trump begs Florida judge to restore his Twitter account

[meaner gene]

Trump has fired people by TWEET.

Isn't that official?

Whether it's official doesn't depend on whether it was done on Twitter, moron.

You have it backwards as usual. The question was whether Twitter could be an official organ of the presidency. and DOJ told a federal judge that it was.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Nope not at all.

Noted...I like your style.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Noted...I like your style.

My son is 19 and has long, messy hair. I try to tell him it could keep him from getting hired and he thinks it is just wrong that it would. Now in his defense, in the field he is trying to get into, long hair is not out of the norm so I do not think ti will be all that big of a determent, plus I am an old devil dog so any hair not a buzz cut seems long to me!

 

[meaner gene]

It's not regulated the same as Verizon, so your post is moot.

Everything you believe is based on wrong information.

Legal Responsibilities of (Web) Hosting Providers Such as Instagram, Facebook and Youtube

In the digitalized world order, many needs and topics such as communication, socialization, and information are provided through the…

www.lexology.com

Legal Responsibilities of (Web) Hosting Providers Such as Instagram, Facebook and Youtube

Kilinc Law and Consulting

You can look up the legal opinions of legal professionals who do this for a living.

 

[colfax_m]

You guess or they did?

I don’t know the corporate history behind everyone you cited.

And I don’t have to. I’m right anyway.

 

[meaner gene]

The internet still has publishers and common carriers. FOX News and NYT are publishers. So is Twitter.

You're half right. They're all content publishers, meaning they act as hosts for people to post content onto. But Fox News and the NYT also serve as content providers or content creators. As such they have strict liability for the content they create, but limited responsibility for the content they only serve as publishers of.

This is just like a recent defamation case, where they distinguished internet publishers that only publish, from full service publishers who also edit the content.

Court Rules Print-on-Demand Service Not Liable for Defamation - MediaShift

Jeffrey D. Neuburger Book publishers can be sued if they publish a book full of libelous statements because, the reasoning goes, a publisher should know what it prints. The publisher reviews the manuscript, edits and proofreads it, and distributes the finished book to retailers. It is involved...

mediashift.org

Traditionally, book publishers could be held liable for defamatory statements in their books under the theory that they exercised some form of control over the books’ contents. But online print-on-demand companies typically provide printing and distribution services only, and do not perform the traditional editing, fact-checking and marketing functions associated with other publishers. Sandler v. Calcagni appears to be the first case in which someone has argued that a print-on-demand company should face traditional “publisher” liability.

Court Rules Print-on-Demand Service Not Liable for Defamation

 

[bripat9643]

No, Twitter is not a publisher. A publisher pre-approves everything they publish. Twitter is merely a platform for people to express themselves.

Nope. Twitter picks and choses who gets their messages broadcast and who doesn't. Twitter functions as a publisher.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Nope. Twitter picks and choses who gets their messages broadcast and who doesn't. Twitter functions as a publisher.

That is precisely the point the courts should opine on

 

[bripat9643]

Legal Responsibilities of (Web) Hosting Providers Such as Instagram, Facebook and Youtube

In the digitalized world order, many needs and topics such as communication, socialization, and information are provided through the…

www.lexology.com

Legal Responsibilities of (Web) Hosting Providers Such as Instagram, Facebook and Youtube

Kilinc Law and Consulting

You can look up the legal opinions of legal professionals who do this for a living.

What's your point, dumbass?

 

[bripat9643]

You're half right. They're all content publishers, meaning they act as hosts for people to post content onto. But Fox News and the NYT also serve as content providers or content creators. As such they have strict liability for the content they create, but limited responsibility for the content they only serve as publishers of.

This is just like a recent defamation case, where they distinguished internet publishers that only publish, from full service publishers who also edit the content.

Court Rules Print-on-Demand Service Not Liable for Defamation - MediaShift

Jeffrey D. Neuburger Book publishers can be sued if they publish a book full of libelous statements because, the reasoning goes, a publisher should know what it prints. The publisher reviews the manuscript, edits and proofreads it, and distributes the finished book to retailers. It is involved...

mediashift.org

Traditionally, book publishers could be held liable for defamatory statements in their books under the theory that they exercised some form of control over the books’ contents. But online print-on-demand companies typically provide printing and distribution services only, and do not perform the traditional editing, fact-checking and marketing functions associated with other publishers. Sandler v. Calcagni appears to be the first case in which someone has argued that a print-on-demand company should face traditional “publisher” liability.

Court Rules Print-on-Demand Service Not Liable for Defamation

Yada, yada, yada. Twitter is a publisher. The fact is beyond arguing.

 

[dblack]

Looks like both sides agree on the question of whether government should control social media. They're just bickering over who gets to go first.

 

[dblack]

You equate asking to begging?

That actually wasn't my thread title. Apparently one of the mods merged my thread with another and it got stuck with the other title. My original title was "Whiner in Chief at it again".

The poll wasn't mine either.

 

[dblack]

What's the point of free speech if child self serving billionaire dorsey can silence whoever he wants?

He can't silence anyone.

 

[dblack]

Whoops! Government IS the private company now.

1. First democrats took over key government positions.
2. Then democrats took over mainstream media and education.
3. Next democrats took over key industry positions.
4. Now democrats control key big tech corporations controlling information.

So what we have is democrats in Big Tech working with democrats in government to discredit, ridicule, then finally silence key opposition. After rigging their election just as Hillary rigged Bernie's in 2016 to fail.

When you talk to your banker now, you are talking to GOVERNMENT.
When you talk to your doctor now, you are talking to GOVERNMENT.
When you talk to your educator now, you are talking to GOVERNMENT.
Name any institution now not totally controlled by federal government.

And when you say government now, we are really talking about DEMOCRAPS.

Paranoid delusion.

 

[dblack]

Trump doesn't beg you delusional yahoo!

Show us a legit vid of him begging. You can't!!

As stated elsewhere, that wasn't my thread title. Apparently a mod merged mine with another and replaced my original title.

 

[FA_Q2]

Looks like both sides agree on the question of whether government should control social media. They're just bickering over who gets to go first.

That was never in doubt.

It is always worth a chuckle seeing the liberals come out in favor of property rights and the conservatives running to government regulation as soon as twitter is mentioned. Almost like there are no actual core principals associated with their political positions....

 

[meaner gene]

Nope. Twitter picks and choses who gets their messages broadcast and who doesn't. Twitter functions as a publisher.

First the legal definitions of publisher does not cover Twitter, who only functions as a distributor.

 

[meaner gene]

Yada, yada, yada. Twitter is a publisher. The fact is beyond arguing.

Twitter is a distributor (legal definition) not a publisher (legal definition)

But that won't stop you from arguing the legal definitions aren't the legal definitions.

 

[bripat9643]

Paranoid delusion.

Hardly.

 

[bripat9643]

Twitter is a distributor (legal definition) not a publisher (legal definition)

But that won't stop you from arguing the legal definitions aren't the legal definitions.

It edits the content, so it's a publisher. how many times do you have to be told what a publisher does?