Twitter locks out Trump

[bripat9643]

Wait...we have a so called president that has been banned from multiple social media platforms and the Republicans in congress still want him to remain in office? They still want him to have control of nuclear weapons? ARE THESE PEOPLE CRAZY?

No they want free speech.

Thankfully they already have that.

What are you smoking?

If someone were banned from this board would they still have their rights to free speech fully intact? Yes or no will do.

That's this board, not a monopoly like Facebook or youTube or Twitter.

Also the government doesn't get to write the TOS for this board or twitter.

Is Trump going to sue and when he doesn't then what?

The government writes part of their terms of service - the part that says you can't sue them. they are government protected monopolies.

Great. Then you know exactly what to quote to and link so we can finally get an idea of how bogus your dumbass argument is.

I've posted section 230 before. Go read it, numskull.

From twitter. Post anything that states twitter can't ban people for breaking their TOS. Jesus shitfuck, what does it take for you to back up an argument you are making?

Why would their terms of service limit what they can do?

Because Trump agreed to their TOS when he joined Twitter.

Meaningless. If I have terms of service that say, "no blacks," does that make it legal?

Skylar will keep pretending he's being honest about his attitude towards Twitter.

 

[bripat9643]

Oh my god this is painful.

What, you're hemorrhoids? Do the flare up when you're spewing hypocrisy?

 

[HappyJoy]

bripat9643

Can you point on this link where twitter touched you?

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Skylar]

Wait...we have a so called president that has been banned from multiple social media platforms and the Republicans in congress still want him to remain in office? They still want him to have control of nuclear weapons? ARE THESE PEOPLE CRAZY?

No they want free speech.

Thankfully they already have that.

What are you smoking?

If someone were banned from this board would they still have their rights to free speech fully intact? Yes or no will do.

That's this board, not a monopoly like Facebook or youTube or Twitter.

Also the government doesn't get to write the TOS for this board or twitter.

Is Trump going to sue and when he doesn't then what?

The government writes part of their terms of service - the part that says you can't sue them. they are government protected monopolies.

Great. Then you know exactly what to quote to and link so we can finally get an idea of how bogus your dumbass argument is.

I've posted section 230 before. Go read it, numskull.

From twitter. Post anything that states twitter can't ban people for breaking their TOS. Jesus shitfuck, what does it take for you to back up an argument you are making?

Why would their terms of service limit what they can do?

Because Trump agreed to their TOS when he joined Twitter.

Meaningless. If I have terms of service that say, "no blacks," does that make it legal?

Skylar will keep pretending he's being honest about his attitude towards Twitter.

Or......I'll acknowledge the obvious: that Twitter determines when its TOS is violated. Not you. And certainly not Trump.

But tell us again, what law would be violated with Trump's banning from Twitter.

 

[HappyJoy]

Oh my god this is painful.

What, you're hemorrhoids? Do the flare up when you're spewing hypocrisy?

Why can't you prove your point?

 

[Skylar]

Wait...we have a so called president that has been banned from multiple social media platforms and the Republicans in congress still want him to remain in office? They still want him to have control of nuclear weapons? ARE THESE PEOPLE CRAZY?

No they want free speech.

Thankfully they already have that.

What are you smoking?

If someone were banned from this board would they still have their rights to free speech fully intact? Yes or no will do.

That's this board, not a monopoly like Facebook or youTube or Twitter.

Also the government doesn't get to write the TOS for this board or twitter.

Is Trump going to sue and when he doesn't then what?

The government writes part of their terms of service - the part that says you can't sue them. they are government protected monopolies.

Great. Then you know exactly what to quote to and link so we can finally get an idea of how bogus your dumbass argument is.

I've posted section 230 before. Go read it, numskull.

Repeal 230 and Trump would have been banned the same day. As anyone hosting his content would have been liable for the batshit the man spews.

Wrong. He would have sued twitter for $500 million. Then anyone Twitter ever banned would sue them.

Nope. As the laws aren't retroactive, so older posts wouldn't be subject to liability. And Trump is a public figure. So what you can say about him is broad AF.

