trump begs Florida judge to restore his Twitter account

[postman]

Because it is clearly immoral and illegal to allow someone to be defamed without being allowed to defend themselves.

Then Trump should take the person defaming him to court. Not ask the court to reinstate him, so as to allow a public fight on twitter.

 

[colfax_m]

So we are just going to allow websites like Twitter and Facebook to unevenly apply their TOS based on politics and at the same time do nothing about their protections? I can promise you that if Zuckerburg was a big Republican and started banning anti-gun or pro-life folks, for example, based on "misinformation", the left would be going bananas. They don't seem to care much now because it works in their favor.

“We” are going to do anything until “we” decide to have a functional government again.

 

[bripat9643]

Twitter has rights too, you know.

All the people Twitter has defamed also have rights.

 

[bripat9643]

Then Trump should take the person defaming him to court. Not ask the court to reinstate him, so as to allow a public fight on twitter.

Twitter is defaming him, dumbass.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Left doesn't care about the facts. That is the problem. Even as he calls for them not to do it, they ignore his statements. The TDS is just too strong. They hear what they want to hear, and no facts are going to change that.

As far as Twitter. Keep him locked down as that is best for him. I like Trump's policies, but admit, he doesn't have a filter.

I agree but Twitter can't legitimately ban him except as an explicitly political act. that ignores the
Bill of Rights.
The Taliban is allowed on Twitter but Trump is not and the left is defending this purely political
act to their death.

 

[Rigby5]

Actually there is a big difference. To be technical a content publisher would be known as a content producer, and is treated far differently than a content distributor.

It's like the Mann act.

The Mann Act (also known as the White-Slave Traffic Act of 1910) is a federal law that criminalizes the transportation of “any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose.”

The person who puts a woman on a bus, or a plane, or into a taxi out of state would be considered the producer. While the airline, bus company, or Uber would be the distributor.
With legal liability going solely to the producer, and none to the distributor.

Wrong.
The airline, bus company, or Uber would not know or have any criminal intent.
Terms are irrelevant.
If the airline, bus company or Uber driver knew and had criminal intent, they would be equally liable.

 

[bodecea]

I'm shocked you didn't know the history of Hamas and the Taliban.

I am referring to the wording in the TOS for Twitter.....unless you made that stuff up.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

if it's not, then it can be sued into bankruptcy.

which they can.

 

[postman]

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.

If you can ban the words of nudists, you can ban any subject, or position as long as it is clearly stated in the "terms of service".

In short, you can't force a kosher deli to serve ham.

 

[Nostra]

I am referring to the wording in the TOS for Twitter.....unless you made that stuff up.

If only the innerwebs had something for people to use to find such things. Someone call Owlgore.

 

[postman]

Wrong.
TOS can't be arbitrary or inherently discriminatory in wording or application.
If it harms no one and does not risk litigation, then it can't be censored, even if Twitter does not agree with it.

Like the way USMB is "anti-nudist"?

They can't discriminate like that. Right?

 

[postman]

The impeachments failed to find any guilt.
He was exonerated.
If he was banned for the same reason, that would then be criminal, since the impeachments were found to be groundless.

The impeachments, and subsequent trial, found Trump guilty under "preponderance" of the evidence. Which precludes saying he was exonerated.

Just because Trump wasn't found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" only makes him "not-guilty" not exonerated.

 

[Rigby5]

As they say, you couldn't be more wrong.
It is not illegal to give mis-information, such as telling people they can vote after election day, or that they don't need a license to carry a gun in New York. But Twitter is perfectly within their terms of service to keep such dangerous statements from being spread on their platform.

Wrong.
Deliberately publishing false information intended to cause harm, such as election or gun law lies, is exactly what can and should be prosecuted.
Twitter is not within its TOS or the law, when it arbitrarily decides a person is going to be banned even though they NOT ONCE ever posted anything remotely harmful.
The proper procedure by Twitter would have been to give Trump a warning as to what post was being removed and why, and he should have been told how many infractions would eventually lead to being banned.
That is normal and expected TOS.
But I do not believe Trump ever violated any TOS.
He is not that stupid.
But Twitter obviously is.
I think they violated basic law, big time, and I think Trump is going to win big.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

If you can ban the words of nudists, you can ban any subject, or position as long as it is clearly stated in the "terms of service".

I don't think the "words" of nudists are the issue.

In short, you can't force a kosher deli to serve ham.

And you can't force a baker to make special gay wedding cakes.
But the baker runs his business to his liking. He owns it all by himself

Twitter and Facebook can do what they like too....except for the fact that they must access
the public airwaves in order to run their fascist anti free speech businesses'.

So that's a vital distinction.

 

[postman]

Twitter is defaming him, dumbass.

Then Trump should sue twitter for "damages" not for reinstatement.

 

[Rigby5]

Twitter has rights too, you know.

Rights are a defense against someone doing something to Twitter.
No one is doing anything TO Twitter.
Twitter is the one DOING the arbitrary censorship.

 

[colfax_m]

Rights are a defense against someone doing something to Twitter.
No one is doing anything TO Twitter.
Twitter is the one DOING the arbitrary censorship.

Trump is asking the courts to force Twitter give him access.

That is definitely is someone doing something to Twitter and would be a violation of their rights.

 

[Nostra]

The impeachments, and subsequent trial, found Trump guilty under "preponderance" of the evidence. Which precludes saying he was exonerated.

Just because Trump wasn't found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" only makes him "not-guilty" not exonerated.

What bullshit.

Both trials were a joke. He was exonerated in both, which is why he was never removed from office.

 

[Rigby5]

Like the way USMB is "anti-nudist"?

They can't discriminate like that. Right?

How is this board "anti-nudist"?
How is that relevant?
Nudism can be censored because other can legitimately claim it causes them emotional harm or violates their religious beliefs.
It is not clear that preventing public nudism harms anyone, as nudism is not essential or a political belief.

 

[postman]

Wrong.
The airline, bus company, or Uber would not know or have any criminal intent.
Terms are irrelevant.
If the airline, bus company or Uber driver knew and had criminal intent, they would be equally liable.

The criminal intent is that of the "producer", not the "distributor". Twitter merely distributes tweets, it does not produce them. The airlines can't ban "hookers" from their flights, even if they suspect they are violating the Mann act, as they are a public carrier.