Twitter locks official Trump campaign account over sharing Hunter Biden video

[Care4all]

they aren’t breaking any laws by blocking content that they feel is fake news in regards to an election

They dont have the right to make that determination for the public. Political speech is protected by the first amendment. They DO NOT have the right to censor political speech. That's the point of calling themselves a "platform"

Political speech and all speech, is protected FROM THE GOVERNMENT censoring it, silly one!!! NOT a private business....who can do what they please, make their own rules, enforce their own rules, or not.

 

[Slade3200]

What law do you think they are breaking?

You are mistaking legal for right.

There's no law against cheating on your wife...but I expect she'll both complain voraciously and there will be serious consequences and ramifications.

Agreed, so are you saying that twitter isn’t doing anything illegal but you don’t like their actions and you think they should be criticized or boycotted, nothing more?

 

[Slade3200]

they aren’t breaking any laws by blocking content that they feel is fake news in regards to an election

They dont have the right to make that determination for the public. Political speech is protected by the first amendment. They DO NOT have the right to censor political speech. That's the point of calling themselves a "platform"

You’re not serious are you? They have all kinds of guidelines around what can and can’t be posted. No porn, no threats, advertising needs to fit very strict standards, no disinformation campaigns... they set the rules, it’s their platform

 

[Slade3200]

Who is surprised? Jack and his lackeys are hedging on the Dems winning and them gaining immense power and expansion within the U.S. They would lose millions of Trump supporters, but, there would be benefits for them for their loyalty.

The question is. If China succeeds in their objectives, wile Jack be spared for his high social credit score, or will he be lined up with the others?

Twitter locks official Trump campaign account over sharing Hunter Biden video

Twitter suspended the official account of the Trump campaign on Thursday, saying Team Trump’s tweet calling Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden a “liar” and posting a video about Hunter Biden’s business dealings is a violation of its policy.

The action comes just 19 days before Election Day.

“Your account has been locked,” the standard Twitter message read. “What happened? We have determined that this account violated the Twitter Rules. Specifically, for: Violating our rules against posting private information.”

They are a private company are they not? They can do whatever they want. Who cares?

So was that Christian bakery, right Fuckwit?

The bakery violated civil rights law. Are you claiming twitter is doing the same thing?

 

[justinacolmena]

Twitter suspended the official account of the Trump campaign on Thursday, saying Team Trump’s tweet calling Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden a “liar” and posting a video about Hunter Biden’s business dealings is a violation of its policy

It's time to shut down Twitter and Facebook, and hold the principals and officers of both companies accountable before a firing squad at court martial for high treason. This action is proof that Donald Trump does not need to leave office now for inauguration on 2021, even in the event the election should somehow allegedly be decided in Biden's favor.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

they aren’t breaking any laws by blocking content that they feel is fake news in regards to an election

They dont have the right to make that determination for the public. Political speech is protected by the first amendment. They DO NOT have the right to censor political speech. That's the point of calling themselves a "platform"

Political speech and all speech, is protected FROM THE GOVERNMENT censoring it, silly one!!! NOT a private business....who can do what they please, make their own rules, enforce their own rules, or not.

Not true and you know it. They exist as a PUBLISHER.

You understand this.

You're playing dense to promote the party line

 

[Missourian]

What law do you think they are breaking?

You are mistaking legal for right.

There's no law against cheating on your wife...but I expect she'll both complain voraciously and there will be serious consequences and ramifications.

Agreed, so are you saying that twitter isn’t doing anything illegal but you don’t like their actions and you think they should be criticized or boycotted, nothing more?

Mostly correct.

I wouldn't think any liberty minded citizen would view these actions as acceptable.

I believe that, as usual, liberals are only interested in power.

When Trump expresses his opinion about fake news...he is roundly criticized by the left as an enemy of journalism and the free press.

But those same leftist now defend the actual censorship of the press...because their tribe is momentarily the beneficiary of that censoring.

This is as shortsighted as the left ending the 60 vote rule on judicial nominations, the consequences of which are now assiduously and painfully obvious to even the daftest of Democrat adherents.

I have given Twitter every opportunity to be responsible and evenhanded in the application of the rules...but it seem they cannot curb their bias.

If they want to be a publisher...make them a publisher...lift the 230 protections that indemnifes them.

Or...classify them as a public utility and force them to adhere to the rights of first amendment protections.

Either way...they brought this upon themselves.

 

[asaratis]

They are a private company are they not? They can do whatever they want. Who cares?

Dissolve this company NOW. I don't know on what grounds but FIND A REASON.

Why? They received a carve-out specifically to insulate themselves from litigation. They are a platform...not a publisher. Three years of Russian Hoax bullshit? No problem. Trump's leaked tax forms? No problem.

But Biden corruption charges legally acquired and reputably reported?

HOLY FUCKING SHIT...SHUT IT ALL DOWN !!!

If a platform they don't get to pick content.

You keep confusing sect 230 for anything else.

Ted Cruz would like to speak to Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg next Tuesday

Crooked Jack will receive a subpoena Tuesday to testify under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Friday.