Trump on the other hand would be a liability nightmare. And would be banned instantly. As anything Trump typed, Twitter could be held liable for.

Ask Sidney Powell how that kind of liability is working out.

BLM, Antifa, and the Democrat party would all be banned as well, moron.

Wait...we have a so called president that has been banned from multiple social media platforms and the Republicans in congress still want him to remain in office? They still want him to have control of nuclear weapons? ARE THESE PEOPLE CRAZY?

No they want free speech.

Thankfully they already have that.

What are you smoking?

If someone were banned from this board would they still have their rights to free speech fully intact? Yes or no will do.

That's this board, not a monopoly like Facebook or youTube or Twitter.

Also the government doesn't get to write the TOS for this board or twitter.

Is Trump going to sue and when he doesn't then what?

The government writes part of their terms of service - the part that says you can't sue them. they are government protected monopolies.

Great. Then you know exactly what to quote to and link so we can finally get an idea of how bogus your dumbass argument is.

I've posted section 230 before. Go read it, numskull.

From twitter. Post anything that states twitter can't ban people for breaking their TOS. Jesus shitfuck, what does it take for you to back up an argument you are making?

Why would their terms of service limit what they can do?

Because Trump agreed to their TOS when he joined Twitter.

Meaningless. If I have terms of service that say, "no blacks," does that make it legal?

As Trump's ban from Twitter demonstrates elegantly, its hardly meaningless. Twitter has the legal power to do exactly what it did when Trump violated the TOS he violated.

And what law is being broken by banning Trump from Twitter?

Which is why people should be allowed to sue Twitter.

We all know you support Twitter being immune from lawsuit simply because you hate the people they censor.

You're a Stalinist douchebag.

So you're insisting that Trump should be banned from Twitter then.

Well that was easy.

 

[bripat9643]

bripat9643

Can you point on this link where twitter touched you?

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

www.law.cornell.edu

<YAWN!>

 

[bripat9643]

Wait...we have a so called president that has been banned from multiple social media platforms and the Republicans in congress still want him to remain in office? They still want him to have control of nuclear weapons? ARE THESE PEOPLE CRAZY?

No they want free speech.

Thankfully they already have that.

What are you smoking?

If someone were banned from this board would they still have their rights to free speech fully intact? Yes or no will do.

That's this board, not a monopoly like Facebook or youTube or Twitter.

Also the government doesn't get to write the TOS for this board or twitter.

Is Trump going to sue and when he doesn't then what?

The government writes part of their terms of service - the part that says you can't sue them. they are government protected monopolies.

Great. Then you know exactly what to quote to and link so we can finally get an idea of how bogus your dumbass argument is.

I've posted section 230 before. Go read it, numskull.

Repeal 230 and Trump would have been banned the same day. As anyone hosting his content would have been liable for the batshit the man spews.

Wrong. He would have sued twitter for $500 million. Then anyone Twitter ever banned would sue them.

Nope. As the laws aren't retroactive, so older posts wouldn't be subject to liability. And Trump is a public figure. So what you can say about him is broad AF.

Trump on the other hand would be a liability nightmare. And would be banned instantly. As anything Trump typed, Twitter could be held liable for.

Ask Sidney Powell how that kind of liability is working out.

BLM, Antifa, and the Democrat party would all be banned as well, moron.

Wait...we have a so called president that has been banned from multiple social media platforms and the Republicans in congress still want him to remain in office? They still want him to have control of nuclear weapons? ARE THESE PEOPLE CRAZY?

No they want free speech.

Thankfully they already have that.

What are you smoking?

If someone were banned from this board would they still have their rights to free speech fully intact? Yes or no will do.

That's this board, not a monopoly like Facebook or youTube or Twitter.

Also the government doesn't get to write the TOS for this board or twitter.

Is Trump going to sue and when he doesn't then what?

The government writes part of their terms of service - the part that says you can't sue them. they are government protected monopolies.

Great. Then you know exactly what to quote to and link so we can finally get an idea of how bogus your dumbass argument is.

I've posted section 230 before. Go read it, numskull.

