Not the basis of the ruling against Trump. Trump was using his personal twitter account to conduct the business of the Office of the President. Political annuncements, firing people (even though he hires the very bestā¦), etc.
It looks like Laura Loomer has taken Ann Coulterās shtick to a new level.
Coulterās best ploy, until almost every progressive in America realized that it was best to ignore her, was to make an outrageous statement, provoke a negative reaction, and then present herself as the victim in the situation.
Loomer has extended the same game to social media, but its basically a Coulter reprise.
Just to get into the weeds here tho- why is Loomer banned but not Trump? He has posted some vile things. I know that some of them have been deleted by twitter- but Iām pretty certain any body else who has tweeted some of what Trump has tweeted would be banned from twitter.
Okay. Thank you. I went to the link (NBC LOL). It says that she said: āSomeone needs to create a non Islamic form of Uber or Lyft because I never want to support another Islamic immigrant driver.ā
Okay. She is stating that she does not want her money going to support Islamic immigrants. So what. That is not hate. It may be unpopular, you may have an opinion on whether or not it is appropriate, but it is not hate. Let me tell you, if I could do it here, I could type out a sentence that would teach you the real meaning of the word āHateā. Your screen would melt. This is not hate. Speech you do not like is not automatically hate.
Hey, you know what? I purposely do not spend money at places that I suspect are sending that money to foreign countries. Like Lara, I choose to spend my money elsewhere.
The problem with Liberals is that EVERYTHING to them is hate. If I am pro traditional marriage then to them that means I spread HATE against homosexuals. Just like with racism, Liberals have over-used the word āHateā so much that it no longer means anything.
What Lara said is not hate. Once again NBC is Fake News
Schtick. Yes, schtick. That I can accept. But it aināt hate.
If i were to publicly announce that I refuse to support another Christian or I refuse to support another white person that would be hateful just like it was in loony Loomerās case
"Twitter published a blog post publicly codifying what had already been company policy, saying that āBlocking a world leader from Twitter or removing their controversial Tweets would hide important information people should be able to see and debate.ā
So essentially for Trump and any world leaderā¦anything goes.
I find conservatives tend to cast all political issues in emotional term. People they disagree with āloveā this, āhateā that, āfearā other things.
I prefer the progressive view which is that politics is a rational process of weighing conflicting interests, not an endless battle over emotional states.
I donāt know whether Laura Loomer hates anyone or is just playing a role to gain attention. It does not matter. She is proposing discrimination on the basis of religion. Not only is that inconsistent with the First Amendment, but if someone is trying to run a business that is looking to maximize profits they are not going to practice discrimination and may not want to support public figures who are using their platforms to encourage discrimination.
Twitter verifies that the person claiming to be the political candidate is in fact that person. That stops others from claiming to be someone they are not. They do the same thing for celebrities and other famous individuals. If they didnāt youād have multiple accounts claiming to be someone and thereād be no way to tell who is who. Verifying an account is not a political activity.
Also, the court decision that Trump was not allowed to ban twitter followers had nothing to do with how twitter is categorized. The courts found that Trump was using his twitter account in an official government capacity to deliver information. The public cannot be banned from official government information sources.
Even if Loomerās complaint had merit (it doesnāt), and even if the FEC wanted to drop a big ruling on social media stuff - they canāt. The FEC hasnāt had enough members to make quorum since August.
Itās almost as if Republicans are starting to regret neutering election laws.
That wasnāt quite where I was going.
Facebook, Twitter etc are functioning as a public space even though they are privately owned (made people richer than god) and privately controlled.
I wasnāt promoting a solution, but highlighting a delema. At what point does a private entity become a public commons. When does the action of the public (āwe like it, we post everything on itā) justify taking control of a private enterprise from the owners?
In my analogy, what if that bar is the only eatery in town. What if there is no grocery store and its the only in town food source?
As far as Loomer goes, I see this suit as an extension of her desire and skill at trolling.