Trump Files Lawsuit Against Big Tech Over Censorship (Poll)

[Rigby5]

You wouldn't be able to post here if Section 230 were deleted.

They don't care. They're willing to destroy the nation, to obliterate the Constitution, in the name of partisan "victory". This is what Trump does to people.

trump does not care about this country. He only cares about himself and his petty revenge. He blames everyone else for his loses, but jumps to the front of the line to take credit for anything that he does not screw up.

Doesn't matter.
I don't like Trump either, but the precedent censoring any valid politician from social media, is and must always remain horrendously illegal.
The whole point of the 1st amendment is to protect speech you do NOT like.
The fact this every happened is astounding.
FaceBook should be facing huge fines to ensure it never happens again.
If someone wants to correct lies by Trump, the appropriate and only legal way is in court, not by arbitrary censorship.

Twitter is not a Public Utility. It will NEVER be a public utility.

Twitter is not a public utility

Isn’t it a bit strange that the entire world has to wait on the CEO of Twitter to come around on what constitutes healthy discourse? I am not talking about it being too little, too late. Rather, my issue is with “instant, public, global messaging and conversation” being entirely dependent on one...

blog.joinmastodon.org

Totally and completely irrelevant.
The Internet is a public utility, so anyone using it for their own person gain, like Twitter, then has to follow the FCC rules that prevent any sort of discrimination that would infringe upon first amendment rights.
If Twitter wants to arbitrarily discriminate in its clients, then it can not legally use the internet.
In fact, it can't even be open to the public or operate on any channel open to the public.
What Twitter did was completely illegal.
The appropriate procedure would have been for Twitter to sue Trump if they think he was harming others.
Arbitrary censorship was NOT the right or legal way to handle it.

 

[Rigby5]

The SCOTUS will take a very dim view of social media banning a POTUS, shits about to hit the fan.

My money is on Trump dropping the lawsuit after he cons a few million bucks out of the suckers & his lawyers tell him he'll have to sit down for a deposition under oath. And the whole shebang is fair game. Imagine, just imagine Trump having to explain the little game he played on Ja.6 & before & after that with his filthy lies.

Of course he will. Then he will whine and cry about the liberal courts. This is all just to milk more money out of his stupid followers. He knows that he will be subject to sworn testimony at any proceeding going forward. The last thing in the world he wants to know is testify under oath about his part in the insurrection.

He was banned before Jan 6th, so that would not be admissible testimony.

 

[Rigby5]

You wouldn't be able to post here if Section 230 were deleted.

They don't care. They're willing to destroy the nation, to obliterate the Constitution, in the name of partisan "victory". This is what Trump does to people.

trump does not care about this country. He only cares about himself and his petty revenge. He blames everyone else for his loses, but jumps to the front of the line to take credit for anything that he does not screw up.

Doesn't matter.
I don't like Trump either, but the precedent censoring any valid politician from social media, is and must always remain horrendously illegal.
The whole point of the 1st amendment is to protect speech you do NOT like.
The fact this every happened is astounding.
FaceBook should be facing huge fines to ensure it never happens again.
If someone wants to correct lies by Trump, the appropriate and only legal way is in court, not by arbitrary censorship.

The first amendment is about government and free speech, not corporations.

Because Constitution.

Wrong.
The whole point of the 14th amendment was to extend protection of the rights that were originally protected from government abuse, to all individuals, from any abuse by anyone.

 

[JimH52]

You wouldn't be able to post here if Section 230 were deleted.

They don't care. They're willing to destroy the nation, to obliterate the Constitution, in the name of partisan "victory". This is what Trump does to people.

trump does not care about this country. He only cares about himself and his petty revenge. He blames everyone else for his loses, but jumps to the front of the line to take credit for anything that he does not screw up.

Doesn't matter.
I don't like Trump either, but the precedent censoring any valid politician from social media, is and must always remain horrendously illegal.
The whole point of the 1st amendment is to protect speech you do NOT like.
The fact this every happened is astounding.
FaceBook should be facing huge fines to ensure it never happens again.
If someone wants to correct lies by Trump, the appropriate and only legal way is in court, not by arbitrary censorship.

Twitter is not a Public Utility. It will NEVER be a public utility.

