

The rationale for public accommodation laws does not apply to social media websites.

This is not the same premise.

The argument is Twitter owns this site to Twitter can do what the fuck they want.

That argument doesn't also apply to other businesses wanting to do what they want?

Just like every other commie leftist out there, you have played both sides of the issue. How perfect.
.

Every business retains the right to toss out people based on a multitude of factors, especially individual behavior. That’s no different than what Twitter is doing. People have attempted to sue Twitter on grounds of title 2 of the Civil Rights Act and I believe they’ve always failed.

The only reason you support twitter in this is you know they only seem to gun for views you disagree with.

Fucking fascist.

If your side wasn't posting so many lies and so much hate they wouldn't be getting banned.

Follow the rules.

Yes, because progressive losers like you never post "hateful" or "lying" tweets.

Fuck off.

Twitter removes an enormous amount of tweets for being hateful. No one removed Trump’s lying tweet. They just posted a link below it stating why they thought it wasn’t true. What’s ironic is that you’re all outraged that Twitter is using their freedom of expression to reply to Trump’s tweet.

Fascist.

 

[Crepitus]

Gaetz is virtue signaling. His little hissy fit has no chance at doing anything.

Second, if his bill did pass, the result would be the immediate removal of Trump from the platform.

The sole intention of this episode is to intimidate Twitter like the thugs they are.

Like what LGBTQRSTUVs do with bakeries? Intimidate them like the thugs they are?

This has nothing to do with that

So legislation has nothing to do with other legislation built off the same premise?
Lol ok

The rationale for public accommodation laws does not apply to social media websites.

This is not the same premise.

The argument is Twitter owns this site to Twitter can do what the fuck they want.

That argument doesn't also apply to other businesses wanting to do what they want?

Just like every other commie leftist out there, you have played both sides of the issue. How perfect.
.

Every business retains the right to toss out people based on a multitude of factors, especially individual behavior. That’s no different than what Twitter is doing. People have attempted to sue Twitter on grounds of title 2 of the Civil Rights Act and I believe they’ve always failed.

The only reason you support twitter in this is you know they only seem to gun for views you disagree with.

Fucking fascist.

If your side wasn't posting so many lies and so much hate they wouldn't be getting banned.

Follow the rules.

Yes, because progressive losers like you never post "hateful" or "lying" tweets.

Fuck off.

I never have. I don't recall any of our leadership doing it either.

tRump on the other hand does it daily, sometimes hourly.

You haven't got a leg to stand on here, kiddo.

 

[martybegan]

Gaetz is virtue signaling. His little hissy fit has no chance at doing anything.

Second, if his bill did pass, the result would be the immediate removal of Trump from the platform.

The sole intention of this episode is to intimidate Twitter like the thugs they are.

Like what LGBTQRSTUVs do with bakeries? Intimidate them like the thugs they are?

This has nothing to do with that

So legislation has nothing to do with other legislation built off the same premise?
Lol ok

The rationale for public accommodation laws does not apply to social media websites.

This is not the same premise.

The argument is Twitter owns this site to Twitter can do what the fuck they want.

That argument doesn't also apply to other businesses wanting to do what they want?

Just like every other commie leftist out there, you have played both sides of the issue. How perfect.
.

Every business retains the right to toss out people based on a multitude of factors, especially individual behavior. That’s no different than what Twitter is doing. People have attempted to sue Twitter on grounds of title 2 of the Civil Rights Act and I believe they’ve always failed.

The only reason you support twitter in this is you know they only seem to gun for views you disagree with.

Fucking fascist.

If your side wasn't posting so many lies and so much hate they wouldn't be getting banned.

Follow the rules.

Yes, because progressive losers like you never post "hateful" or "lying" tweets.

Fuck off.

Twitter removes an enormous amount of tweets for being hateful. No one removed Trump’s lying tweet. They just posted a link below it stating why they thought it wasn’t true. What’s ironic is that you’re all outraged that Twitter is using their freedom of expression to reply to Trump’s tweet.

Fascist.

They claim to be an open forum, accepting all viewpoints, and yet the only viewpoints they seem to delete with any consistency are those from the right.

If they want to take a side, they should have to say it, in writing. If they want to be a forum for open exchange they shouldn't be banning people for content based on their politics.

