It's not subjective, it's not even a reasonable argument. It's no different than holding a trucker responsible for the products he's carrying being defective. All he does is carry content.
Not really. People have to have their freedom to move or post their stuff online elsewhere without being slandered, libeled, and banned from the Timwitter platform.
Actually, he’s trying to sue as the 45th president of the US, which seems to be some special category he invented for himself.
Maybe, but that would be covered under government edict for the greater good.
I disagree with you. Disagreements in civilized countries are settled by the courts. I will accept whatever decision the courts rule. And you are wrong because you dismissed my example as it was too complex for you. Dumb people (you) don't get to tell me what is and isn't happening.
Our courts have limits on remedies they can implement. If a divorced father has custody of his children on weekends, a court can't order that he take them to church.
I disagree. Why are you an expert on what is and is not reasonable? I find you to be very stupid. So excuse me for dismissing you and your idiocy.
I disagree and in modern countries the courts settle disagreements. Why are you against the courts settling this dispute?
But the court may order that he gets them on some weekdays too. So let's allow attorneys on both sides to make their arguments and whatever decision the court renders I will live with. Why can you not do the same? What are you scared of leftist?
We have a dispute and the Internet is too knew. Why are you afraid to allow the courts to decide? Pretty sure this is going to the courts in France very soon.
Do you always need to resort to insults. Did I call you an idiot because we disagree?
Of course. If you want to spend the attorney fees and such. We are a very litigious society. But you misunderstood. Twitter would not be sued for banning people. They may do that. But as such they would not face the same protections they face now and would be able to be sued as the NYT may be sued by me if they said I kill puppies when they have zero proof that I do and in fact love dogs.
OMG the irony, that's not what I said liar!This from the moron that just said Trump was still the POTUS.
Calling it a dispute isn’t useful. People can dispute whether the earth is round.
if the rational to ban him is that he called for violence it should be, since he never did in the first placeWhat's the point in government if you can't use it to bully private companies?
Trump asks Florida judge to force Twitter to restart his account
Trump argued the social media company was "coerced" by members of the U.S. Congress to suspend his account.www.nbcnews.com
You dismissed my opinion. I do not care what you think or believe. I believe Twitter is taking advantage and is a content provider and should be regulated as such. You disagree. Let the courts decide. You consider my example to be irrelevant and I disagree. Courts should decide. As far as simplistic, I kept it that way because you're stupid. I can easily provide a more complex one.
