trump begs Florida judge to restore his Twitter account

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's really not my concern. That can be handled in civil court, user vs. platform.

My biggest concern is government using the private sector to circumvent constitutional protections.

How does that make sense? You have no constitutional right to post on Twitter.

 

[colfax_m]

Only a total Democrat shill would call the Biden administration telling social media companies what posts to suppress free market. Wow

All social media platforms have methods for reporting content to moderators.

 

[colfax_m]

How does that make sense? You have no constitutional right to post on Twitter.

Unlike most of the airhead conservatives in this thread, Bootney actually understands the issue in the lawsuit.

The federal government cannot censor speech protected by the first amendment. Meaning, if the government owned Twitter, they couldn't ban Trump for being an asshat. But the government doesn't own Twitter, obviously. Trump is claiming that the government has enough influence on Twitter and that Twitter is so beholden to the government that they are basically an agent of the government and therefore Twitter must likewise obey the same restrictions that government would have.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

How does that make sense? You have no constitutional right to post on Twitter.

If you don't already get it, you will never. Leave this discussion to the adults.

 

[dblack]

Trump is claiming that the government has enough influence on Twitter and that Twitter is so beholden to the government that they are basically an agent of the government and therefore Twitter must likewise obey the same restrictions that government would have.

And, if proven, that's a serious problem. But again, I don't think that's Trump concern, nor is it the concern of his supporters. I don't think most of them can even reason at that level, including Trump. I think Trump was just mad at Twitter for banning him and told his lawyers to sue. For something. Anything.

 

[colfax_m]

And if that's happening, we should nail them. If Trump can prove that members of Congress, or officials from the White House, told Twitter (or any other company) - "do what we tell you or we'll **** you up" (or any other sort of threat), that's a serious breach and something we should raise hell about.

But I don't think that's established. It's certainly possible. But it seems to me more likely that these companies are simply got sick of Trump's trolling, and after the Jan 6th became worried about the legal repercussions. They're also facing very real and intractable problems with people using their platforms to spread propaganda, and their at a loss for how to deal with them, legally and practically.

It's going to need more than that. They would also need to show that Twitter acted because of those threats. The content we are talking about may well be as objectionable to Congress members making threats as Twitter themselves.

 

[dblack]

It's going to need more than that. They would also need to show that Twitter acted because of those threats.

Disagree. The threats are enough. If the government wants to go after the purveyors or misinformation, it needs to use the constitutional legislative process and pass laws that it can then enforce. This is what Bootney Lee Farnsworth was referring to with "using the private sector to circumvent constitutional protections." The concern is that they're trying to use such threats to impose policy without going through the legitimate process.

 

[bodecea]

Nazis!!!!!

 

[bodecea]

dblack: "Twitter, FB, etc, do not have monopolies."

What a jackass. Their competition is ... who ???

Whoever wants to start up a company, like Parler.

 

[colfax_m]

Disagree. The threats are enough. If the government wants to go after the purveyors or misinformation, it needs to use the constitutional legislative process and pass laws that it can then enforce. This is what Bootney Lee Farnsworth was referring to with "using the private sector to circumvent constitutional protections." The concern is that they're using such threats to impose policy without going through the legitimate process.

Making Twitter into a government actor isn't a small thing, it's a huge damn deal specifically to the rights and abilities to Twitter.

Twitter cannot become a government actor merely because of the actions of someone else. They have to have some part in the decision.

 

[dblack]

Making Twitter into a government actor isn't a small thing, it's a huge damn deal specifically to the rights and abilities to Twitter.

Not sure what technically qualifies a "government actor", but that's not really my concern. Government agencies coercing businesses outside vetted legislation is what bothers me. That's neither a democracy, nor a republic. It's authoritarian government.

 

[Rambunctious]

If Trump had really called for violence we would have seen violence and the dems would all be in camps while we weed them out and put them on trial...

 

[colfax_m]

If Trump had really called for violence we would have seen violence and the dems would all be in camps while we weed them out and put them on trial...

Who is “we”?

 

[dblack]

Who is “we”?

People wearing shirts of a brownish color.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

If Trump had really called for violence we would have seen violence and the dems would all be in camps while we weed them out and put them on trial...

If he had been so mad as to do that explicitly, he would be in prison or dead today, as would any fascist lunatics who were stupid enough to follow him. Your sick fantasy won’t ever happen. Trump would never endanger his own ass. You are encouraging right wing terrorism with your comment.

 

[Blaine Sweeter]

Twitter wouldn't be catering to Trump....they would simply be ending their oppression of right-wing speech.
If Biden hadn't stole the election Trump probably would be going after them for their unconstitutional acts.
Twitter grants the Taliban unfettered access yet they think Trump's ideas are dangerous?

Are you on Twitter? Obviously not. There's PLENTY of right wing speech. And there's a lot of hate speech. Donald being one of the biggest haters and LIARS. So Jack Dorsey tolerated Trump's constant TOS violations for a long time before he kicked Trump's fat ass to the curb.

 

[colfax_m]

People wearing shirts of a brownish color.

Yeah, I'm not sure the "Trump supporters would willingly violate human rights should he ask us to" is as helpful of an argument as this poster sees it.

 

[bripat9643]

It's seems difficult for you to comprehend what private ownership means. They can do what they like and you sign up to those rules. If he wasn't doing anything wrong, why did he get booted? Think about it you fool, if it doesn't torture your brain.
The fact he has gone should tell you the power they have over the president. You can't be so ignorant.

He is gone and won't be back until they say so.

Says a douchebag who is constantly demanding that a baker make a cake that says what a couple of homosexuals want it to say.

Doe it ever occur to your morons that no believes your excuses because the go directly contrary to what you've said in other such controversies?

 

[bripat9643]

Are you on Twitter? Obviously not. There's PLENTY of right wing speech. And there's a lot of hate speech. Donald being one of the biggest haters and LIARS. So Jack Dorsey tolerated Trump's constant TOS violations for a long time before he kicked Trump's fat ass to the curb.

They weren't violations until Dorsey changed the rules. Now anything Dorsey doesn't like is a violation. It has nothing to do with any objectively enforced terms of service.

 

[bripat9643]

The point is, if you have a problem with the system, let's fix the system. Instead, you want to use it as and excuse to bully companies you don't like.

Fixing the system means forcing Twitter and Facebook to treat people equally and impartially. What did you have in mind, incessant whining?