Trump considers panel to review complaints of anticonservative bias on social media

[colfax_m]

Public internet bandwaves? WTF are you talking about? Twitter isn’t a radio station. They don’t broadcast tweets.

"the FCC classified the internet as a regulated utility under the 1934 Telecommunications Act."
So what rock did you just crawl out from under?

Don’t like twitter. Don’t use twitter. That’s the American way of solving a problem. Not by using the heavy hand of government.

Don't like white only lunch counters and schools? Don't use them then. That's how we do things in
America, right?

The "heavy hand of government" is perfectly appropriate for dealing with monopolistic authoritarians that
don't believe in freedom of speech. Get your ass to China if you don't like our system of government.

Frankly fascists like you turn my stomach.

The FCC under Trump repealed the utility designation for the internet. Regardless, it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. That is a regulation about internet access, not internet content. Not under a rock, it’s just that you’re confused.

The internet is infinite. Lunch counters, motels and other public accommodations not so much. We don’t need public accommodation laws for the internet.

Calling me a fascist is particularly ironic given you want to use government force against private individuals for perceived slights against the ruling political party. I’m the free market proponent here, doofus.

 

[satrebil]

Public internet bandwaves? WTF are you talking about? Twitter isn’t a radio station. They don’t broadcast tweets.

"the FCC classified the internet as a regulated utility under the 1934 Telecommunications Act."
So what rock did you just crawl out from under?

Don’t like twitter. Don’t use twitter. That’s the American way of solving a problem. Not by using the heavy hand of government.

Don't like white only lunch counters and schools? Don't use them then. That's how we do things in
America, right?

The "heavy hand of government" is perfectly appropriate for dealing with monopolistic authoritarians that
don't believe in freedom of speech. Get your ass to China if you don't like our system of government.

Frankly fascists like you turn my stomach.

The FCC under Trump repealed the utility designation for the internet. Regardless, it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. That is a regulation about internet access, not internet content. Not under a rock, it’s just that you’re confused.

The internet is infinite. Lunch counters, motels and other public accommodations not so much. We don’t need public accommodation laws for the internet.

Calling me a fascist is particularly ironic given you want to use government force against private individuals for perceived slights against the ruling political party. I’m the free market proponent here, doofus.

So what's your stance on the local eatery refusing service to black people?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

The FCC under Trump repealed the utility designation for the internet. Regardless, it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. That is a regulation about internet access, not internet content. Not under a rock, it’s just that you’re confused.

So did you read the OP or not? What's that all about if everything is running so well?

I'm not confused here. You are and you are running out of hiding room.

The internet is infinite. Lunch counters, motels and other public accommodations not so much. We don’t need public accommodation laws for the internet.

Yes! We do! Especially when Big Tech Giants make these popular monopolies an arm of the DNC and globalist swine. Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. are political apparatus' of the left. Is that what Congress had in mind when Big Tech was allowed to
maintain themselves as monopolies.

Calling me a fascist is particularly ironic given you want to use government force against private individuals for perceived slights against the ruling political party. I’m the free market proponent here, doofus.

Sure you are, jackass! These so called "perceived" slights are all intended to give
the DNC and left in general the upper hand. Keep lying...it makes you look so "good".

 

[WEATHER53]

So Trump is upset that more people on social media dislike him than those that like him. How is that going to work? Is he going to force people that don't like him to write nice things about him? Who is going to decide which people are forced to write nice things about him to make it all even? Wouldn't it be easier for him to just stop doing such stupid things so more people would like him?

That is not remotely what the OP says. What fantasy world do you live it? It has nothing to do with Trump. My friend was banned from Twitter for being pro Israel and posting factual pro Israel data. Puzzling to him as he said Twitter didn’t mind seeing anti Israel and pro Palestine posts. This to me is fine but then Twitter needs to be registered as a content provider vs content disseminator. Cannot have it both ways.

Is a book store a content provider or content disseminator?

Depends. Twitter says they are like AT&T... we just deliver what people say. If you call me a moonbat over the phone AT&T doesn’t block that. Twitter may so they aren’t like AT&T they are more like The NY Times. Generic bookstore is a provider. They also don’t ban people from coming in and out.

No one is banned from looking at twitter but certainly a bookstore picks and chooses what books are on the shelves.

And yet a bookstore can not be sued for defamation as a content provider. They don’t know what’s in every book and couldn’t possibly be asked to do so.