Twitter is not a public utility

Isn’t it a bit strange that the entire world has to wait on the CEO of Twitter to come around on what constitutes healthy discourse? I am not talking about it being too little, too late. Rather, my issue is with “instant, public, global messaging and conversation” being entirely dependent on one...

blog.joinmastodon.org

Totally and completely irrelevant.
The Internet is a public utility, so anyone using it for their own person gain, like Twitter, then has to follow the FCC rules that prevent any sort of discrimination that would infringe upon first amendment rights.
If Twitter wants to arbitrarily discriminate in its clients, then it can not legally use the internet.
In fact, it can't even be open to the public or operate on any channel open to the public.
What Twitter did was completely illegal.
The appropriate procedure would have been for Twitter to sue Trump if they think he was harming others.
Arbitrary censorship was NOT the right or legal way to handle it.

No arguing with you. The vast majority of legal opinions say trump's suit is frivolous and will fail....But he will NEVER get to the point of establishing evidence. If it gets to that point, discovery will require trump to, at the very least, sit for a deposition. He will not do that. He is repulsed by facts and truth.

 

[JimH52]

The SCOTUS will take a very dim view of social media banning a POTUS, shits about to hit the fan.

My money is on Trump dropping the lawsuit after he cons a few million bucks out of the suckers & his lawyers tell him he'll have to sit down for a deposition under oath. And the whole shebang is fair game. Imagine, just imagine Trump having to explain the little game he played on Ja.6 & before & after that with his filthy lies.

Of course he will. Then he will whine and cry about the liberal courts. This is all just to milk more money out of his stupid followers. He knows that he will be subject to sworn testimony at any proceeding going forward. The last thing in the world he wants to know is testify under oath about his part in the insurrection.

He was banned before Jan 6th, so that would not be admissible testimony.

Good grief. Are you serious or is this a sitcom?

 

[Rigby5]

You wouldn't be able to post here if Section 230 were deleted.

They don't care. They're willing to destroy the nation, to obliterate the Constitution, in the name of partisan "victory". This is what Trump does to people.

trump does not care about this country. He only cares about himself and his petty revenge. He blames everyone else for his loses, but jumps to the front of the line to take credit for anything that he does not screw up.

Doesn't matter.
I don't like Trump either, but the precedent censoring any valid politician from social media, is and must always remain horrendously illegal.
The whole point of the 1st amendment is to protect speech you do NOT like.
The fact this every happened is astounding.
FaceBook should be facing huge fines to ensure it never happens again.
If someone wants to correct lies by Trump, the appropriate and only legal way is in court, not by arbitrary censorship.

When that speech threatens the welfare and safety of the public at large, the platform has every right to prohibit it. trump is an idiot. He has no filter and he would be entirely happy to have seen the January 6th crowd destroy our democracy, just to sooth his damaged ego. Twitter and Facebook had every right to ban him. The courts will confirm that decision.

If Trump committed a crime in his Tweets, then he should be banned.
If he did not, then Twitter violated the law.

Here is the tweets in question.
{...
In the blog post, Twitter cited Trump’s two most recent tweets as an explanation for the permanent suspension.

In the first one, Trump wrote: “The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!”

In the next, he tweeted, “To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”

Taken together, the company determined, they were “likely to inspire others to replicate the violent acts that took place on January 6, 2021, and that there are multiple indicators that they are being received and understood as encouragement to do so.”
...}

I dislike Trump, but disagree totally with Twitter.
I think they violated the law in the worst possible way.

 

[JimH52]

You wouldn't be able to post here if Section 230 were deleted.

They don't care. They're willing to destroy the nation, to obliterate the Constitution, in the name of partisan "victory". This is what Trump does to people.

trump does not care about this country. He only cares about himself and his petty revenge. He blames everyone else for his loses, but jumps to the front of the line to take credit for anything that he does not screw up.

Doesn't matter.
I don't like Trump either, but the precedent censoring any valid politician from social media, is and must always remain horrendously illegal.
The whole point of the 1st amendment is to protect speech you do NOT like.
The fact this every happened is astounding.
FaceBook should be facing huge fines to ensure it never happens again.
If someone wants to correct lies by Trump, the appropriate and only legal way is in court, not by arbitrary censorship.

