Trump asks court to force Twitter to restore his account

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@Call_me_Ishmael

Your argument is ridiculous.

This is irony.

[PurpnGold]

@Call_me_Ishmael

My original point was that the federal government’s use of Twitter increases income to Twitter.

I mean, maybe? But the government isn’t paying Twitter. If there is an increase, it is because advertising attached to government posting.

But so what? If you establish a new Air Force base and because of that new base, housing prices rise… can the government now mandate that homeowners around them get vaccinated?

@Call_me_Ishmael

And I maintain that it is THAT connection that an intelligent member of SCOTUS will recognize as a business arrangement that should be handled as any other business arrangement that results in government rules forced upon a private business entity.

Did the government sign a contract with Twitter to use their service?

[Kelby]

@Orygun

Revisionists like to think that Trump was just- you know- asking some honest questions about possible voting irregularities. Thats like saying the mob at the Capitol were “just tourists.”

From Mediaite:

ABC News’ Jon Karl has released an excerpt of Betrayal: The Final Act of the Trump Show , which explores Trump’s last attempts to hang onto power after losing the 2020 election. According to Karl’s sources, Trump boasted about the size of the crowd that gathered on January 6th, and he was enthralled as he watched his supporters — fueled by his election lies — as they rioted through the Capitol in a violent attempt to overthrow his defeat to Joe Biden .

The book says Trump argued with aides in the White House’s private dining room as they tried to get him to call off the riot. When Trump finally agreed to release a video statement, Karl reports that the video had to be re-recorded “several times before they got it right, and in earlier rejected versions, Trump neglected to call on his supporters to leave the Capitol.”

The book also reportedly delves into Trump’s phone call that day with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA). McCarthy is quoted asking Trump to call off his supporters as he and other lawmakers were being evacuated, but Trump retorted, “They are just more upset than you because they believe it more than you, Kevin.”

Wow, that’s damning.

Well, for most of us.

[Orygun]

@Kelby

Wow, that’s damning.

Well, for most of us.

As we well know- they won’t care.

And sadly- that means that there is now an open willingness to end the republic. That door has been opened- and likely will lead to further violence and insurrection.

[Borgia_dude]

@PurpnGold

Did the government sign a contract with Twitter to use their service?

More importantly, did Twitter sign a T&C from the govt? When the govt contracts with someone, that someone must abide by the T&C that is in the contract or PO from the govt. I’m not aware of Twitter signing anything like that from the govt.

[Call_me_Ishmael]

All this stream of consciousness posting … it’s like swatting flies.

Actually, I think SCOTUS will make the connection. But they will not admonish Twitter. They will tell federal employees that they can’t use Twitter to conduct business until Twitter voluntarily stops the political support that opposes Trump. Alternatively, they might require a federal contract to be written before allowing feds to use Twitter to conduct business. Or they may require Twitter to register as a political entity making contributions to parties. Or they may declare that free use of Twitter by feds constitutes a gift… and then “gift rules” will come into play.

So get the lib rowing team in shape… the stream of consciousness is now whitewater.

[Orygun]

@Call_me_Ishmael

They will tell federal employees that they can’t use Twitter to conduct business until Twitter voluntarily stops the political support that opposes Trump.

Or…hear me out…

Just follow the TOS.

[Call_me_Ishmael]

I’ll wait to hear Justice Thomas respond to how rules have in the past been bent for some but not others.

[Orygun]

@Call_me_Ishmael

I’ll wait to hear Justice Thomas respond to how rules have in the past been bent for some but not others.

Sure. The problem is there is no decision that will give you what you want without a 1000 other complications. Because…

Who gets to decide TOS violations? The government? The private company?

Who decides what is “fair”?

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@Call_me_Ishmael

Actually, I think SCOTUS will make the connection. But they will not admonish Twitter. They will tell federal employees that they can’t use Twitter to conduct business until Twitter voluntarily stops the political support that opposes Trump. Alternatively, they might require a federal contract to be written before allowing feds to use Twitter to conduct business. Or they may require Twitter to register as a political entity making contributions to parties. Or they may declare that free use of Twitter by feds constitutes a gift… and then “gift rules” will come into play.

None of this has any basis in law. You’re desperately trying to fit your emotions into a legal framework that simply doesn’t apply.

With the exception of former President Trump, no federal employees “conduct business” on Twitter - nor would Twitter care if government entities were forbidden from posting.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@Call_me_Ishmael

I’ll wait to hear Justice Thomas respond to how rules have in the past been bent for some but not others.

…in his 8-1 dissent.

[Call_me_Ishmael]

@TheDoctorIsIn

With the exception of former President Trump, no federal employees “conduct business” on Twitter - nor would Twitter care if government entities were forbidden from posting.

A ridiculous and patently false assertion.

If they are not conducting business, their Twitter account is likely a misuse of the government computers that are being used to post tweets.

[Orygun]

@Call_me_Ishmael

If they are not conducting business, their Twitter account is likely a misuse of the government computers that are being used to post tweets.

Great so after Thomas writes up his 5-4 win in the Supreme Court- what is the actual policy change…

Who gets to decide TOS violations? The government? The private company?

Who decides what is “fair”?

[Snowfinch]

@Orygun

Great so after Thomas writes up his 5-4 win in the Supreme Court- what is the actual policy change…

I would suspect that this forum and a thousand others end up getting sued to cease moderation.

[Orygun]

@Snowfinch

I would suspect that this forum and a thousand others end up getting sued to cease moderation.

yeah I just dont understand where this logically goes.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@Call_me_Ishmael

A ridiculous and patently false assertion.

If they are not conducting business, their Twitter account is likely a misuse of the government computers that are being used to post tweets.

Is a government agent “conducting business” when they give a press conference?

If so, are the news agencies present for the conference contracting with the government? Does that give the government agent editorial control over them?

[Call_me_Ishmael]

@Orygun

@Call_me_Ishmael

If they are not conducting business, their Twitter account is likely a misuse of the government computers that are being used to post tweets.

Great so after Thomas writes up his 5-4 win in the Supreme Court- what is the actual policy change…

Who gets to decide TOS violations? The government? The private company?

Who decides what is “fair”?

Let me gather my team of constitutional lawyers and get back to you. In the mean time, why not just address my list of possibilities instead of yours.

[PurpnGold]

@Call_me_Ishmael

If they are not conducting business, their Twitter account is likely a misuse of the government computers that are being used to post tweets.

If they are misusing government computers… that isn’t twitters problem. Nor would it drive Twitter to change its policies.

Again, Twitter is NOT a government entity. Nor are they contracted as one.

[Orygun]

@Call_me_Ishmael

Let me gather my team of constitutional lawyers and get back to you. In the mean time, why not just address my list of possibilities instead of yours.

What list of possibilities?

What is the actual policy you would like to see happen for twitter and other social media?

[Snowfinch]

@Orygun

@Snowfinch

I would suspect that this forum and a thousand others end up getting sued to cease moderation.

yeah I just dont understand where this logically goes

About the only thing in this thread that lines up with the desired outcome is PA laws.

But two problems there:

1. PA laws are legislated and ideology is not a legislated protected class… so the correction needs to come from the legislature not the court

2. Making ideology a protected class probably sucks in the majority of PA settings

So maybe some sort of PA legislation that applies only to social media?

It would end up affecting every forum. This one included.