Twitter is the same way. Just because they take some things off their platform when they discover objectionable content (as a bookstore may pull books off their shelves if they discover content in a book they don’t like) doesn’t mean they can be legally responsible for every statement.

This is common sense to me.

I can go to another bookstore. Twitter is almost a Monopoly although my kids don’t use it and say it’s for old people. A bookstore if generic will only worry about making money and selling books. Twitter doesn’t make money and decides who they will and will not block. To me they are nothing like AT&T and should not be regulated as such. So this panel can investigate and see which one of us is correct. Why is that so bad? For example this site is a disseminator not a provider. To me they treat the crazies on the Alt Right and Leftists equally and those in the middle (myself) see both sides. That’s fair. As I understand it, Twitter doesn’t do that.

You can go to another website. We don’t need Trump’s committee telling us what is fair.

What other App? Twitter has a sort of monopoly. It is not just Trump. Like I posted earlier. Twitter is very anti Israel. They certainly skew the narrative and block those who disagree. This is fine but it should be regulated as a content provider vs. a disseminator IMO. You disagree why is it bad to have it investigated?

Don’t like it? Here’s what you do. Go to squarespace. Plunk down $12 a month. Publish a website about anything you want.

Stop bothering everyone else.

No committee needed!

You don't understand. It is about how they are regulated. If they claim to not be a provider then they cannot discriminate on what content is or is not available. I don't care if they block people, I care if they can lawfully do it while stating they are just like AT&T or Verizon. They aren't so should not be treated as such. Again, you could be right or I could be right, why not have legal experts examine who is? What is your issue with that? Please explain.

No problem. If someone has a vested interest in changing the way certain social media sites work, they they should finance their own research, and present their findings to the court. It's not the government's responsibility to join a side in private business dealings just because more people oppose Trump than support him.

Nothing to do with Trump. Everything to do with my kids getting on social media as they are that age now and I want to make sure it is regulated properly.

So now you want the government to raise your kids for you?

I don’t think he actually knows what he wants. Or at least seems afraid to admit it if he does.

I stated what I want several times. You're the one trolling here and then when I fire back you get offended and place me on ignore....

You’ve made some vague references to regulations but no idea what you’re goal is.

Goal is to hold Twitter accountable. I don't buy all their "accidental" account suspensions.

Accountable for what? They have no obligation to keep any accounts they don’t want.

I disagree. They are a publisher of content. They should be held accountable just as the LA Times is held accountable.

It’s impossible. Twitter can’t be responsible for the millions upon millions of tweets published every day.

Yet somehow it finds a select few to note and ban? I am sure they can manage.

Well, yeah. They can’t monitor everything but sometimes when they get reports on some they ban them. You’re not being logical.

If my friend isn't lying and he basically said Palestine never existed as a country, that should not be worth a ban. IMO. But its their platform. USMB is very fair IMO how they do it here. Twitter from what I hear and read is not.

Twitter is a private company. They have no obligation to be fair.

The ridiculous assertion once again that private companies can do whatever they want because they are a private company

 

[WEATHER53]

This is pretty weak. Twitter is not considered the speaker of content published on their platform. That’s the law. Whether they delete something or not is irrelevant.

Not irrelevant at all! Every time Twitter or some big authoritarian tech giant shuts out conservative voices
and lets some leftist voice speak instead they are expressing a preference and their opinion.
Twitter depends entirely on the posts of others and that means they produce virtually no content of their
own and supposedly have a duty to express all points of view.

Tell your conservative voices not to lie or use hate speech. Then they won't get "shut down".

Hate speech defined by you is what you don’t want to become informed of or disagree with

 

[Crepitus]

This is pretty weak. Twitter is not considered the speaker of content published on their platform. That’s the law. Whether they delete something or not is irrelevant.

Not irrelevant at all! Every time Twitter or some big authoritarian tech giant shuts out conservative voices
and lets some leftist voice speak instead they are expressing a preference and their opinion.
Twitter depends entirely on the posts of others and that means they produce virtually no content of their
own and supposedly have a duty to express all points of view.

Tell your conservative voices not to lie or use hate speech. Then they won't get "shut down".

Hate speech defined by you is what you don’t want to become informed of or disagree with

No. Hate speech has a legal definition.

Sorry about your luck.