When that speech threatens the welfare and safety of the public at large, the platform has every right to prohibit it. trump is an idiot. He has no filter and he would be entirely happy to have seen the January 6th crowd destroy our democracy, just to sooth his damaged ego. Twitter and Facebook had every right to ban him. The courts will confirm that decision.

If Trump committed a crime in his Tweets, then he should be banned.
If he did not, then Twitter violated the law.

Here is the tweets in question.
{...
In the blog post, Twitter cited Trump’s two most recent tweets as an explanation for the permanent suspension.

In the first one, Trump wrote: “The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!”

In the next, he tweeted, “To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”

Taken together, the company determined, they were “likely to inspire others to replicate the violent acts that took place on January 6, 2021, and that there are multiple indicators that they are being received and understood as encouragement to do so.”
...}

I dislike Trump, but disagree totally with Twitter.
I think they violated the law in the worst possible way.

Using your reasoning, NO ONE can be banned from USMB because they violated the written policy. We all know that is not the case. You say you dislike trump, but I say you are just another trump humper who wants everyone to think he is not. So....you are a Liar. Have a good day.

 

[Rigby5]

You wouldn't be able to post here if Section 230 were deleted.

They don't care. They're willing to destroy the nation, to obliterate the Constitution, in the name of partisan "victory". This is what Trump does to people.

trump does not care about this country. He only cares about himself and his petty revenge. He blames everyone else for his loses, but jumps to the front of the line to take credit for anything that he does not screw up.

Doesn't matter.
I don't like Trump either, but the precedent censoring any valid politician from social media, is and must always remain horrendously illegal.
The whole point of the 1st amendment is to protect speech you do NOT like.
The fact this every happened is astounding.
FaceBook should be facing huge fines to ensure it never happens again.
If someone wants to correct lies by Trump, the appropriate and only legal way is in court, not by arbitrary censorship.

Twitter is not a Public Utility. It will NEVER be a public utility.

Twitter is not a public utility

Isn’t it a bit strange that the entire world has to wait on the CEO of Twitter to come around on what constitutes healthy discourse? I am not talking about it being too little, too late. Rather, my issue is with “instant, public, global messaging and conversation” being entirely dependent on one...

blog.joinmastodon.org

Totally and completely irrelevant.
The Internet is a public utility, so anyone using it for their own person gain, like Twitter, then has to follow the FCC rules that prevent any sort of discrimination that would infringe upon first amendment rights.
If Twitter wants to arbitrarily discriminate in its clients, then it can not legally use the internet.
In fact, it can't even be open to the public or operate on any channel open to the public.
What Twitter did was completely illegal.
The appropriate procedure would have been for Twitter to sue Trump if they think he was harming others.
Arbitrary censorship was NOT the right or legal way to handle it.

No arguing with you. The vast majority of legal opinions say trump's suit is frivolous and will fail....But he will NEVER get to the point of establishing evidence. If it gets to that point, discovery will require trump to, at the very least, sit for a deposition. He will not do that. He is repulsed by facts and truth.

Wrong.
Trump loves an audience, so will be more than willing to testify.
But we do not need a deposition.
We know exactly what he tweeted.
And it was not at all even remotely illegal, so then Twitter totally goofed.
Not a leg to stand on.
Their internet access should be cut by the FCC.

The vast majority of legal opinion is not relevant, because they are liars, like when they claimed Iraq had WMD or that Noreiga was subject to US law.
If the government was no totally corrupt, we would not have things like the War on Drugs, mandated sentences, asset forfeiture, etc.

The only reason you can censor is if it would violate a law.
So under the presumption of innocence, Twitter could not legally censor unless they first charged Trump with the commission of a crime, and proved it in court.

 

[Rigby5]

You wouldn't be able to post here if Section 230 were deleted.

They don't care. They're willing to destroy the nation, to obliterate the Constitution, in the name of partisan "victory". This is what Trump does to people.

trump does not care about this country. He only cares about himself and his petty revenge. He blames everyone else for his loses, but jumps to the front of the line to take credit for anything that he does not screw up.

