trump begs Florida judge to restore his Twitter account

[Faun]

When you demonstrate the ability to predict the future, perhaps someone will listen to you.

Biden has a 38% approval rating, fucking moron.

LOLOLOLOL

Fucking moron, it has nothing whatsoever to do with making predictions. Trump won' be making any judicial appointments in 2024. That you think he can only serves to further highlight what a fucking moron you are.

 

[Faun]

Where did a prove that, fucking moron?

You proved it by failing to prove my definition is wrong.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Johm Stossel is suing Twitter for exactly that reason, turd.

No. He is suing Facebook, not Twitter. And he is suing for defamation, not for being banned. Dude, you don't have any idea what you are talking about, do you?


By the way, his lawsuit is a joke and will get laughed out of court. Stossel knows this. He is doing it to keep his idiot audience in a constant state of ignorant agitation. It's theater.

And you thinking he is suing Twitter for being banned shows that he is right about his idiot audience and that his tactic is effective.

 

[Nostra]

LOLOL

The only judges Trump can appoint are ones to work as waiters at Mar-a-Lago.

Which puts him one up on you.

 

[Faun]

Which puts him one up on you.

Poor dumbfuck, I was kidding about that. He can't actually make any judicial appointments at Mar-a-Lago.

 

[Nostra]

Poor dumbfuck, I was kidding about that. He can't actually make any judicial appointments at Mar-a-Lago.

Glad to see you admit you are a liar, finally.

 

[Faun]

Glad to see you admit you are a liar, finally.

LOL

Your desperation is noted and laughed at.

Speaking of laughing at you, tell me again how Clinton was disbarred when you yourself posted a link saying he was only suspended.

 

[Nostra]

LOL

Your desperation is noted and laughed at.

Speaking of laughing at you, tell me again how Clinton was disbarred when you yourself posted a link saying he was only suspended.

Link. Correctly said disbarred. Why lie?

 

[Faun]

Link. Correctly said disbarred. Why lie?

LOLOL

Hook, line AND sinker, just as I expected.



Dumbfuck, from YOUR link...

The ruling, found on the last page of the high court's listings for the new session, ordered that: "Bill Clinton of New York, New York be suspended of the practice of law in this court and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this court."​

 

[Nostra]

LOLOL

Hook, line AND sinker, just as I expected.



Dumbfuck, from YOUR link...

The ruling, found on the last page of the high court's listings for the new session, ordered that: "Bill Clinton of New York, New York be suspended of the practice of law in this court and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this court."​

And slick never showed up to show why he shouldn’t be disbarred, did he?

You lose again, Simpleton.

 

[Faun]

And slick never showed up to show why he shouldn’t be disbarred, did he?

You lose again, Simpleton.

LOLOL

Of course he did. He showed up to submit his resignation from that court and they accepted it. He was never disbarred.

But g'head, tell me again how I lose while I'm bitch-slapping you silly with the backside of my pimp hand.

 

[Nostra]

LOLOL

Of course he did. He showed up to submit his resignation from that court and they accepted it. He was never disbarred.

But g'head, tell me again how I lose while I'm bitch-slapping you silly with the backside of my pimp hand.

Disbarred, Dumbass.. Slick knew he had no defense for his crimes against the court. The fact he tried to run and hide won’t change the facts.

 

[Faun]

Disbarred, Dumbass.. Slick knew he had no defense for his crimes against the court. The fact he tried to run and hide won’t change the facts.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, the court can't disbar a non-member of the Supreme Court Bar.

You really are as dumb as you look.

Keep 'em coming, dumbfuck -- you're cracking me up!

 

[Nostra]

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, the court can't disbar a non-member of the Supreme Court Bar.

You really are as dumb as you look.

Keep 'em coming, dumbfuck -- you're cracking me up!

 

[Faun]

I'm doin' ok, dumbfuck. Right now, you're my entertainment. I'm not quite done making fun of you...

Here are examples of the court's listings when they actually disbar a member....

Attorney Discipline

No. D–2268. In the Matter of Disbarment of William Paul Kaszynski. Disbarment order entered.

No. D–2269. In the Matter of Disbarment of William Bernard Haller. Disbarment order entered.