 

[WEATHER53]

This is pretty weak. Twitter is not considered the speaker of content published on their platform. That’s the law. Whether they delete something or not is irrelevant.

Not irrelevant at all! Every time Twitter or some big authoritarian tech giant shuts out conservative voices
and lets some leftist voice speak instead they are expressing a preference and their opinion.
Twitter depends entirely on the posts of others and that means they produce virtually no content of their
own and supposedly have a duty to express all points of view.

Tell your conservative voices not to lie or use hate speech. Then they won't get "shut down".

Hate speech defined by you is what you don’t want to become informed of or disagree with

No. Hate speech has a legal definition.

Sorry about your luck.

You are welcome to post the exact wording but it’s still an arbitrary conclusion because it’s based on one persons speech uniquely effecting another as opposed to uniformly effecting all. Also, other than hurting those special snowflake feelings I’m unsure of what disgruntled speech actually does?

 

[WEATHER53]

A charge of censorship can only be leveled against government, not private entities. Even if this were not true, there is no cogent and consistent definition of "conservativism" to work from.

I am not on social media, but the owners/operators are free to set up their own rules, like prohibiting comments that incite violence or revenge porn or those that simply are blame rants against some demographic group.

I hope at the very least the government exposes what Twitter deems a "bot" (oh a Trump supporter, he must be a bot, time to ban his account!"). Let's view why they deem a artificial bottleneck necessary (or anything but creepy) of Trump supporter accounts followers, shadow ban and hide their responses, the new cool term for weak, limp wristed free speak destroying nerds, 'deboosting".

Your social media businesses our operating like our police forces and the businesses they covertly operate in, tamper with, control and ultimately crush. All in the name of "security" or some other flaky, dishonest justification designed to keep their budgets humming even as Canadians are demanding politicians cut them deep. The pandemic has created louder voices against these abuses.

Anyone is free to cheerlead the silencing of others. Don't think it won't come around to you, your families, or your own liberty at one point or another. Just as foreign nations avoid investing in Canada and laugh at how weak our economy and freedoms are, you may find the same occurs when they laugh at how easily they silence any pro-American messages online. The long term impact is great for enemies of the U.S and big media trying to control the narrative. It hurts your free speech.

Wonderful discussion

 

[satrebil]

This is pretty weak. Twitter is not considered the speaker of content published on their platform. That’s the law. Whether they delete something or not is irrelevant.

Not irrelevant at all! Every time Twitter or some big authoritarian tech giant shuts out conservative voices
and lets some leftist voice speak instead they are expressing a preference and their opinion.
Twitter depends entirely on the posts of others and that means they produce virtually no content of their
own and supposedly have a duty to express all points of view.

Tell your conservative voices not to lie or use hate speech. Then they won't get "shut down".

Hate speech defined by you is what you don’t want to become informed of or disagree with

No. Hate speech has a legal definition.

Sorry about your luck.

Not in this country, fucko.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/

 

[Crepitus]

This is pretty weak. Twitter is not considered the speaker of content published on their platform. That’s the law. Whether they delete something or not is irrelevant.

Not irrelevant at all! Every time Twitter or some big authoritarian tech giant shuts out conservative voices
and lets some leftist voice speak instead they are expressing a preference and their opinion.
Twitter depends entirely on the posts of others and that means they produce virtually no content of their
own and supposedly have a duty to express all points of view.

Tell your conservative voices not to lie or use hate speech. Then they won't get "shut down".

Hate speech defined by you is what you don’t want to become informed of or disagree with

No. Hate speech has a legal definition.

Sorry about your luck.

Not in this country, fucko.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/

Sorry, but you apparently don't understand your own link.

 

[satrebil]

This is pretty weak. Twitter is not considered the speaker of content published on their platform. That’s the law. Whether they delete something or not is irrelevant.

Not irrelevant at all! Every time Twitter or some big authoritarian tech giant shuts out conservative voices
and lets some leftist voice speak instead they are expressing a preference and their opinion.
Twitter depends entirely on the posts of others and that means they produce virtually no content of their
own and supposedly have a duty to express all points of view.

Tell your conservative voices not to lie or use hate speech. Then they won't get "shut down".

Hate speech defined by you is what you don’t want to become informed of or disagree with

No. Hate speech has a legal definition.

Sorry about your luck.

Not in this country, fucko.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/

Sorry, but you apparently don't understand your own link.

