Trump tries to force Twitter to let him tweet again

[bodecea]

View attachment 546796

Yeah....that's what happens when the fat former guy's in charge.

 

[dblack]

Twitter should go for court costs after they win.

They should also get the pay-per-view rights nailed down, asap. It'll be comedy gold.

 

[Dana7360]

Oh noes..he's back! Well..maybe:

Trump tries to force Twitter to let him start tweeting again

Donald Trump wants a federal court to make Twitter give him back his bullhorn. In a late Friday legal filing, the ex-president asked a US district judge to grant a preliminary injunction that would restore his account while his lawsuit against Twitter makes its way through the courts.

Friday's filing argues that Twitter is "censoring" Trump, has too much power over political discourse in the US and had been "coerced" into the ban by Trump's opponents in Congress, The Washington Post reported.
Twitter banned Trump on Jan. 8, two days after a mob of his supporters stormed the US Capitol building in a riot that left several people dead, including a Capitol Police officer. Twitter said the ban was "due to the risk of further incitement of violence." In July, Trump sued over the Twitter ban.
Trump's use of Twitter redefined politics, letting him sidestep mainstream media to try to take hold of the political narrative. His account had 88 million followers, the Post noted, and his reach has been significantly reduced since the ban.
One researcher found that the week after the ban, online misinformation about election fraud fell by 73%. However, some Trump tweets that were blocked over election misinformation continue to circulate on other platforms.
Twitter wasn't alone in booting Trump. Facebook and Google-owned YouTube also kicked him off their sites after the Capitol riots, over fears about the incitement of real-world violence. The former president sued those platforms alongside Twitter, alleging censorship and First Amendment violations. Trump has for some time claimed without evidence that the companies discriminate against the right, a charge the firms have repeatedly denied.
Lawsuits that allege censorship and that argue social media companies violate the First Amendment when they remove posts or ban users have repeatedly been rejected by courts across the country. The First Amendment applies to the government, not to private companies like social media sites

I sure hope that the judge knows that the constitution and it's amendments apply to the government.

Not a private company that trump signed a contract with agreeing to follow their company TOS rules and giving the company the permission to kick him off the site If he violates the contract and TOS rules.

The kicker of all of this is that trump signed a contract with that company and gave that company the right to kick him off that site if he didn't follow their rules.

So the company enforced the contract trump freely signed.

trump signed a legal contract, then violated it. It's as simple as that.

I hope twitter lawyers bring this very important fact up in court.

If they do, trump can't win.

 

[Cellblock2429]

So trump should not be held to a companies terms of service ? They should look the other way because trump is very important ? Its a dictators wet dream and whilst you enable this he will continue to push the boundaries of what is acceptable.
Both you and your fellow yahoos are way past that. Luckily there are enough real Americans to put a stop to your nonsense.

/—-/ Sure he should be, but only if the terms are enforced EQUALLY. (I’ve read Libs are all about equality.) These five people are allowed to tweet but one of America’s oldest newspapers can’t

 

[Cellblock2429]

Yeah...what's fun is that he will have to prove in a court of law that he's being unfairly picked on. Twitter should go for court costs after they win.

/——/ Yeah, this will make it easier for President Trump to prove. And I’m sure there are many more examples. These five people are allowed to tweet but one of America’s oldest newspapers can’t

 

[Cellblock2429]

I sure hope that the judge knows that the constitution and it's amendments apply to the government.

Not a private company that trump signed a contract with agreeing to follow their company TOS rules and giving the company the permission to kick him off the site If he violates the contract and TOS rules.

The kicker of all of this is that trump signed a contract with that company and gave that company the right to kick him off that site if he didn't follow their rules.

So the company enforced the contract trump freely signed.

trump signed a legal contract, then violated it. It's as simple as that.

I hope twitter lawyers bring this very important fact up in court.

If they do, trump can't win.

/———/ Hey, Spanky, why is the Taliban allowed on Twitter? Why the Taliban Is Allowed on Twitter, But Trump Isn't

 

[task0778]

Yeah...what's fun is that he will have to prove in a court of law that he's being unfairly picked on. Twitter should go for court costs after they win.

Seems to me that Trump needs to show a denial of his freedom of speech and claim it was unfounded. What did he ever tweet that is obviously incendiary or inciteful, that warrants the suspension of his account? Seems to me the burden of proof ought to be on Twitter to show why they abrogated Trump's right to free speech. Should we not protest in court any social media company's ability to curtail speech?

 

[dblack]

I’ve read Libs are all about equality.

Only the phony kind, where government picks winners and losers. It appears Trumpsters are "all about" the same kind of equality.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

/——/ Yeah, this will make it easier for President Trump to prove. And I’m sure there are many more examples. These five people are allowed to tweet but one of America’s oldest newspapers can’t

I'm a bit puzzled..The NY Post is a newspaper, right? So, as such, it is its own platform..hell, I'd think the Post would like the exclusivity..make more money~

So, the complaint is, that a social media won't let a (sorta) mainstream news organ publish a story, so what's the issue?
Unless the real goal is ginning up some support and outrage..which most of us know to be the case.
TOS are not about who you are..they're about what you post.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Seems to me that Trump needs to show a denial of his freedom of speech and claim it was unfounded. What did he ever tweet that is obviously incendiary or inciteful, that warrants the suspension of his account? Seems to me the burden of proof ought to be on Twitter to show why they abrogates Trump's right to free speech. Should we not protest in court any social media company's ability to curtail speech?