No. D–2275. In the Matter of Disbarment of Edward L. Wright, Jr. Disbarment order entered.​

... and here's what they entered for Clinton ...

No. D–2270. In the Matter of Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton, of New York, New York, having requested to resign as a member of the Bar of this Court, it is ordered that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to the practice of law before this Court. The Rule to Show Cause, issued on October 1, 2001, is discharged

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/journal/jnl01.pdf

 

[Rigby5]

LOLOL

If that were true, fucking moron, this website would have been sued into oblivion.

While the laws relevant to the internet are clear that discrimination and censorship are illegal, the problem with the internet is that the FCC and FTC are totally overwhelmed by the vastness of the internet. So any sort of legal satisfaction is nearly impossible.

 

[Faun]

While the laws relevant to the internet are clear that discrimination and censorship are illegal, the problem with the internet is that the FCC and FTC are totally overwhelmed by the vastness of the internet. So any sort of legal satisfaction is nearly impossible.

And that these sites not being common carriers, helps.

 

[Faun]

Nostra

Dumbfuck, where'd ya go?

Run off again with your tail tucked firmly betwixt your hind legs?

Funniest part about this? This is at lest the second time I've exposed your ignorance about Clinton's Articles of Impeachment. Proving once again you're incapable of learning.

 

[Rigby5]

And that these sites not being common carriers, helps.

Wrong.
Social media are common carriers.
They transport posts from different authors and allow them to be viewed by different readers.
{...
A common carrier in common law countries (corresponding to a public carrier in some civil law systems, usually called simply a carrier) is a person or company that transports goods or people for any person or company and is responsible for any possible loss of the goods during transport. A common carrier offers its services to the general public under license or authority provided by a regulatory body, which has usually been granted "ministerial authority" by the legislation that created it. The regulatory body may create, interpret, and enforce its regulations upon the common carrier (subject to judicial review) with independence and finality as long as it acts within the bounds of the enabling legislation.
...}
The point of common carriers is they do not create content, so then are immune to suit over content.
Social media WANT the protection that common carrier status gives them.

Since they do not create the content, they can only be common carriers and nothing else, so they can't be sued over content, and they then also can not censor or discriminate.

Contrast that with something like a newspaper, that even when they publish letter to the editor, they deny some, cut or reduce others, etc.
Newspapers are not common carriers because they create their own content and warn people who send them letters, that they won't necessarily be published.

When US Message Board bans or censors, they most definitely are violating the law, but the problem is the FCC and FTC are way too overwhelmed to do anything about it.

With social media, the stated impressions are the media won't alter, censor, or ban unless very specific legal boundaries are violated so that others are harmed.

 

[Faun]

Wrong.
Social media are common carriers.
They transport posts from different authors and allow them to be viewed by different readers.
{...
A common carrier in common law countries (corresponding to a public carrier in some civil law systems, usually called simply a carrier) is a person or company that transports goods or people for any person or company and is responsible for any possible loss of the goods during transport. A common carrier offers its services to the general public under license or authority provided by a regulatory body, which has usually been granted "ministerial authority" by the legislation that created it. The regulatory body may create, interpret, and enforce its regulations upon the common carrier (subject to judicial review) with independence and finality as long as it acts within the bounds of the enabling legislation.
...}
The point of common carriers is they do not create content, so then are immune to suit over content.
Social media WANT the protection that common carrier status gives them.

Since they do not create the content, they can only be common carriers and nothing else, so they can't be sued over content, and they then also can not censor or discriminate.

Contrast that with something like a newspaper, that even when they publish letter to the editor, they deny some, cut or reduce others, etc.
Newspapers are not common carriers because they create their own content and warn people who send them letters, that they won't necessarily be published.

When US Message Board bans or censors, they most definitely are violating the law, but the problem is the FCC and FTC are way too overwhelmed to do anything about it.

With social media, the stated impressions are the media won't alter, censor, or ban unless very specific legal boundaries are violated so that others are harmed.

Nope, and they won't be one just because you're ignorant. A required element is that they transport people or goods and they don't. You can't be a common carrier if you don't carry. Another required element is that they charge a fee for such transportation and they don't charge anyone anything for that service.