No?

For something to have a "legal definition" it has to be recognized in a court of law. The highest court in the land has deemed there is no such thing as hate speech, therefore your claims of a legal definition for such are completely bunk.

Sit down, moron.

 

[colfax_m]

Sure you are, jackass! These so called "perceived" slights are all intended to give
the DNC and left in general the upper hand. Keep lying...it makes you look so "good".

So that’s your real problem. Someone built something that is great and you want to use it for your own purposes.

And the only way to get what you want is by force.

 

[satrebil]

Sure you are, jackass! These so called "perceived" slights are all intended to give
the DNC and left in general the upper hand. Keep lying...it makes you look so "good".

So that’s your real problem. Someone built something that is great and you want to use it for your own purposes.

And the only way to get what you want is by force.

Wait... when did we start talking about the healthcare system?

 

[Crepitus]

This is pretty weak. Twitter is not considered the speaker of content published on their platform. That’s the law. Whether they delete something or not is irrelevant.

Not irrelevant at all! Every time Twitter or some big authoritarian tech giant shuts out conservative voices
and lets some leftist voice speak instead they are expressing a preference and their opinion.
Twitter depends entirely on the posts of others and that means they produce virtually no content of their
own and supposedly have a duty to express all points of view.

Tell your conservative voices not to lie or use hate speech. Then they won't get "shut down".

Hate speech defined by you is what you don’t want to become informed of or disagree with

No. Hate speech has a legal definition.

Sorry about your luck.

Not in this country, fucko.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/

Sorry, but you apparently don't understand your own link.

No?

For something to have a "legal definition" it has to be recognized in a court of law. The highest court in the land has deemed there is no such thing as hate speech, therefore your claims of a legal definition for such are completely bunk.

Sit down, moron.

Again, you aren't understanding the thrust of that ruling.

It doesn't say what you think it does.

Maybe 3 years of supporting tRump has completely destroyed your ability to think for yourself.

 

[colfax_m]

So Trump is upset that more people on social media dislike him than those that like him. How is that going to work? Is he going to force people that don't like him to write nice things about him? Who is going to decide which people are forced to write nice things about him to make it all even? Wouldn't it be easier for him to just stop doing such stupid things so more people would like him?

That is not remotely what the OP says. What fantasy world do you live it? It has nothing to do with Trump. My friend was banned from Twitter for being pro Israel and posting factual pro Israel data. Puzzling to him as he said Twitter didn’t mind seeing anti Israel and pro Palestine posts. This to me is fine but then Twitter needs to be registered as a content provider vs content disseminator. Cannot have it both ways.

Is a book store a content provider or content disseminator?

Depends. Twitter says they are like AT&T... we just deliver what people say. If you call me a moonbat over the phone AT&T doesn’t block that. Twitter may so they aren’t like AT&T they are more like The NY Times. Generic bookstore is a provider. They also don’t ban people from coming in and out.

No one is banned from looking at twitter but certainly a bookstore picks and chooses what books are on the shelves.

And yet a bookstore can not be sued for defamation as a content provider. They don’t know what’s in every book and couldn’t possibly be asked to do so.

Twitter is the same way. Just because they take some things off their platform when they discover objectionable content (as a bookstore may pull books off their shelves if they discover content in a book they don’t like) doesn’t mean they can be legally responsible for every statement.

This is common sense to me.

I can go to another bookstore. Twitter is almost a Monopoly although my kids don’t use it and say it’s for old people. A bookstore if generic will only worry about making money and selling books. Twitter doesn’t make money and decides who they will and will not block. To me they are nothing like AT&T and should not be regulated as such. So this panel can investigate and see which one of us is correct. Why is that so bad? For example this site is a disseminator not a provider. To me they treat the crazies on the Alt Right and Leftists equally and those in the middle (myself) see both sides. That’s fair. As I understand it, Twitter doesn’t do that.

You can go to another website. We don’t need Trump’s committee telling us what is fair.

What other App? Twitter has a sort of monopoly. It is not just Trump. Like I posted earlier. Twitter is very anti Israel. They certainly skew the narrative and block those who disagree. This is fine but it should be regulated as a content provider vs. a disseminator IMO. You disagree why is it bad to have it investigated?

Don’t like it? Here’s what you do. Go to squarespace. Plunk down $12 a month. Publish a website about anything you want.