Doesn't matter.
I don't like Trump either, but the precedent censoring any valid politician from social media, is and must always remain horrendously illegal.
The whole point of the 1st amendment is to protect speech you do NOT like.
The fact this every happened is astounding.
FaceBook should be facing huge fines to ensure it never happens again.
If someone wants to correct lies by Trump, the appropriate and only legal way is in court, not by arbitrary censorship.

When that speech threatens the welfare and safety of the public at large, the platform has every right to prohibit it. trump is an idiot. He has no filter and he would be entirely happy to have seen the January 6th crowd destroy our democracy, just to sooth his damaged ego. Twitter and Facebook had every right to ban him. The courts will confirm that decision.

If Trump committed a crime in his Tweets, then he should be banned.
If he did not, then Twitter violated the law.

Here is the tweets in question.
{...
In the blog post, Twitter cited Trump’s two most recent tweets as an explanation for the permanent suspension.

In the first one, Trump wrote: “The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!”

In the next, he tweeted, “To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”

Taken together, the company determined, they were “likely to inspire others to replicate the violent acts that took place on January 6, 2021, and that there are multiple indicators that they are being received and understood as encouragement to do so.”
...}

I dislike Trump, but disagree totally with Twitter.
I think they violated the law in the worst possible way.

Using your reasoning, NO ONE can be banned from USMB because they violated the written policy. We all know that is not the case. You say you dislike trump, but I say you are just another trump humper who wants everyone to think he is not. So....you are a Liar. Have a good day.

Wrong. Anyone who is harming others, like posting their private information, revenge porn, etc., can be banned.
But the written policy can not be arbitrary.
For example, it can not be manipulated in order to discriminate against any religion, race, gender, age, etc.
To deliberately ban a politician is to explicitly violate the 1st amendment.
You can do that, but ONLY if you can prove a crime had been committed by that politician in his use of the media, and they then were protecting the rights of others.

But we know the tweets, so we know there was no illegal content, so the ban was unconstitutional.

{...
In the blog post, Twitter cited Trump’s two most recent tweets as an explanation for the permanent suspension.

In the first one, Trump wrote: “The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!”

In the next, he tweeted, “To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”

Taken together, the company determined, they were “likely to inspire others to replicate the violent acts that took place on January 6, 2021, and that there are multiple indicators that they are being received and understood as encouragement to do so.”
...}

 

[colfax_m]

FCC regulations do not allow anyone to discriminate at all, against anyone.

Dude, I don’t know where you get this from but there’s like a long list of court decisions that say otherwise.

 

[Rigby5]

FCC regulations do not allow anyone to discriminate at all, against anyone.

Dude, I don’t know where you get this from but there’s like a long list of court decisions that say otherwise.

Wrong.
If it was so legal to censor, then women would not have had such a hard time fighting to get revenge porn removed.
Show me one of those court decisions in that long list you are claiming exists.

 

[dblack]

You wouldn't be able to post here if Section 230 were deleted.

They don't care. They're willing to destroy the nation, to obliterate the Constitution, in the name of partisan "victory". This is what Trump does to people.

Oh boo fucking hoo.
Section 230 could still apply to companies worth less than some value, say $1b. Then only the super huge companies would NOT get Section 230 protection. Help the little guys, and regulate the big guys.
1. No nation will be destroyed.
2. The Constitution is alive and well.
3. What partisan victory? Winning what exactly? Trump did NOT create the problem.

Excuses.

 

[Rigby5]

The 1st amendment ensure universal political expression as long as it does not harm the rights of anyone else.

Ok, gotta stop you right there because that's just bone dead wrong. All the First Amendment does is prohibit the government from interfering. Period. Done. Nothing else. "Congress shall pass no law ...." - not "Facebook shall ban no Trump".

Besides your own imagination, do you have anything supporting such a bizarre view of the 1st Amendment?

Any service provider that then discriminates based on interpretation of political content, is then in violation of FCC regulations.

Yeah. That's your claim. But based on your claim above, I'm gonna need something to back it up. You seem to have a screw loose.

Wrong.
Originally the Bill of Rights was just restrictions on the federal government, but not after the Civil War and 14th amendment.
That started the process called "incorporation" where now no one can legally abuse individual rights any more.
This has been the interpretation by the SCOTUS for over 150 years.
Their reasoning is that if an individual right is so important that the federal government should be banned from violating it, that then no one should.

