trump begs Florida judge to restore his Twitter account

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Opinion, data, info and unknown/known facts are not the same

Which explains nothing. I really am looking for an explanation. I feel like i am missing something. This should get laughed out of court immediately.

 

[366h34d]

Twitter's competitors.

Top 10 Twitter Competitors in 2025

Facebook, Instagram, Snap Inc., LinkedIn, Reddit, Quora, Tumblr, ByteDance, WhatsApp, and QZone.

whatcompetitors.com

They are not twitter's competitors. It is like saying "photoshop is acrobat's competitors"

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Yeah....people shouldn't have the right to speak their minds.
That's just plain un-American.

 

[366h34d]

Which explains nothing. I really am looking for an explanation. I feel like i am missing something. This should get laughed out of court immediately.

explain what ??, if you want law advice, you better hire a lawyer.

 

[366h34d]

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.

ya, what about left-wing? Did all those left-wing nuts del their tweets after Jan 6? C'mon, let be real.
That is your problem

 

[Kondor3]

Yeah....people shouldn't have the right to speak their minds.
That's just plain un-American.

Entirely true...

Right up to the moment when the Accused actually uses that platform to erode democratic norms, reinforce autocracy, and incite Insurrection...

At which point... phukk 'em... Public Safety wins the contest...

Which is exactly what happened to your lying arrogant ignorant traitorous piece-of-$hit Orange Baboon-God...

It helps that your Orange Turd violated the Terms of Agreement under which his account existed...

Rump was his own worst enemy... thank God...

And now the lying little kokksukker wants back in...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

explain what ??, if you want law advice, you better hire a lawyer.

Oh, my bad. I fell for you act, when you pretended to know something about this.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yeah....people shouldn't have the right to speak their minds.

Crybaby, stupid non sequitur. Nobody is stopping anyone from speaking their minds.

 

[colfax_m]

Yeah....people shouldn't have the right to speak their minds.
That's just plain un-American.

People do have a right to speak their minds.

But they don’t get to force others to perpetuate and broadcast that speech.

 

[bripat9643]

But not because others cannot enter the market. Cant price anyone out of the market, when the product is free. So not the same. That's why anti trust lawsuits against them are dubious

Oil had no power to prevent any company from entering the refining market, moron. You're confused about what the product is. Antitrust suits against Twitter are no more dubious than the antitrust suits against Standard Oil.

 

[bripat9643]

Ahh... So your complaints about government subsidizing, or monopoly power, or publisher status, or whatever, are beside the point. What you really want is to force them to treat everyone equally and impartially. Regardless of those other excuses.

So, what exactly do you mean by "treat everyone equally and impartially"? Do you mean like this?



Great question. Well, does it?

Quit playing stupid.

 

[bripat9643]

People do have a right to speak their minds.

But they don’t get to force others to perpetuate and broadcast that speech.

Does Twitter have a right to be protected from lawsuits?

 

[Iamartiewhitefox]

Trump did not say or do anything wrong. People who don't judge even as Jesus judged, when on the earth, will have Satan in their mind who, is always wrong.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Oil had no power to prevent any company from entering the refining market

A monopoly can't do that? Won't do that? Uh.... you don't have any idea what you are talking about, do ya?

 

[366h34d]

Oh, my bad. I fell for you act, when you pretended to know something about this.

I explain the idea, you don't get it, too bad, cannot help you.

People do have a right to speak their minds.

But they don’t get to force others to perpetuate and broadcast that speech.

section 230 for what???

 

[Rigby5]

Which explains nothing. I really am looking for an explanation. I feel like i am missing something. This should get laughed out of court immediately.

Not at all.
It was completely illegal for Twitter to discriminate against different political opinions by banning Trump when he had done nothing wrong or illegal.
A lot of lawyers will incorrectly claim that only race, religion, sex, nation of origin, age, pregnancy, citizenship, family status, disabilities, and genetic information are protected under the 1965 civil right act or a later law.
Those are the specifically listed protected classes, but lawyers then often incorrectly assume that all other discrimination is then legal.
Not at all!
The reality is that ALL discrimination is always illegal, and these protected classes are explicitly listed because they have a long history of being abused anyway.
But all you have to do is just think about it for a few seconds, and remember that the 14th amendment has an Equal Protection clause.
That means you can't have race being protected against discrimination, and not have political speech also protected.
Otherwise you would be violating the equal protection clause.

The only way banning Trump would be legal is if it could be proven he was violating rights with deliberately malicious lies, or was attempting to incite violence. I have seen Trump's tweets, like urging Pence to not validate the election results, and there was nothing illegal.
So then Twitter can not ban.
In fact, they can not even alter a single word of the tweets.
They were all perfectly legal.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I explain the idea, you don't get it, too bad, cannot help you.

You didn't explain anything. You rattled off a mundane fact. Nevermind, it's okay, believe me, I don't expect you can explain a damn thing.

 

[Rigby5]

People do have a right to speak their minds.

But they don’t get to force others to perpetuate and broadcast that speech.

They are obligated to post speech that is not illegal, does not violate any regulation, and the tweets are what Twitter has advertised as their functionality.
If not, then it is Twitter that is violating their own Terms of Service agreement.

 

[366h34d]

You didn't explain anything. You rattled off a mundane fact. Nevermind, it's okay, believe me, I don't expect you can explain a damn thing.

It is because you are clueless, and cannot distinguish between opinion, hard data, info and fact. If you can, you should know gov't should not tell social media companies what posts to suppress. And, I am not in the mood to explain it to you more.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If you can, you should know gov't should not tell social media companies what posts to suppress.

They can give recommendations all they like. Those companies do not want to be liable for an unstable, mentally ill president setting the country on fire. Simple as that. Come back up the rabbit hole, dude.