Stop bothering everyone else.

No committee needed!

You don't understand. It is about how they are regulated. If they claim to not be a provider then they cannot discriminate on what content is or is not available. I don't care if they block people, I care if they can lawfully do it while stating they are just like AT&T or Verizon. They aren't so should not be treated as such. Again, you could be right or I could be right, why not have legal experts examine who is? What is your issue with that? Please explain.

No problem. If someone has a vested interest in changing the way certain social media sites work, they they should finance their own research, and present their findings to the court. It's not the government's responsibility to join a side in private business dealings just because more people oppose Trump than support him.

Nothing to do with Trump. Everything to do with my kids getting on social media as they are that age now and I want to make sure it is regulated properly.

So now you want the government to raise your kids for you?

I don’t think he actually knows what he wants. Or at least seems afraid to admit it if he does.

I stated what I want several times. You're the one trolling here and then when I fire back you get offended and place me on ignore....

You’ve made some vague references to regulations but no idea what you’re goal is.

Goal is to hold Twitter accountable. I don't buy all their "accidental" account suspensions.

Accountable for what? They have no obligation to keep any accounts they don’t want.

I disagree. They are a publisher of content. They should be held accountable just as the LA Times is held accountable.

It’s impossible. Twitter can’t be responsible for the millions upon millions of tweets published every day.

Yet somehow it finds a select few to note and ban? I am sure they can manage.

Well, yeah. They can’t monitor everything but sometimes when they get reports on some they ban them. You’re not being logical.

If my friend isn't lying and he basically said Palestine never existed as a country, that should not be worth a ban. IMO. But its their platform. USMB is very fair IMO how they do it here. Twitter from what I hear and read is not.

Twitter is a private company. They have no obligation to be fair.

The ridiculous assertion once again that private companies can do whatever they want because they are a private company

Shucks. Individual rights and property rights don’t matter as much as they used to. Do they?

 

[satrebil]

This is pretty weak. Twitter is not considered the speaker of content published on their platform. That’s the law. Whether they delete something or not is irrelevant.

Not irrelevant at all! Every time Twitter or some big authoritarian tech giant shuts out conservative voices
and lets some leftist voice speak instead they are expressing a preference and their opinion.
Twitter depends entirely on the posts of others and that means they produce virtually no content of their
own and supposedly have a duty to express all points of view.

Tell your conservative voices not to lie or use hate speech. Then they won't get "shut down".

Hate speech defined by you is what you don’t want to become informed of or disagree with

No. Hate speech has a legal definition.

Sorry about your luck.

Not in this country, fucko.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/

Sorry, but you apparently don't understand your own link.

No?

For something to have a "legal definition" it has to be recognized in a court of law. The highest court in the land has deemed there is no such thing as hate speech, therefore your claims of a legal definition for such are completely bunk.

Sit down, moron.

Again, you aren't understanding the thrust of that ruling.

It doesn't say what you think it does.

Maybe 3 years of supporting tRump has completely destroyed your ability to think for yourself.

Then prove me wrong, assclown. Show us a US court case where someone was convicted of hate speech. Should be super easy, since there's a "legal definition, dontcha know...

 

[Crepitus]

This is pretty weak. Twitter is not considered the speaker of content published on their platform. That’s the law. Whether they delete something or not is irrelevant.

Not irrelevant at all! Every time Twitter or some big authoritarian tech giant shuts out conservative voices
and lets some leftist voice speak instead they are expressing a preference and their opinion.
Twitter depends entirely on the posts of others and that means they produce virtually no content of their
own and supposedly have a duty to express all points of view.

Tell your conservative voices not to lie or use hate speech. Then they won't get "shut down".

Hate speech defined by you is what you don’t want to become informed of or disagree with

No. Hate speech has a legal definition.

Sorry about your luck.

Not in this country, fucko.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/

Sorry, but you apparently don't understand your own link.

No?

For something to have a "legal definition" it has to be recognized in a court of law. The highest court in the land has deemed there is no such thing as hate speech, therefore your claims of a legal definition for such are completely bunk.

Sit down, moron.

Again, you aren't understanding the thrust of that ruling.

It doesn't say what you think it does.

Maybe 3 years of supporting tRump has completely destroyed your ability to think for yourself.

Then prove me wrong, assclown. Show us a US court case where someone was convicted of hate speech. Should be super easy, since there's a "legal definition, dontcha know...