 

[martybegan]

Gaetz is virtue signaling. His little hissy fit has no chance at doing anything.

Second, if his bill did pass, the result would be the immediate removal of Trump from the platform.

The sole intention of this episode is to intimidate Twitter like the thugs they are.

Like what LGBTQRSTUVs do with bakeries? Intimidate them like the thugs they are?

This has nothing to do with that

So legislation has nothing to do with other legislation built off the same premise?
Lol ok

The rationale for public accommodation laws does not apply to social media websites.

This is not the same premise.

The argument is Twitter owns this site to Twitter can do what the fuck they want.

That argument doesn't also apply to other businesses wanting to do what they want?

Just like every other commie leftist out there, you have played both sides of the issue. How perfect.
.

Every business retains the right to toss out people based on a multitude of factors, especially individual behavior. That’s no different than what Twitter is doing. People have attempted to sue Twitter on grounds of title 2 of the Civil Rights Act and I believe they’ve always failed.

The only reason you support twitter in this is you know they only seem to gun for views you disagree with.

Fucking fascist.

If your side wasn't posting so many lies and so much hate they wouldn't be getting banned.

Follow the rules.

Yes, because progressive losers like you never post "hateful" or "lying" tweets.

Fuck off.

I never have. I don't recall any of our leadership doing it either.

tRump on the other hand does it daily, sometimes hourly.

You haven't got a leg to stand on here, kiddo.

Wow, talk about being ignorant. Deny all you want, we know what a hateful twat you really are.

 

[colfax_m]

F

Gaetz is virtue signaling. His little hissy fit has no chance at doing anything.

Second, if his bill did pass, the result would be the immediate removal of Trump from the platform.

The sole intention of this episode is to intimidate Twitter like the thugs they are.

Like what LGBTQRSTUVs do with bakeries? Intimidate them like the thugs they are?

This has nothing to do with that

So legislation has nothing to do with other legislation built off the same premise?
Lol ok

The rationale for public accommodation laws does not apply to social media websites.

This is not the same premise.

The argument is Twitter owns this site to Twitter can do what the fuck they want.

That argument doesn't also apply to other businesses wanting to do what they want?

Just like every other commie leftist out there, you have played both sides of the issue. How perfect.
.

Every business retains the right to toss out people based on a multitude of factors, especially individual behavior. That’s no different than what Twitter is doing. People have attempted to sue Twitter on grounds of title 2 of the Civil Rights Act and I believe they’ve always failed.

The only reason you support twitter in this is you know they only seem to gun for views you disagree with.

Fucking fascist.

You know that’s not true. Or maybe you’re ignorant and don’t.

You also seem ignorant about fascism. Fascism would be using government to threaten citizens because you don’t like what they say.

Fascism is a mentality, it's the desire to have your view, your way of doing things be the only way of doing things, and using any means required to accomplish that.

You cheer twitter for blocking people you disagree with, because you are a simple minded, narrow cuck.

Go eat a bag of dicks.

Ha! Such a potty mouth.

You describes exactly what Trump is trying to do. Use force to make Twitter publish his tweets unopposed.

 

[colfax_m]

Gaetz is virtue signaling. His little hissy fit has no chance at doing anything.

Second, if his bill did pass, the result would be the immediate removal of Trump from the platform.

The sole intention of this episode is to intimidate Twitter like the thugs they are.

Like what LGBTQRSTUVs do with bakeries? Intimidate them like the thugs they are?

This has nothing to do with that

So legislation has nothing to do with other legislation built off the same premise?
Lol ok

The rationale for public accommodation laws does not apply to social media websites.

This is not the same premise.

The argument is Twitter owns this site to Twitter can do what the fuck they want.

That argument doesn't also apply to other businesses wanting to do what they want?

Just like every other commie leftist out there, you have played both sides of the issue. How perfect.
.

Every business retains the right to toss out people based on a multitude of factors, especially individual behavior. That’s no different than what Twitter is doing. People have attempted to sue Twitter on grounds of title 2 of the Civil Rights Act and I believe they’ve always failed.

The only reason you support twitter in this is you know they only seem to gun for views you disagree with.

Fucking fascist.

If your side wasn't posting so many lies and so much hate they wouldn't be getting banned.

Follow the rules.

Yes, because progressive losers like you never post "hateful" or "lying" tweets.

