trump begs Florida judge to restore his Twitter account

[AzogtheDefiler]

You opinion is they should be regulated as a content publisher.
Reality is that they are merely a content distributor, and as such aren't regulated like
a newspaper, or internet news site.

But you can go on wishing, and hoping, and hoping and wishing....

We disagree. Have a good day. I am not whining. I am providing an opinion.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

You confuse "should be" with what they actually "are" regulated as.

Wishing and hoping, and hoping and wishing....

Right. I am giving an opinion. As are you. How is it whining? Do explain. You don’t know what the word means eh?

 

[kaz]

When they booted Bin Laden out of Afghanistan that should have ended the war....but they wanted to set up a strategic location in the ME they could use as an operational base. Afghanistan was a bad area to operate from. Iraq was better (Persian Gulf access). Obama destroyed our capabilities in Iraq and Biden has erased us from Afghanistan. Well done Democrats.
Both of these exists caused a vacuum....and the inevitable mass-exodus of refugees that Globalists need to cause mass destruction and death.

We should unfetter domestic energy production and leave the middle east. Let's do what the French and Brits did in handing the whole middle east mess to us and hand it to someone else

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

What you say would be true if they blocked content by the actual content. If the content was blocked because the person who wanted to respond was banned, then that is not in fact blocking content.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who aren't banned, who can respond to twitter to argue Trumps side. So what's the problem?

You’re sure? Not from what I understand. I listened to a three hour Joe Rogan podcast with Jack Dorsey and his head of legal and it was pretty eye opening. You should do the same so that you may have an informed opinion instead of just spewing nonsensical garbage.

 

[postman]

Trump never remotely violated any law or terms of service agreement.
His belief the election was scammed is his opinion and he is entitled to it, regardless that I think it is silly.
It is not directly harming anyone or violating any law.

Trump did the equivalent of inciting a riot. Which is an actual crime.

On Friday night, with just 12 days left in his presidency and two days after a mob of his supporters stormed the US Capitol, leading to several deaths, Twitter said it had permanently suspended Trump’s account “due to the risk of further incitement of violence.”

“To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”

Psssssst…. the coast is clear......

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Twitter is responsible for what it does or does not put on it's site.

As long as Twitter conveys it's product on public airwaves, which presumably belong to everyone,
and must conform to our Bill or Rights as part of our Constitution, regardless of what hipster billionaire
and oligarch Jack Dorsey thinks or says people do not surrender their rights when commenting
on Twitter. Or Facebook.

This is an issue for the Supreme Court.

 

[kaz]

We disagree. Have a good day. I am not whining. I am providing an opinion.

When you're as low content as postman you have to use words like telling anyone they disagree with you they are "whining" to make up for it

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Trump did the equivalent of inciting a riot. Which is an actual crime.

You state this as if it's unequivocally a fact. Unfortunately that isn't so.

 

[postman]

Right. I am giving an opinion. As are you. How is it whining? Do explain. You don’t know what the word means eh?

Carly Simon

But you say it's time we moved in together
And raised a family of our own
You and me

Well, that's the way I've always heard it should be

Wishing and hoping won't make it so.

 

[Rigby5]

Of course someone can enforce an amendment. If someone deprives you of your rights, that is grounds for litigation. The Civil Rights Act (talking about Title 2 since that's what governs places of public accommodation) was justified in court based on the commerce clause, not the 14th amendment, see Heart of Atlanta Motel v United States. The equal protection clause doesn't "require" anything of the sort. What it does is extends US Constitutional protections down to states and mandates that the laws of the states be applied similarly to people in similar situations. It has nothing to do with ensuring equal treatment of individuals.

The private company can't refuse black customers because of Title 2 of the CRA, which again is justified based on the commerce clause.

I'm still looking for whatever regulation that prohibits political discrimination. You've decided against producing such a regulation. It doesn't exist. If it were, it'd be easy to find as that would be a massive deal.

If you started posting on twitter, you signed a TOS. End of story.

Nonsense.
No one can enforce an amendment.
Amendments are only for federal appeals courts, and nothing else.
When there is grounds for litigation, that mean you sue someone, which is a civil court, and that is local, so has no recourse to federal documents like the Bill of Rights, constitution, etc. You can't bring up federal documents until you have appealed to federal courts.

The commerce clause can not possible be used as the basis for the civil rights act because all the commerce clause does is prevent restrictions on interstate transportation, and civil rights is about violations of rights within the same state.
It is true the SCOTUS often uses the commerce clause, but that is almost never legal.
Almost ever time the commerce clause if referenced, it is incredibly stupid and illegal.
But the SCOTUS does it all the time.
Read this link on how badly the commerce clause is abused.

Commerce, Commerce, Everywhere: The Uses and Abuses of the Commerce Clause

Over the course of the last decades, the commerce clause has been used as a primary source for the regulatory expansion of the national government. This reading of the clause, granting virtually unlimited regulatory power over the economy to the federal government, came out of a series of...

www.heritage.org

Again, the commerce clause actually authorizes almost nothing except things like road or excise taxes on through traffic.

