Harvard law professor: Twitter cannot violate the First Amendment

[progressive hunter]

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 violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trump-is-doubly-wrong-about-twitter/#click=[URL]https://t.co/6CjwdplWok

[/URL]

Yes, they have the legal right. It just shows what fascists they are.

Free republic.com banned me once. Fascists!

why??

Because I said Republicans are fascists.

what did their rules say about lying???

Right wingers are being forced to come up with caveats to explain fascism and free speech. It sounded easy at the beginning, didn't it?

republicans are leftwing not right,,,,

 

[jillian]

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 violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trump-is-doubly-wrong-about-twitter/#click=[URL]https://t.co/6CjwdplWok

[/URL]

Inciting violence isn’t free speech.

 

[jillian]

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 violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trump-is-doubly-wrong-about-twitter/#click=[URL]https://t.co/6CjwdplWok

[/URL]

Yes, they have the legal right. It just shows what fascists they are.

Free republic.com banned me once. Fascists!

why??

Because I said Republicans are fascists.

what did their rules say about lying???

Right wingers are being forced to come up with caveats to explain fascism and free speech. It sounded easy at the beginning, didn't it?

republicans are leftwing not right,,,,

That is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard

 

[progressive hunter]

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

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

they should be required to apply their rules equally across the board,,

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.

whats that got to do with equal application of the rules as per their agreement to get their license and protections???

Because they can morph or change their rules or apply them any way they please and I agree with that.

Again, are you being FORCED to use Facebook or Twitter ???

In China you have no choice. You cannot start your own free Social Media Platform in China. In the USA you can (or at least you could)
Are you saying you want to be more like China?

yes they can,, but as per their agreement to get their license they have to give proper notice,, and as of yet they havent,,

 

[progressive hunter]

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 violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trump-is-doubly-wrong-about-twitter/#click=[URL]https://t.co/6CjwdplWok

[/URL]

Yes, they have the legal right. It just shows what fascists they are.

Free republic.com banned me once. Fascists!

why??

Because I said Republicans are fascists.

what did their rules say about lying???

Right wingers are being forced to come up with caveats to explain fascism and free speech. It sounded easy at the beginning, didn't it?

republicans are leftwing not right,,,,

That is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard

only because youre an ignorant moron that doesnt understand the founding of this country,,,

republican are for more power than granted by the constitution,, so they are leftwing authoritarians,,, just not as far left as democrats,,,

its OK to say they are right of dems but not rightwing,,,

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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 violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trump-is-doubly-wrong-about-twitter/#click=[URL]https://t.co/6CjwdplWok

[/URL]

Bake my cake

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

The communication companies can be dealt with the same way Ma Bell was dealt with and the railroads.

LOL

That was back when there was still some honesty in the Federal Government.

Those days are LONG gone.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

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

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

they should be required to apply their rules equally across the board,,

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.

whats that got to do with equal application of the rules as per their agreement to get their license and protections???

Because they can morph or change their rules or apply them any way they please and I agree with that.

Again, are you being FORCED to use Facebook or Twitter ???

In China you have no choice. You cannot start your own free Social Media Platform in China. In the USA you can (or at least you could)
Are you saying you want to be more like China?

yes they can,, but as per their agreement to get their license they have to give proper notice,, and as of yet they havent,,

And with the new administration, they will be allowed to do anything and everything they want.
They KNOW that and it's why they're already banning Trump.

The Shit we're gonna see over the next two years will be jaw dropping.
But as I keep saying....FIRST....they have to take away all the guns (and they will)

The road to Confiscation will undeniably begin on January 21st.

 

[progressive hunter]

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

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

they should be required to apply their rules equally across the board,,

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.

whats that got to do with equal application of the rules as per their agreement to get their license and protections???

Because they can morph or change their rules or apply them any way they please and I agree with that.

Again, are you being FORCED to use Facebook or Twitter ???

In China you have no choice. You cannot start your own free Social Media Platform in China. In the USA you can (or at least you could)
Are you saying you want to be more like China?

yes they can,, but as per their agreement to get their license they have to give proper notice,, and as of yet they havent,,

And with the new administration, they will be allowed to do anything and everything they want.
They KNOW that and it's why they're already banning Trump.

The Shit we're gonna see over the next two years will be jaw dropping.
But as I keep saying....FIRST....they have to take away all the guns (and they will)

twitter was about dead before trump,, and with this their days are numbered,,

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

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

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

they should be required to apply their rules equally across the board,,

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.

whats that got to do with equal application of the rules as per their agreement to get their license and protections???

Because they can morph or change their rules or apply them any way they please and I agree with that.

Again, are you being FORCED to use Facebook or Twitter ???

In China you have no choice. You cannot start your own free Social Media Platform in China. In the USA you can (or at least you could)
Are you saying you want to be more like China?

yes they can,, but as per their agreement to get their license they have to give proper notice,, and as of yet they havent,,

And with the new administration, they will be allowed to do anything and everything they want.
They KNOW that and it's why they're already banning Trump.

The Shit we're gonna see over the next two years will be jaw dropping.
But as I keep saying....FIRST....they have to take away all the guns (and they will)

twitter was about dead before trump,, and with this their days are numbered,,

The Left LOVES Twitter
They will continue supporting it
More importantly, the Establishment will support Twitter as a propaganda platform.

it's not going anywhere anytime soon.

 

[Crepitus]

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 violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trump-is-doubly-wrong-about-twitter/#click=[URL]https://t.co/6CjwdplWok

[/URL]

its more about free speech than the 1st amendment,, most people dont know the difference,,,

the issue with twiiter is they dont apply their rules equally and base it on political leanings favoring one side over the other,,

No, they just don't like people using their platform to plan insurgency.