From twitter. Post anything that states twitter can't ban people for breaking their TOS. Jesus shitfuck, what does it take for you to back up an argument you are making?

Why would their terms of service limit what they can do?

Because Trump agreed to their TOS when he joined Twitter.

Meaningless. If I have terms of service that say, "no blacks," does that make it legal?

As Trump's ban from Twitter demonstrates elegantly, its hardly meaningless. Twitter has the legal power to do exactly what it did when Trump violated the TOS he violated.

And what law is being broken by banning Trump from Twitter?

Which is why people should be allowed to sue Twitter.

We all know you support Twitter being immune from lawsuit simply because you hate the people they censor.

You're a Stalinist douchebag.

So you're insisting that Trump should be banned from Twitter then.

Well that was easy.

No I'm not, moron.

 

[bripat9643]

Oh my god this is painful.

What, you're hemorrhoids? Do the flare up when you're spewing hypocrisy?

Why can't you prove your point?

I can, but I have no interest in getting into a tit for tat with you. I simply don't give a damn about your Stalinist opinion.

 

[Skylar]

No I'm not, moron.

Then what law would be violated by banning Trump?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Link coming

They need to kept the seditionist-in-chief under wraps.

His main means of communication needs to be taken away.

They should have done this years ago and for longer than 12 hours.

View attachment 438345

Communists are proud when they shut down speech. Make no mistake. They will come after their own.

 

[bripat9643]

No I'm not, moron.

Then what law would be violated by banning Trump?

The First Amendment, moron.

 

[bripat9643]

Link coming

They need to kept the seditionist-in-chief under wraps.

His main means of communication needs to be taken away.

They should have done this years ago and for longer than 12 hours.

View attachment 438345

Communists are proud when they shut down speech. Make no mistake. They will come after their own.

Yeah, but we will all be in the Gulag by then.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Link coming

They need to kept the seditionist-in-chief under wraps.

His main means of communication needs to be taken away.

They should have done this years ago and for longer than 12 hours.

View attachment 438345

Communists are proud when they shut down speech. Make no mistake. They will come after their own.

Yeah, but we will all be in the Gulag by then.

They're going to try. After they purge free speech, they will start killing people. Its coming. These people are authoritarian totalitarians who worship communism and are filled with hate.

 

[HappyJoy]

bripat9643

Can you point on this link where twitter touched you?

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

www.law.cornell.edu

<YAWN!>

You can't point out the law where twitter isn't allowed to ban Trump? Not surprised.

 

[HappyJoy]

Oh my god this is painful.

What, you're hemorrhoids? Do the flare up when you're spewing hypocrisy?

Why can't you prove your point?

I can, but I have no interest in getting into a tit for tat with you. I simply don't give a damn about your Stalinist opinion.

All you have to do is just quote the pertinent portion of 230. We both know you can't and only one of us is pretending.

 

[HappyJoy]

No I'm not, moron.

Then what law would be violated by banning Trump?

The First Amendment, moron.

First amendment only protects free speech from the government.

It says so right in the text that only Congress is limited in not infringing on speech, not companies.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[Skylar]

No I'm not, moron.

Then what law would be violated by banning Trump?

The First Amendment, moron.

First amendment only protects free speech from the government.

It says so right in the text that only Congress is limited in not infringing on speech, not companies.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The first word of the first amendment demonstrates the absurity of their entire argument.

Alas, when it comes to the Bill of Rights, many of them haven't read that far.

 

[HappyJoy]

No I'm not, moron.

Then what law would be violated by banning Trump?

The First Amendment, moron.

First amendment only protects free speech from the government.

It says so right in the text that only Congress is limited in not infringing on speech, not companies.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The first word of the first amendment demonstrates the absurity of their entire argument.

Alas, when it comes to the Bill of Rights, many of them haven't read that far.

Yeah, but it's the to of the list.

 

[bripat9643]

No I'm not, moron.

Then what law would be violated by banning Trump?

The First Amendment, moron.

First amendment only protects free speech from the government.

It says so right in the text that only Congress is limited in not infringing on speech, not companies.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

We've heard all this before.

<YAWN!>