Fuck off.

Twitter removes an enormous amount of tweets for being hateful. No one removed Trump’s lying tweet. They just posted a link below it stating why they thought it wasn’t true. What’s ironic is that you’re all outraged that Twitter is using their freedom of expression to reply to Trump’s tweet.

Fascist.

They claim to be an open forum, accepting all viewpoints, and yet the only viewpoints they seem to delete with any consistency are those from the right.

If they want to take a side, they should have to say it, in writing. If they want to be a forum for open exchange they shouldn't be banning people for content based on their politics.

Twitter has never stated there are no limits to what you can post. You’re either lying or just making shut up.

 

[dudmuck]

Gaetz is virtue signaling. His little hissy fit has no chance at doing anything.

Second, if his bill did pass, the result would be the immediate removal of Trump from the platform.

The sole intention of this episode is to intimidate Twitter like the thugs they are.

Like what LGBTQRSTUVs do with bakeries? Intimidate them like the thugs they are?

This has nothing to do with that

So legislation has nothing to do with other legislation built off the same premise?
Lol ok

The rationale for public accommodation laws does not apply to social media websites.

This is not the same premise.

The argument is Twitter owns this site to Twitter can do what the fuck they want.

That argument doesn't also apply to other businesses wanting to do what they want?

Just like every other commie leftist out there, you have played both sides of the issue. How perfect.
.

Every business retains the right to toss out people based on a multitude of factors, especially individual behavior. That’s no different than what Twitter is doing. People have attempted to sue Twitter on grounds of title 2 of the Civil Rights Act and I believe they’ve always failed.

The only reason you support twitter in this is you know they only seem to gun for views you disagree with.

Fucking fascist.

If your side wasn't posting so many lies and so much hate they wouldn't be getting banned.

Follow the rules.

Yes, because progressive losers like you never post "hateful" or "lying" tweets.

Fuck off.

Twitter removes an enormous amount of tweets for being hateful. No one removed Trump’s lying tweet. They just posted a link below it stating why they thought it wasn’t true. What’s ironic is that you’re all outraged that Twitter is using their freedom of expression to reply to Trump’s tweet.

Fascist.

I would say, that instead of twitter using their freedom of expression, they are just trying to limit their liability of facilitating destruction of our democracy.

 

[easyt65]

I don't see the problem with the Legislation removing govt protections from a private company who wishes to be protected from law suits for its actions, using these protections while discriminating, silencing views they oppose, and while make an incredibly large amount of money doing it.

They should not be proteted from being held accountable...but it ids understandable why Democrats oppose the idea of equal accountability...especially NOW.

 

[Synthaholic]

"Sen. Josh (R-Mo.) and Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) on Wednesday separately announced they were both working on legislation to strip Twitter of federal protections that ensure the company is not held liable for what is posted on its platform.

Both Hawley and Gaetz argued that Twitter’s decision to flag the tweets called its legal liability protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act into question. Section 230 protects social media platforms from facing lawsuits over what users post.

Hawley sent a letter to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey on Wednesday questioning why the platform should be given Section 230 protections and tweeted that he would soon introduce legislation to end “government giveaways” under the legal shield.

“If @Twitter wants to editorialize & comment on users’ posts, it should be divested of its special status under federal law (Section 230) & forced to play by same rules as all other publishers”


IMO subsidies and / or government protections should not be given to companies that engage in trampling on Freedom of Speech. Yes, Twitter (and Facebook) is a privately owned and run company and can operate as they see fit ... but they can do so without tax dollars or protections from a government that supports and defends the Constitution which affords the right of Freedom of Speech to all Americans.

Hillicon Valley: House FISA bill in jeopardy | Democrats drop controversial surveillance measure | GOP working on legislation to strip Twitter of federal liability protections

Welcome to Hillicon Valley, The Hill’s newsletter detailing all you need to know about the tech and cyber news from Capitol Hill to Silicon Valley. If you don’t already, be sure to sign up fo…

thehill.com

Republicans working on legislation to strip Twitter of federal liability protections

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) on Wednesday separately announced they were both working on legislation to strip Twitter of federal protections that ensure the company&nb…

thehill.com

.

What fucking sissies, just like their perfume-selling, daytime TV-watching wuss of a leader.