And it is clear you do not understand what "equal protection" means.
In 1870, could a store deny service to a white person. Obviously no. So then could a store deny service to a Black person? If you want to enforce Equal Protection, then obviously no. So then Equal Protection requires local government to enact laws to ensure equal protection to everyone. If not for the 14th amendment, then the 1967 Civil Rights Act would not have been legal. The federal government would not have been authorized to defend individual rights.

And obviously you are blind, because the internet is federal.
If is federally created and owned, as well as regulated by the FCC and FTC.
So how could it then possibly allow 1st amendment violations?
The actual federal legislation that enables the actual FCC regulations are irrelevant.
Since it is the 1st amendment that establishes the principle, that is the source.
That is the general abstraction.
We need not go into further detail.

And again, I have been posting on Twitter for years, but NEVER read or signed any Terms of Service agreement.

 

[postman]

I'm sure there are plenty of people who aren't banned, who can respond to twitter to argue Trumps side. So what's the problem?

You’re sure? Not from what I understand. I listened to a three hour Joe Rogan podcast with Jack Dorsey and his head of legal and it was pretty eye opening. You should do the same so that you may have an informed opinion instead of just spewing nonsensical garbage.

Instead of wishing and hoping here, why don't you actually do something and respond on twitter on Trumps behalf. I'm sure you could do a better job than Trump did.

 

[pknopp]

Trump never remotely violated any law or terms of service agreement.
His belief the election was scammed is his opinion and he is entitled to it, regardless that I think it is silly.
It is not directly harming anyone or violating any law.
And no one can be absolutely certain he is wrong.

I said nothing about a law. Trump was told what terms he was breaking many times before he was banned.

 

[postman]

Twitter is responsible for what it does or does not put on it's site.

As long as Twitter conveys it's product on public airwaves, which presumably belong to everyone,
and must conform to our Bill or Rights as part of our Constitution, regardless of what hipster billionaire
and oligarch Jack Dorsey thinks or says people do not surrender their rights when commenting
on Twitter. Or Facebook.

This is an issue for the Supreme Court.

If twitter's or facebook's or whatever "public" service provider has in their terms of service that you can't post pictures of totally naked people (such as here at USMB) The supreme court should get involved?

 

[kaz]

Its not kaz. It is the essence of what you said.

ON A DIFFERENT SUBJECT.

HE TOOK WHAT I SAID ON ONE SUBJECT AND USED IT ON A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SUBJECT


You're not usually a comoplete idiot. We all have our days. This is yours.

Here's a rule with reading posts.

I said that about supporting Trump.

That meaning the bull shit he laid out is a NON SEQUITOR

 

[kaz]

We need to abandon our principals on limited government and use that expanded power to make sure the OTHER guy does not give government unlimited powers

I DID NOT SAY THIS.

FA_Q2: kaz, you said If you support Trump, then you believe that we cannot do anything on any subject to support liberty.

This is what you just claimed I said, and it's a lie, I didn't. That's the problem with taking one quote and applying it to a different subject. It has to be apples to apples, and it just wasn't

 

[kaz]

No matter how bad the fight gets, the one thing we cannot do is abandon the very rights we claim to stand for.

I DID NOT SAY THIS

 

[Rigby5]

What you say would be true if they blocked content by the actual content. If the content was blocked because the person who wanted to respond was banned, then that is not in fact blocking content.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who aren't banned, who can respond to twitter to argue Trumps side. So what's the problem?

Because it is clearly immoral and illegal to allow someone to be defamed without being allowed to defend themselves.
It is blocking by content that is legal, but it is blocking by person which is totally and completely illegal because it is obviously discriminatory and not based on need to avoid legal harm to others.
Censorship can't be arbitrary and be legal.
It can only be legal is if it necessary in order to protect the rights of some other victim.
If it harms no one and you just do not like the words, then blocking those words are the each definition of a 1st amendment violation on a federal communications utilty.

 

[Nostra]

Trump did the equivalent of inciting a riot. Which is an actual crime.

On Friday night, with just 12 days left in his presidency and two days after a mob of his supporters stormed the US Capitol, leading to several deaths, Twitter said it had permanently suspended Trump’s account “due to the risk of further incitement of violence.”

“To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”

Psssssst…. the coast is clear......

Explain how this is incitement to violence...

“To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”

 

[Rigby5]

You state this as if it's unequivocally a fact. Unfortunately that isn't so.

Agreed.
I don't think Trump incited a crime either, but even if he did, that would not excuse banning him, which prevents all political expression.
Twitter should have at least waited until their claim was ruled on in court.
They have exceeded their authority by being judge, jury, and executioner, without trial.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

If twitter's or facebook's or whatever "public" service provider has in their terms of service that you can't post pictures of totally naked people (such as here at USMB) The supreme court should get involved?

A real red herring. Naked pictures are not the issue.

The SCOTUS should weigh in to establish once and for all if Big Tech can use their oversized place on the public airwaves to capriciously and arbitrarily shut down free speech.

That's the issue. Nothing else you say matters.