 

[Dana7360]

I am not surprised these right wingers don't know that it's illegal to incite a riot.

Inciting a riot isn't free speech.

Especially a riot that resulted in 5 deaths and a lot of damage to our capitol.

 

[progressive hunter]

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

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

they should be required to apply their rules equally across the board,,

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.

whats that got to do with equal application of the rules as per their agreement to get their license and protections???

Because they can morph or change their rules or apply them any way they please and I agree with that.

Again, are you being FORCED to use Facebook or Twitter ???

In China you have no choice. You cannot start your own free Social Media Platform in China. In the USA you can (or at least you could)
Are you saying you want to be more like China?

yes they can,, but as per their agreement to get their license they have to give proper notice,, and as of yet they havent,,

And with the new administration, they will be allowed to do anything and everything they want.
They KNOW that and it's why they're already banning Trump.

The Shit we're gonna see over the next two years will be jaw dropping.
But as I keep saying....FIRST....they have to take away all the guns (and they will)

twitter was about dead before trump,, and with this their days are numbered,,

The Left LOVES Twitter
They will continue supporting it
More importantly, the Establishment will support Twitter as a propaganda platform.

it's not going anywhere anytime soon.

they will start eating each other when theirs no one left to eat,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

I am not surprised these right wingers don't know that it's illegal to incite a riot.

Inciting a riot isn't free speech.

Especially a riot that resulted in 5 deaths and a lot of damage to our capitol.

who incited a riot???

got a link??

 

[progressive hunter]

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 violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trump-is-doubly-wrong-about-twitter/#click=[URL]https://t.co/6CjwdplWok

[/URL]

its more about free speech than the 1st amendment,, most people dont know the difference,,,

the issue with twiiter is they dont apply their rules equally and base it on political leanings favoring one side over the other,,

No, they just don't like people using their platform to plan insurgency.

it takes a special kind of stupid to think or suggest that was an insurgence,,,

 

[Crepitus]

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 violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trump-is-doubly-wrong-about-twitter/#click=[URL]https://t.co/6CjwdplWok

[/URL]

its more about free speech than the 1st amendment,, most people dont know the difference,,,

the issue with twiiter is they dont apply their rules equally and base it on political leanings favoring one side over the other,,

No, they just don't like people using their platform to plan insurgency.

it takes a special kind of stupid to think or suggest that was an insurgence,,,

Sorry kid, facts are facts. Like it or don't, they don't care.

 

[progressive hunter]

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 violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trump-is-doubly-wrong-about-twitter/#click=[URL]https://t.co/6CjwdplWok

[/URL]

its more about free speech than the 1st amendment,, most people dont know the difference,,,

the issue with twiiter is they dont apply their rules equally and base it on political leanings favoring one side over the other,,

No, they just don't like people using their platform to plan insurgency.

it takes a special kind of stupid to think or suggest that was an insurgence,,,

Sorry kid, facts are facts. Like it or don't, they don't care.

so you think a few hundred unarmed hot heads were intent on over throwing the government???

that takes a special kind of stupid

 

[Crepitus]

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 violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trump-is-doubly-wrong-about-twitter/#click=[URL]https://t.co/6CjwdplWok

[/URL]

its more about free speech than the 1st amendment,, most people dont know the difference,,,

the issue with twiiter is they dont apply their rules equally and base it on political leanings favoring one side over the other,,

No, they just don't like people using their platform to plan insurgency.

it takes a special kind of stupid to think or suggest that was an insurgence,,,

Sorry kid, facts are facts. Like it or don't, they don't care.

so you think a few hundred unarmed hot heads were intent on over throwing the government???

that takes a special kind of stupid

There were thousands, and not all were unarmed.

Check some real media for the list of arrests.

 

[progressive hunter]

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 violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trump-is-doubly-wrong-about-twitter/#click=[URL]https://t.co/6CjwdplWok

[/URL]

its more about free speech than the 1st amendment,, most people dont know the difference,,,

the issue with twiiter is they dont apply their rules equally and base it on political leanings favoring one side over the other,,

No, they just don't like people using their platform to plan insurgency.

it takes a special kind of stupid to think or suggest that was an insurgence,,,

Sorry kid, facts are facts. Like it or don't, they don't care.

so you think a few hundred unarmed hot heads were intent on over throwing the government???

that takes a special kind of stupid

There were thousands, and not all were unarmed.

Check some real media for the list of arrests.

whats the arrests got to do with it??? they deserve that for being stupid,,

so you still think their intent was to overthrow the government???
if so that takes a special kind of stupid,,,

OH you got a link to those armed guys???

I just googled it and got nothing,,,

 

[Crepitus]

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 violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trump-is-doubly-wrong-about-twitter/#click=[URL]https://t.co/6CjwdplWok

[/URL]

its more about free speech than the 1st amendment,, most people dont know the difference,,,

the issue with twiiter is they dont apply their rules equally and base it on political leanings favoring one side over the other,,

No, they just don't like people using their platform to plan insurgency.

it takes a special kind of stupid to think or suggest that was an insurgence,,,

Sorry kid, facts are facts. Like it or don't, they don't care.

so you think a few hundred unarmed hot heads were intent on over throwing the government???

that takes a special kind of stupid

There were thousands, and not all were unarmed.

Check some real media for the list of arrests.

whats the arrests got to do with it??? they deserve that for being stupid,,

so you still think their intent was to overthrow the government???
if so that takes a special kind of stupid,,,

OH you got a link to those armed guys???

I just googled it and got nothing,,,

You didn't.