trump begs Florida judge to restore his Twitter account

[postman]

Wrong.
Deliberately publishing false information intended to cause harm, such as election or gun law lies, is exactly what can and should be prosecuted.

Should be prosecuted, YES.

Can be prosecuted, NO.

As the first amendment protects such speech by the general public. But as often pointed out, that private companies by their terms of service, can preclude them.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Nonsense.
There was no guilt found at all.
Not a single shred.
And since then it has been documented that the cases against Trump were illegally crafted with foreign collusion.
It is not illegal for a future candidate to convince a foreign power to delay retaliation.
The economic sanctions against Russia were totally illegal anyway, and Reagan created the precedent for candidates to negotiate with foreign powers.

 

[postman]

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

Pictures are "speech" under the 1st amendment.
If you can't post pictures of completely naked people are USMB, that's banning 1st amendment speech.

But as a private company, they can have a term of service covering that.

 

[postman]

And you can't force a baker to make special gay wedding cakes.


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.
[/QUOTE]

A baker has to access the public roads, and other infrastructure in order to run his business.

 

[bripat9643]

which they can.

Not according to how Democrats interpret the law.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

Fact remains that the commerce clause is justification for the CRA title 2 and not the 14th amendment. The commerce clause gives the federal government to regulate. It is far more reaching than as you've described it. You can disagree all you want, but the facts are what they are and your legal theories are just that, your legal theories.

All laws in all states have to be constitutional, that's a huge part of the 14th amendment. Equal protection means that you can't apply laws differently to different people. They don't need to pass any laws.

Anyway, let me know when you find the FCC and FTC regulations you're referring to. So far, you've refused to do so. The 1st amendment isn't the source. It does not apply to the internet companies.

 

[bripat9643]

Pictures are "speech" under the 1st amendment.
If you can't post pictures of completely naked people are USMB, that's banning 1st amendment speech.

But as a private company, they can have a term of service covering that.

Once again, you post pure horseshit. Their terms of service are irrelevant and illegal.

 

[postman]

What bullshit.

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

Trump was never exonerated, in another court, by preponderance of the evidence, he would have been guilty.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Trump can sue for whatever he likes. Your opinion is irrelevant.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Not according to how Democrats interpret the law.

https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-rules-twitter-can-be-sued-for-failing-to-take-down-child-porn-videos/

 

[postman]

Nudism can be censored because other can legitimately claim it causes them emotional harm or violates their religious beliefs.

Really? Every religion I know of, has people brought into the world naked.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Wrong.
If Twitter censors political views they do not like, that is identical to producing tweets of political views they do like.
They ARE controlling content.
And that is illegal.

As for hookers, suspicion has nothing to do with it.
If they deliberately go to pimps with a bargain deal to profit share on special hooker flights, that obviously would be prosecutable.
Suspicion is irrelevant.
Actual knowledge and intent is required.
And I have seen nothing to indicate any criminal intent on the part of Trump.
I believe he is foolish, but I believe he is sincere in his belief the election was stolen.
Many elections have been stolen, like hanging chads and butterfly ballots.
And any use of voting machines at all is an obvious attempt at fraud.
No voting machine should ever be tolerated at all.

 

[Nostra]

Trump was never exonerated, in another court, by preponderance of the evidence, he would have been guilty.

We aren't talking about your make believe court, Dumbass. Try to stick with reality for once.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Wrong.
In no way could it possibly harm Twitter, to reinstate Trump.
In fact it would do the opposite, in that it would increase interest in Twitter.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

A baker has to access the public roads, and other infrastructure in order to run his business.

How long have you been practicing law, counselor?
You strain credulity to the breaking point by bringing in our road ways in your arguments.

 

[colfax_m]

Yes, Twitter is a common carrier. if it's not, then it can be sued into bankruptcy.

Twitter is not a common carrier. You can sue it if you want, but you will lose and your lawyers will have a good laugh as they cash your check.

 

[Nostra]

https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-rules-twitter-can-be-sued-for-failing-to-take-down-child-porn-videos/

The hipster billionaire should put in his TOS he can post child porn. Problem solved.

 

[colfax_m]

Wrong.
In no way could it possibly harm Twitter, to reinstate Trump.
In fact it would do the opposite, in that it would increase interest in Twitter.

Forcing Twitter to do what they don't want to would deprive them of their rights.

Last time I checked, it's always harmful to deprive someone of their rights.

 

[postman]

Nonsense.
There was no guilt found at all.
Not a single shred.

At the trial, 57 senators voted "guilty", which is less than the two-thirds majority needed (67) to convict Trump

Bi-partisan vote of guilty by the preponderance of the evidence.

So much for your claim there wasn't a shred of evidence.

 

[postman]

Once again, you post pure horseshit. Their terms of service are irrelevant and illegal.

Are you referring to twitters terms of service, or those of USMB?