Trump sues Twitter and Facebook in class action

Page 3 of 5 [ 77 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Jiheisho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2020
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,507

07 Jul 2021, 8:50 pm

Mountain Goat wrote:
For all of you out there who don't like Mr Trump, take a step back for a moment because this lawsuit is about principle here....

Does a private company has the right to ban someone in a site that is known as a public domain when the individual is extremely popular. While in this regards, I think as the site is privately owned, they should have the right...

But this internet goes beyond this because when a company makes its site the main platform by far, so if an individual is banned they are at a major dissadvantage compared to others who are not banned, then I strongly believe that if one politicial is banned, then every politician should be banned for using it or we will have a situation where Biden will have a major political advantage to keep in touch with his followers because he has not been banned... So one can say that the sites have in effect launched a conspiracy against Donald Trump which could have cost him the election (Stand back from your own political views and feelings and look at the case here because one can't exactly say that one politician broke the rules and say that the others from other parties didn't if one really looks at everything said from an all party perspective and looking at all the politicians out there).

So this case will be interesting in how the courts decide, as the courts have to be neutral in this so they can make a decision... The only way to be really neutral is to hold the court outside of the USA in a country that does not mind which leader is on power within the USA.


These are easy to answer. A private company does have the power to deny service. Facebook is not a public platform.

Trump can still exercise his right to speech. The media you spoke about clearly reports on him and so has not censored or banned him in anyway.

Trump's ban was after the election and so had no baring on it. (As I remember, Biden did not actually instigate an insurrection on our Capitol, so I am unsure why he would have a ban.)

If you read most legal commentary on this, Trump has no case.

Personally, I don't mind Trump on Facebook or Twitter. I don't go to either. I also think if he keeps a high profile, he will hurt his party more than help it.

But this is bigger than Trump. The US government cannot not compel the speech of a company. This case is going no where. Just read the 1st amendment.



Mountain Goat
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 May 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,259

07 Jul 2021, 8:57 pm

Jiheisho wrote:
Mountain Goat wrote:
For all of you out there who don't like Mr Trump, take a step back for a moment because this lawsuit is about principle here....

Does a private company has the right to ban someone in a site that is known as a public domain when the individual is extremely popular. While in this regards, I think as the site is privately owned, they should have the right...

But this internet goes beyond this because when a company makes its site the main platform by far, so if an individual is banned they are at a major dissadvantage compared to others who are not banned, then I strongly believe that if one politicial is banned, then every politician should be banned for using it or we will have a situation where Biden will have a major political advantage to keep in touch with his followers because he has not been banned... So one can say that the sites have in effect launched a conspiracy against Donald Trump which could have cost him the election (Stand back from your own political views and feelings and look at the case here because one can't exactly say that one politician broke the rules and say that the others from other parties didn't if one really looks at everything said from an all party perspective and looking at all the politicians out there).

So this case will be interesting in how the courts decide, as the courts have to be neutral in this so they can make a decision... The only way to be really neutral is to hold the court outside of the USA in a country that does not mind which leader is on power within the USA.


These are easy to answer. A private company does have the power to deny service. Facebook is not a public platform.

Trump can still exercise his right to speech. The media you spoke about clearly reports on him and so has not censored or banned him in anyway.

Trump's ban was after the election and so had no baring on it. (As I remember, Biden did not actually instigate an insurrection on our Capitol, so I am unsure why he would have a ban.)

If you read most legal commentary on this, Trump has no case.

Personally, I don't mind Trump on Facebook or Twitter. I don't go to either. I also think if he keeps a high profile, he will hurt his party more than help it.

But this is bigger than Trump. The US government cannot not compel the speech of a company. This case is going no where. Just read the 1st amendment.


I understood that Trump supporters stormed the building without Donald Trump being involved. Mr Trump said their actions were not right. I saw him make a statement as it came on our UK news at the time. (Or is the USA news biassed so they censor it but we watch the full USA coverage of it? Our UK news is definately censored and we actually get the whole picture from you guys in the USA, so I expect your news is censored in a similar way).



Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 33
Posts: 2,037
Location: England

07 Jul 2021, 9:38 pm

Jiheisho wrote:
I already have "blown" your arguments "out of the water."


You haven't, I've said that there should perhaps be some "right to a platform" in the internet age. You have just said "there is no right", barely justifying it. When I ask you about free speech, why it is good and why the government should not curtail it, you've not answered and simply proclaimed you understand free speech better than I do. I'll ask again: Why is free speech a good thing? Why shouldn't governments engage in censorship?

Jiheisho wrote:
So, how would this government run anti-censorship work? How does the government protect the right of private organizations to control the speech on their own platforms? Are you going to nationalize the platform to make it a public entity, but then you are not going to have any controls on the that speech on the nationalized platform? (How socialist of you.) How do you then control that government when it uses it for its own purposes? Detail the plan where it is not biasing one person's rights over another.


I imagine it would simply be a set of restrictions on the reasons you can kick someone off certain internet services and making stronger legal recourse available to appeal such a decision. I'd also put in something about abusing algorithms to control traffic to any given profile. You don't need to nationalise it, regulation is more than enough. A government abusing this would announce reasons for deplatforming someone, not announcing reasons not to do so. How do you control any government doing things like that for its own purposes? As for making judgements on the weight of one person's rights over another's - I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Are you talking about the rights of a multinational mega corporations against the rights of an individual?

Jiheisho wrote:
(I notice you have not shown any concern that Facebook has been clamping down on misinformation on their platform.)


I don't recall it coming up, but I did enjoy seeing them get egg on their faces when they reversed their decision on the lab leak theory, that it might not be a crazy right wing conspiracy theory misinformation after all. There's another of those pesky basic free speech principles demonstrating their value in the real world, which you refuse to discuss.

Jiheisho wrote:
People don't have to tolerate your speech. You don't have a right to an audience and you have no right to compel WP to give you one. (I notice you keep dodging that small inconvenient fact.)


You don't have to visit any particular person's page on these sites and there are many blocking tools available to stop accidental intrusions into your safe space. Your argument about a right to an audience is a non starter on these social media platforms so I'm not dodging it, I'm disagreeing with it, at least regarding the huge tech giants.

I don't know about WP, I'm mainly concerned about the social media megacorps. I believe they are beyond being "simple private businesses" now and the rules may need to be changed to accommodate that.

Off to bed now, we can pick it up again tomorrow.


_________________
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man -
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began: -
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!


demeus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 639

08 Jul 2021, 5:14 am

No where does it say that Freedom of Speech means that you are also entitled to an audience to hear that speech. For example, a public university might be required to allow Donald Trump to speak on their campus (a private school does not have that requirement). That does not mean that the public school is also required to provide Donald Trump with an audience to hear that speech.

As for the disadvantage argument, again, I point to the fact that you are not entitled to an audience to hear that speech. The populace is not required to read a certain newspaper or watch a certain channel for news if they don't wish to. The press can also decline to interview certain individuals if they don't wish to. The same goes for social media. Regardless of the reach, you are not entitled to an audience on those platforms.

So Trump's speech is not being restricted, simply his audience which is, and should be allowed.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 77,132
Location: Queens, NYC

08 Jul 2021, 7:56 am

One must remember:

Trump said, in a tweet DURING THE EVENTS OF JANUARY 6TH, that he "loved" the protestors/insurrectionists/whatever.

Do you feel he would have said the same thing to BLM folks who are peacefully protesting?



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,921
Location: Melbourne, Australia

09 Jul 2021, 10:18 pm

A couple of different opinions on the case from lawyers.
This discusses contracts and what may or may not make them binding, as well as discussion on private businesses and their ability to deal with whoever they want.

This discusses the assertions within the lawsuit that Twitter was acting as a "state actor", and so bound by first ammendment.


Looked at objectively, the case certainly contains a few interesting legal theories...