Twitter will either stop unduly censoring accounts for truthful conservative comments or become designated as a PUBLISHER which will open the gates for litigation against Twitter.

To hell with Twitter AND Facebook!

 

[justinacolmena]

Don't like it, don't use it.
Problem solved.

We don't like ready-made "solutions" like that. Twitter needs to die. The rest of us shouldn't be forced to keep paying for it when we aren't allowed to use it to express our own opinions.

 

[toobfreak]

Who is surprised?

Er-wait. If it is a VIDEO, then it can hardly be dismissed as a nonsensical conspiracy theory! This is blatant censorship.

 

[Slade3200]

they aren’t breaking any laws by blocking content that they feel is fake news in regards to an election

They dont have the right to make that determination for the public. Political speech is protected by the first amendment. They DO NOT have the right to censor political speech. That's the point of calling themselves a "platform"

I’d like to read the law that you are referring to. Can you post it?

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

they aren’t breaking any laws by blocking content that they feel is fake news in regards to an election

They dont have the right to make that determination for the public. Political speech is protected by the first amendment. They DO NOT have the right to censor political speech. That's the point of calling themselves a "platform"

I’d like to read the law that you are referring to. Can you post it?

Do you understand how to use Goigle?

Facebook and Twitter operate as PLATFORMS. They have responsibilities ad a platform and are given special protections as long as they dont interfering in the free access of information.

This is from Reson Magazine but do your own damn homework or don't waste everyone's time


Categorical immunity for platforms was thus well-known to American law; and indeed New York's high court adopted it in 1999 for e-mail systems, even apart from § 230. See Lunney v. Prodigy Servs. (N.Y. 1999).



But the general pre-§ 230 tradition was that platforms were entities that didn't screen the material posted on them, and indeed were generally (except in Lunney) legally forbidden from screening such materials. Phone companies are common carriers. Cities are generally barred by the First Amendment from controlling what demonstrators said. Federal law requires broadcasters to carry candidate ads unedited.

Publishers were free to choose what third-party work to include in their publications, and were fully liable for that work. Distributors were free to choose what third-party work to put on their shelves (or to remove from their shelves), and were immune until they were notified that such work was libelous. Platforms were not free to choose, and therefore were immune, period.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

naked political bias

This is wrong. Twitter has gone nuts.

No, Twitter has gone full CCP/DNC.

 

[iceberg]

they aren’t breaking any laws by blocking content that they feel is fake news in regards to an election

They dont have the right to make that determination for the public. Political speech is protected by the first amendment. They DO NOT have the right to censor political speech. That's the point of calling themselves a "platform"

I’d like to read the law that you are referring to. Can you post it?

Do you understand how to use Goigle?

Facebook and Twitter operate as PLATFORMS. They have responsibilities ad a platform and are given special protections as long as they dont interfering in the free access of information.

This is from Reson Magazine but do your own damn homework or don't waste everyone's time


Categorical immunity for platforms was thus well-known to American law; and indeed New York's high court adopted it in 1999 for e-mail systems, even apart from § 230. See Lunney v. Prodigy Servs. (N.Y. 1999).



But the general pre-§ 230 tradition was that platforms were entities that didn't screen the material posted on them, and indeed were generally (except in Lunney) legally forbidden from screening such materials. Phone companies are common carriers. Cities are generally barred by the First Amendment from controlling what demonstrators said. Federal law requires broadcasters to carry candidate ads unedited.

Publishers were free to choose what third-party work to include in their publications, and were fully liable for that work. Distributors were free to choose what third-party work to put on their shelves (or to remove from their shelves), and were immune until they were notified that such work was libelous. Platforms were not free to choose, and therefore were immune, period.

He knows the law. he doesn't give a fuck.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

they aren’t breaking any laws by blocking content that they feel is fake news in regards to an election

They dont have the right to make that determination for the public. Political speech is protected by the first amendment. They DO NOT have the right to censor political speech. That's the point of calling themselves a "platform"

I’d like to read the law that you are referring to. Can you post it?

Do you understand how to use Goigle?

Facebook and Twitter operate as PLATFORMS. They have responsibilities ad a platform and are given special protections as long as they dont interfering in the free access of information.

This is from Reson Magazine but do your own damn homework or don't waste everyone's time


Categorical immunity for platforms was thus well-known to American law; and indeed New York's high court adopted it in 1999 for e-mail systems, even apart from § 230. See Lunney v. Prodigy Servs. (N.Y. 1999).



But the general pre-§ 230 tradition was that platforms were entities that didn't screen the material posted on them, and indeed were generally (except in Lunney) legally forbidden from screening such materials. Phone companies are common carriers. Cities are generally barred by the First Amendment from controlling what demonstrators said. Federal law requires broadcasters to carry candidate ads unedited.

Publishers were free to choose what third-party work to include in their publications, and were fully liable for that work. Distributors were free to choose what third-party work to put on their shelves (or to remove from their shelves), and were immune until they were notified that such work was libelous. Platforms were not free to choose, and therefore were immune, period.