It's prosecuted under hate crimes.

Hate Crime Laws

www.justice.gov

 

[satrebil]

This is pretty weak. Twitter is not considered the speaker of content published on their platform. That’s the law. Whether they delete something or not is irrelevant.

Not irrelevant at all! Every time Twitter or some big authoritarian tech giant shuts out conservative voices
and lets some leftist voice speak instead they are expressing a preference and their opinion.
Twitter depends entirely on the posts of others and that means they produce virtually no content of their
own and supposedly have a duty to express all points of view.

Tell your conservative voices not to lie or use hate speech. Then they won't get "shut down".

Hate speech defined by you is what you don’t want to become informed of or disagree with

No. Hate speech has a legal definition.

Sorry about your luck.

Not in this country, fucko.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/

Sorry, but you apparently don't understand your own link.

No?

For something to have a "legal definition" it has to be recognized in a court of law. The highest court in the land has deemed there is no such thing as hate speech, therefore your claims of a legal definition for such are completely bunk.

Sit down, moron.

Again, you aren't understanding the thrust of that ruling.

It doesn't say what you think it does.

Maybe 3 years of supporting tRump has completely destroyed your ability to think for yourself.

Then prove me wrong, assclown. Show us a US court case where someone was convicted of hate speech. Should be super easy, since there's a "legal definition, dontcha know...

It's prosecuted under hate crimes.

Hate Crime Laws

www.justice.gov

Swing and a miss, bozo. Once again, show us a case of someone being convicted of hate speech.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

This is pretty weak. Twitter is not considered the speaker of content published on their platform. That’s the law. Whether they delete something or not is irrelevant.

Not irrelevant at all! Every time Twitter or some big authoritarian tech giant shuts out conservative voices
and lets some leftist voice speak instead they are expressing a preference and their opinion.
Twitter depends entirely on the posts of others and that means they produce virtually no content of their
own and supposedly have a duty to express all points of view.

Tell your conservative voices not to lie or use hate speech. Then they won't get "shut down".

Hate speech defined by you is what you don’t want to become informed of or disagree with

No. Hate speech has a legal definition.

Sorry about your luck.

Not in this country, fucko.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/

Sorry, but you apparently don't understand your own link.

No?

For something to have a "legal definition" it has to be recognized in a court of law. The highest court in the land has deemed there is no such thing as hate speech, therefore your claims of a legal definition for such are completely bunk.

Sit down, moron.

Again, you aren't understanding the thrust of that ruling.

It doesn't say what you think it does.

Maybe 3 years of supporting tRump has completely destroyed your ability to think for yourself.

Then prove me wrong, assclown. Show us a US court case where someone was convicted of hate speech. Should be super easy, since there's a "legal definition, dontcha know...

It's prosecuted under hate crimes.

Hate Crime Laws

www.justice.gov

Saying Palestine never existed is not a “hate crime”

 

[Crepitus]

This is pretty weak. Twitter is not considered the speaker of content published on their platform. That’s the law. Whether they delete something or not is irrelevant.

Not irrelevant at all! Every time Twitter or some big authoritarian tech giant shuts out conservative voices
and lets some leftist voice speak instead they are expressing a preference and their opinion.
Twitter depends entirely on the posts of others and that means they produce virtually no content of their
own and supposedly have a duty to express all points of view.

Tell your conservative voices not to lie or use hate speech. Then they won't get "shut down".

Hate speech defined by you is what you don’t want to become informed of or disagree with

No. Hate speech has a legal definition.

Sorry about your luck.

Not in this country, fucko.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/

Sorry, but you apparently don't understand your own link.

No?

For something to have a "legal definition" it has to be recognized in a court of law. The highest court in the land has deemed there is no such thing as hate speech, therefore your claims of a legal definition for such are completely bunk.

Sit down, moron.

Again, you aren't understanding the thrust of that ruling.

It doesn't say what you think it does.

Maybe 3 years of supporting tRump has completely destroyed your ability to think for yourself.

Then prove me wrong, assclown. Show us a US court case where someone was convicted of hate speech. Should be super easy, since there's a "legal definition, dontcha know...

It's prosecuted under hate crimes.

Hate Crime Laws

www.justice.gov

Saying Palestine never existed is not a “hate crime”

No, it's not.

It is kinda delusional though.