But your argument makes no sense even if I were wrong about "incorporation", because the internet and the FCC that regulates it ARE federal.
The federal government can't create the Internet and then let people use it to abuse the 1st amendment rights of individuals.

 

[Rigby5]

What sort of fascist would think that is would be legal to censor an ex-president from federal communications media?

 

[dblack]

Statist excuses.

 

[dblack]

The 1st amendment ensure universal political expression as long as it does not harm the rights of anyone else.

Ok, gotta stop you right there because that's just bone dead wrong. All the First Amendment does is prohibit the government from interfering. Period. Done. Nothing else. "Congress shall pass no law ...." - not "Facebook shall ban no Trump".

Besides your own imagination, do you have anything supporting such a bizarre view of the 1st Amendment?

Any service provider that then discriminates based on interpretation of political content, is then in violation of FCC regulations.

Yeah. That's your claim. But based on your claim above, I'm gonna need something to back it up. You seem to have a screw loose.

Wrong.

Nope. Were not quite there yet. You need to put away your big government hard on. Freedom still has some fight left in her.

 

[colfax_m]

FCC regulations do not allow anyone to discriminate at all, against anyone.

Dude, I don’t know where you get this from but there’s like a long list of court decisions that say otherwise.

Wrong.
If it was so legal to censor, then women would not have had such a hard time fighting to get revenge porn removed.
Show me one of those court decisions in that long list you are claiming exists.

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/freedom-google.pdf

Pay attention to page 2 paragraph 2. A first amendment claim fails because social media are not state actors.

You claim FCC regulations prevent censorship. Let’s see those regulations you claim exist.

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

It's an interesting argument.

"Interesting" and terribly flawed. He won't go through with it. He will need to make sworn testimony. We all know that truth and trump don't go together.

What is your opinion of the case where a baker was forced to make cakes for gay couples and undergo sensitivity training?

Baker forced to make gay wedding cakes, undergo sensitivity training, after losing lawsuit

A family owned bakery has been ordered to make wedding cakes for gay couples and guarantee that its staff be given comprehensive training on Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws after the state’s Civil Rights Commission determined the Christian baker violated the law by refusing to bake a wedding...

www.foxnews.com

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's an interesting argument.

"Interesting" and terribly flawed. He won't go through with it. He will need to make sworn testimony. We all know that truth and trump don't go together.

What is your opinion of the case where a baker was forced to make cakes for gay couples and undergo sensitivity training?

Baker forced to make gay wedding cakes, undergo sensitivity training, after losing lawsuit

A family owned bakery has been ordered to make wedding cakes for gay couples and guarantee that its staff be given comprehensive training on Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws after the state’s Civil Rights Commission determined the Christian baker violated the law by refusing to bake a wedding...

www.foxnews.com

Couldn't be more totalitarian.

 

[debbiedowner]

I'm curious if the USMB progs/dems will side with Trump on this important censorship issue, Should big tech be broken up? Should Section 230 be repealed? Should censorship end? Should Parler be reactivated? Should the "Fairness Doctrine" be revised and tried again? What do you recommend. I recommend "all of the above".

Trump Files Lawsuit Against Big Tech Over 'Censorship Of The American People'

Former President Donald Trump said he is filing a lawsuit against Big Tech companies — Twitter, Facebook, and Google and their CEOs, over allegations of violating Americans’ First Amendment rights by selectively censoring information and its recent action of banning and suspending his accounts.

floridianpress.com

“We’re asking the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida to order an immediate halt to stop social media companies’ illegal and shameful censorship of the American people. That’s exactly what they’re doing,” Trump said. “We’re demanding an end to the shadow banning, a stop to the silencing, a stop to the blacklisting, banishing, and canceling that you know so well.”

Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi argued the platforms have “increasingly engaged in impermissible censorship resulting from threatened legislative action, a misguided reliance upon Section 230.” Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is a 1996 provision that gives social media platforms legal liability shield over content posted on their platform by third parties.

As Kavanaugh said: One must be a state actor to be sued for 1st amendment rights, which none of these are.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/07/08/how-trumps-own-supreme-court-justice-undercut-his-facebook-lawsuit/