He knows the law. he doesn't give a fuck.

I know. They play these games every time. They want to send you down all the rabbit holes to keep you occupied and out of the way. They know they're wrong so they distract

 

[iceberg]

they aren’t breaking any laws by blocking content that they feel is fake news in regards to an election

They dont have the right to make that determination for the public. Political speech is protected by the first amendment. They DO NOT have the right to censor political speech. That's the point of calling themselves a "platform"

I’d like to read the law that you are referring to. Can you post it?

Do you understand how to use Goigle?

Facebook and Twitter operate as PLATFORMS. They have responsibilities ad a platform and are given special protections as long as they dont interfering in the free access of information.

This is from Reson Magazine but do your own damn homework or don't waste everyone's time


Categorical immunity for platforms was thus well-known to American law; and indeed New York's high court adopted it in 1999 for e-mail systems, even apart from § 230. See Lunney v. Prodigy Servs. (N.Y. 1999).



But the general pre-§ 230 tradition was that platforms were entities that didn't screen the material posted on them, and indeed were generally (except in Lunney) legally forbidden from screening such materials. Phone companies are common carriers. Cities are generally barred by the First Amendment from controlling what demonstrators said. Federal law requires broadcasters to carry candidate ads unedited.

Publishers were free to choose what third-party work to include in their publications, and were fully liable for that work. Distributors were free to choose what third-party work to put on their shelves (or to remove from their shelves), and were immune until they were notified that such work was libelous. Platforms were not free to choose, and therefore were immune, period.

He knows the law. he doesn't give a fuck.

I know. They play these games every time. They want to send you down all the rabbit holes to keep you occupied and out of the way. They know they're wrong so they distract

And when you make them focus, they "Coyote" you and tell you that you are the problem.

they don't like having to tie emotions to actual truths.

 

[iceberg]

go cspan go!
.

 

[miketx]

The traitor scum are getting desperate.

 

[Slade3200]

they aren’t breaking any laws by blocking content that they feel is fake news in regards to an election

They dont have the right to make that determination for the public. Political speech is protected by the first amendment. They DO NOT have the right to censor political speech. That's the point of calling themselves a "platform"

I’d like to read the law that you are referring to. Can you post it?

Do you understand how to use Goigle?

Facebook and Twitter operate as PLATFORMS. They have responsibilities ad a platform and are given special protections as long as they dont interfering in the free access of information.

This is from Reson Magazine but do your own damn homework or don't waste everyone's time


Categorical immunity for platforms was thus well-known to American law; and indeed New York's high court adopted it in 1999 for e-mail systems, even apart from § 230. See Lunney v. Prodigy Servs. (N.Y. 1999).



But the general pre-§ 230 tradition was that platforms were entities that didn't screen the material posted on them, and indeed were generally (except in Lunney) legally forbidden from screening such materials. Phone companies are common carriers. Cities are generally barred by the First Amendment from controlling what demonstrators said. Federal law requires broadcasters to carry candidate ads unedited.

Publishers were free to choose what third-party work to include in their publications, and were fully liable for that work. Distributors were free to choose what third-party work to put on their shelves (or to remove from their shelves), and were immune until they were notified that such work was libelous. Platforms were not free to choose, and therefore were immune, period.

So if I wanted to post a video of a gruesome murder, or rape or some hard core porn does the platform need to let it go or do they have a right to block it?

 

[lantern2814]

Who is surprised? Jack and his lackeys are hedging on the Dems winning and them gaining immense power and expansion within the U.S. They would lose millions of Trump supporters, but, there would be benefits for them for their loyalty.

The question is. If China succeeds in their objectives, wile Jack be spared for his high social credit score, or will he be lined up with the others?

Twitter locks official Trump campaign account over sharing Hunter Biden video

Twitter suspended the official account of the Trump campaign on Thursday, saying Team Trump’s tweet calling Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden a “liar” and posting a video about Hunter Biden’s business dealings is a violation of its policy.

The action comes just 19 days before Election Day.

“Your account has been locked,” the standard Twitter message read. “What happened? We have determined that this account violated the Twitter Rules. Specifically, for: Violating our rules against posting private information.”

They are a private company are they not? They can do whatever they want. Who cares?

They won't be for long, one way or another it will change. If not in the U.S, than certainly worldwide.

I suppose you are in the camp that believed Jack will get a pass due to his high social credit score.

A pass for what? Running his business how he wants? Is Hannity going to go to congress for censoring out all the negative Trump news stories on his show? No, he gets to run his show and cover the stories that he wants To cover, right?

SO Trump's private tax returns are ok to put out there when they are obtained ILLEGALLY but Biden's evidence of corruption, obtained LEGALLY, is not....

Fuck you!

Put whatever you want out there about Biden, I never said you can’t. The smear tactic is transparent and the lies obvious but knock yourself out if it makes you feel better

Smears and lies? Yeah fuck you boing boing boy. The Post listed how they got their information and Twatter and Fakebook are lying to try to save Hiding Biden. Love showing your ignorance don’t you?