They prefer making up rights along the way too much to be bothered with learning about rights they don’t like.
1 Like
Trump is in Florida. Facebook, Google, and Instagram are in California.
Twitter Rule #6: General
“The laws of the State of California, excluding its choice of law provisions, will govern these Terms and any dispute that arises between you and Twitter. All disputes related to these Terms or the Services will be brought solely in the federal or state courts located in San Francisco County, California, United States, and you consent to personal jurisdiction and waive any objection as to inconvenient forum.”
trump doesn’t have a leg to stand on. The first amendment is to protect THE PEOPLE from government intrusion, not the other way around.
It’s all in the terms of agreement. There are guidelines to what can be posted and what cannot be posted. trump was banned because he violated those terms.
You don’t have “Fairness” on the internet.
read the TOS of twitter, Facebook, etc.
I wouldn’t count your Justices before they hatch. Government imposition into the private sector is not generally a “conservative” legal position.
For example - which Justice do you think wrote this:
… When a private entity provides a forum for speech, the private entity is not ordinarily constrained by the First Amendment because the private entity is not a state actor. The private entity may thus exercise editorial discretion over the speech and speakers in the forum. This Court so ruled in its 1976 decision in Hudgens v. NLRB
…
Therefore, a private entity who provides a forum for speech is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor. After all, private property owners and private lessees often open their property for speech.
…
In short, merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints. If the rule were otherwise, all private property owners and private lessees who open their property for speech would be subject to First Amendment constraints and would lose the ability to exercise what they deem to be appropriate editorial discretion within that open forum.
This is notable as well - Twitter does includes a forum selection clause in their T.O.S.
All disputes related to these Terms or the Services will be brought solely in the federal or state courts located in San Francisco County, California, United States, and you consent to personal jurisdiction and waive any objection as to inconvenient forum.
These clauses are almost always enforced by the courts, which is just another reason why this case will immediately be dismissed.
1 Like
Camp
491
TOS does not determine standing.
You cannot sign away a right to file suit.
Well, yeah you can. But that’s not what I’m saying.
Twitter’s TOS is, for all intents and purposes, a legal contract - and contracts have forum selection clauses in them all the time. By clicking the check box, you’re acquiescencing that if you want to sue them, you have to do it in the venue you agreed to.
Hence Church school and Sunday school…
WuWei
494
Is it mandatory like gubmint school?
Pro Tip - if you have to bring religion into a political discussion:
- You don’t have a point.
- You’re basically saying your party is your religion.
1 Like
Obviously “kids” can be “programmed.” Just look at the effectiveness of preaching abstinence to “kids”. Turns out the best way to get a rebellious teenager to do something is to tell them not to. Who knew?
You can sue for any reason.
they doesn’t mean you will win.
hundreds of people have sued Twitter for being banned.
zero people have won.
Twitter/Facebook have been sued hundreds if not thousand of times for this very topic.
how many of those cases do you think they lost.
WuWei
498
Might want to check the thread. Facebook owns instagram, does it not?
Your point? they are not being sued for being a monopoly.
though how you can have a monopoly on the internet is beyond me.
there are literally thousands of facebook/instgram/twitter clones.
vaard
500
the government can create a social media site and search engine that never bans anyone…
problem solved…
if the government wants a digital public square, they should create their own instead of socializing a private one…
1 Like
There is literally nothing stopping me, you or anyone from creating a website more popular then Facebook/Google/Twitter/Amazon/etc.
being banned on Facebook does not limit your access to the internet, or ability to speak out in a free manner.
the difference between Facebook and public utilities is that public utilities control your access to the internet, Facebook does not its simply a website one of a hundred million others.
If Facebook/Google/etc had so much power there would be not massively popular Neo-Nazi websites with millions of page views and users.
The only thing Facebook has that let say Parler doesn’t is billion + users.
that is the ONLY difference.
Justice Thomas doesn’t seem to understand what he is talking about.
vaard
502
trump created his own website… people are saying it is the best website ever… he can talk directly to everyone in the world in his own public square…
monopoly broken…
capitalism baby.
Tik-Tok is the 4th biggest social media site it didn’t exist 5 years ago.
vaard
505
serious question…
why cant cities, states and even the federal government create their own digital public squares where anyone can post whatever they want with no fear of being banned?
would that not solve the complaint of a monopoly and censorship?