/——/ I’m not a lawyer, but I do know that FOS applies to government restrictions and not to private businesses. That being said, Trump was held to different standards of the TOS, and that is discrimination which is not allowed.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Seems to me that Trump needs to show a denial of his freedom of speech and claim it was unfounded. What did he ever tweet that is obviously incendiary or inciteful, that warrants the suspension of his account? Seems to me the burden of proof ought to be on Twitter to show why they abrogates Trump's right to free speech. Should we not protest in court any social media company's ability to curtail speech?

Twitter does not have to let anyone post..there is no 'right to post on a social media site' rule in law.
He is free to speak..and Twitter is free to not to allow him to speak on their platform.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

/——/ I’m not a lawyer, but I do know that FOS applies to government restrictions and not to private businesses. That being said, Trump was held to different standards of the TOS, and that is discrimination which is not allowed.

It's illegally discriminatory if he is a member of a protected or named class. It is, of course, discriminatory in the larger sense..but that is not illegal or actionable, in law.

In fact, just as it is here at USMB...the admins need give no reason at all.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Yeah....that's what happens when the fat former guy's in charge.

/——-/ Really? When did the White House get burned down? (War of 1812 not withstanding.)

 

[Cellblock2429]

Twitter does not have to let anyone post..there is no 'right to post on a social media site' rule in law.
He is free to speak..and Twitter is free to not to allow him to speak on their platform.

/——/ Then why are libtards screeching about the TOS Trump signed? They can just ban anyone they want. Does this apply to bakers who refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding?

 

[task0778]

Twitter does not have to let anyone post..there is no 'right to post on a social media site' rule in law.
He is free to speak..and Twitter is free to not to allow him to speak on their platform.

Are they? You're saying Twitter can arbitrarily cancel somebody's account for political reasons, and that is okay? If that is illegal then it should not be and Trump ought to fight that all the way up to the SC.

You tell me, can they kick somebody off Twitter cuz they're black? A woman? A Jew? Straight? Gay? Trans? Funny thing, a baker can't refuse to bake a cake but Twitter can refuse service to a republican. And you're okay with that? Considering the influence that social media has, their policies concerning who can be denied service needs to be closely scrutinized. And if necessary tested in a court of law.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Seems to me that Trump needs to show a denial of his freedom of speech and claim it was unfounded. What did he ever tweet that is obviously incendiary or inciteful, that warrants the suspension of his account? Seems to me the burden of proof ought to be on Twitter to show why they abrogated Trump's right to free speech. Should we not protest in court any social media company's ability to curtail speech?

how can he show a denial of his freedom of speech when he is doing rallies at least once a month and has his own website where he put out official statements on a weekly or more often basis and gives interviews on TV shows pretty regularly.

 

[bodecea]

/—-/ Sure he should be, but only if the terms are enforced EQUALLY. (I’ve read Libs are all about equality.) These five people are allowed to tweet but one of America’s oldest newspapers can’t

It's interesting that you name five people....but don't provide any proof that any of those five people just by existing are breaking TOS. What posts are they making that breaks TOS?

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

/——/ Then why are libtards screeching about the TOS Trump signed? They can just ban anyone they want. Does this apply to bakers who refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding?

The Gay guy is a protected class...and if he can prove that his denial was about his sexuality--he will get paid~
This has nothing to do with the OP though>Ex-Presidents are not a protected or named class.
BTW..that's about as far as I've seen anyone stretch to get to a false equivalency! I pay no attention to the screeching on either side..but in this case..the law is quite clear.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Are they? You're saying Twitter can arbitrarily cancel somebody's account for political reasons, and that is okay? If that is illegal then it should not be and Trump ought to fight that all the way up to the SC.

You tell me, can they kick somebody off Twitter cuz they're black? A woman? A Jew? Straight? Gay? Trans? Funny thing, a baker can't refuse to bake a cake but Twitter can refuse service to a republican. And you're okay with that? Considering the influence that social media has, their policies concerning who can be denied service needs to be closely scrutinized. And if necessary tested in a court of law.

Well....first you have to prove that his account was pulled for political reasons. Twitter banned Trump after Jan. 6--they said that Trump was spreading lies, and he was, and that they were worried that this would inflame some of his supporters, leading to RW violence.
This after he had had numerous posts deleted, and numerous warnings--it did not come out of the blue.

As I sad in an earlier post, those you named are mostly protected classes..and if they can prove that they were denied because of that, they have a case.

 

[Cellblock2429]

It's interesting that you name five people....but don't provide any proof that any of those five people just by existing are breaking TOS. What posts are they making that breaks TOS?

/——-/ Always happy to do your research for you while your Google is in the repair shop. Twitter refuses to comment on Louis Farrakhan's anti-Semitic tweets

Why Trump was banned: Why Twitter banned President Trump

Now compare the two.