You have a right to free speech.
You don’t have a right to use someone else’s private platform to do it.
2 Likes
No I understand it, looks like he may be suing the wrong people though, he should be suing the government for infringing on his speech.
1 Like
So you are saying the Lib’s that used to post here that were banned and that are now on other platforms couldn’t all get together and sue iHeart Media, Mr. Hannity, and the Mod’s for reinstatement and monetary damages?
WW
2 Likes
Government is not permitted to infringe upon speech, using proxies to do it, not allowed. He needs to switch targets.
Trump was able to create his own platform to exercise his free speech online.
He quit after a month and is saying that his platform sucks and he needs to use someone else’s for free.
That is some real conservative values right there.
4 Likes
People can say what they want and the “proxies” are allowed to act how they want.
This isn’t a 1st amendment issue since a private platform is under no obligation to provide a service for free.
And I gave you a lengthy paper that explains proxy censorship and everything. Apparently you didn’t read it.
Proxy censorship with a private social media company?
Doesn’t proxy censorship require the inherent power to actually follow through on the “threat”.
What exactly could congress do, in order to force social media companies to ban one person?
1 Like
Yes
No
Demand they do so
It explains it. Much like the complaint in this lawsuit explains it.
It doesn’t mean that it has any bearing.
He’s probably just hoping that they let him back on to make him go away… Someone is really missing his “likes”…lol
He won’t win, but it’s actually a worthwhile conversation.
I’m glad that the enemy of the state got kicked off the platforms, but also think it’s worth talking through the role of government in asking/urging private enterprise to do things like this.
“Do this thing you’re not legally obligated to do - by the way, you might remember we have the power to expedite [antitrust, etc.] legislation that would negatively impact you…”
This isn’t the way governing should occur, much as I like the outcome in this case.
The first few pages of the paper were good - a Herbert Simon reference!!!
For real?
I changed my mind on his chances for a win after finishing it, because apparently he is suing the wrong people, should be suing the government. At least I haven’t seen any successful precedent in suing private companies for bowing to unconstitutional pressure. Those suits are against government.
1 Like
So his other options didn’t work out?
- blog
- Parler
- gab
- gettr
So now he begging to get back on the big 3. What a loser!
2 Likes
Nope. In a low internet environment in the woods.
I still find it funny that you are against net neutrality which is consumer protections for something that people pay money for but want to nationalize private internet platforms that are free to use.
2 Likes
The paperwork for the suit references a non-existent law supposedly passed by Congress in order to encourage social media companies which were then a decade away from even existing to act recklessly.
It is the very definition of a frivolous lawsuit.
I honestly believe grade school errors like this were purposely put into the suit by exasperated Trump lawyers in order to ensure it was thrown out.
Much like Sidney Powell did with her bogus lawsuits against Dominion.
Lawyers aren’t dumb.
At least no one is citing Pruneyard anymore…we have progressed that far.
3 Likes
Can the people who got thrown out of Trump’s rallies sue him?
1 Like
lol.
oh brother.
1 Like