_________________
Quote:
"When people express opinions that differ from yours, take it as a chance to grow. Seek to understand over being understood. Be curious, not defensive. The only way to disarm another human being is by listening." - Glennon Doyle Melton

Quote:
"Never forget that you have every right to question any individual, system, movement, or group that only tolerates you when you think and behave exactly like them" - Africa Brooke

Quote:
“There was a saying that a man's true character was revealed in defeat. I thought it was also revealed in victory.”
― Alison Goodman, Eon: Dragoneye Reborn


longshot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Dec 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,716
Location: In some fictional location

14 Jul 2021, 1:38 pm

Let's see where this goes; which, happens to be in the dismissal bin due to grounds of irrelevant proof of claim or merit of said suit.


_________________
I need serenity
In a place where I can hide
I need serenity
Nothing changes, days go by


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 50,540
Location: Stendec

14 Jul 2021, 2:08 pm

So what it all comes down to is deciding which has greater significance:

• Trump's right to lie some more and provoke another coup attempt.

• FB&T's right to deny platforms for Trump's lies and provocations.


_________________
 Link to Official List of Trump's Atrocities 

45OFFICE = TRE45ON
Lock Him Up!


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,101

14 Jul 2021, 4:29 pm

Trump wants to ensure he still has access to his MAGA faithful via twitter when he's in jail.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,715
Location: Australia

14 Jul 2021, 7:34 pm

Brictoria wrote:
From several days ago:
Quote:
WASHINGTON — Former President Donald Trump is expected to announce Wednesday that he will file lawsuits against Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey over being banned from their platforms, a source familiar with the coming announcement confirmed to NBC News.

This is the latest of an ongoing battle with Facebook and Twitter, which have both banned the former president from their platforms. In January, Trump's Twitter account — with 88 million followers — was permanently banned.

Trump scheduled an 11 a.m. news conference Wednesday. The announcement was first reported by Axios.

Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/president-trump-announce-suit-against-facebook-twitter-leaders-n1273225

More related to this (I understand that the press conference mentioned in the above article is currently underway) will likely pop up in the news soon.


I hope he succeeds.
God, I hate big business. :eew:


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,


"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet." Humour is not meant to be taken seriously, yet many pervert its intent.
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)


I luv KFC!


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,715
Location: Australia

14 Jul 2021, 7:36 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
the class action lawsuit, no one cared about.


So, are you saying you are ok with corruption, if it is left-wing corruption?

God, I hate corrupt big business. :eew:


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,


"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet." Humour is not meant to be taken seriously, yet many pervert its intent.
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)


I luv KFC!


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,715
Location: Australia

14 Jul 2021, 7:41 pm

Fnord wrote:
demeus wrote:
Well, at least the lawyers will make a ton of money. Eventually people will realize that our Constitutional Rights does not apply to private companies.
But we simply cannot allow ignorant, insurrectionist, narcissistic, racist, and sexist losers to be banned from the privately-owned social platforms they abuse.

:roll:


I am not defending Trump.
I am pointing out the double standards.

If a platform wishes to maintain protection, under section 230, then it can't embrace double standards and engage in biased censorship.

I am a fan of equality.
Some don't seem to be. 8)

God, I hate biased/partisan big business. :eew:


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,


"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet." Humour is not meant to be taken seriously, yet many pervert its intent.
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)


I luv KFC!


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 50,540
Location: Stendec

14 Jul 2021, 7:43 pm

cyberdad wrote:
Trump wants to ensure he still has access to his MAGA faithful via twitter when he's in jail.
The FCC is participating in hearings on how to control cellular radio signals within prison walls.  Watch how quickly Mr. Trump becomes an advocate of inmates' rights once he puts on the orange jumpsuit.

"The Federal Communications Commission will discuss next Tuesday (2021-07-13) steps to combat contraband wireless devices in correctional facilities, which prison officials have long said represent the greatest security threat behind bars.  Federal regulators are considering allowing state prisons across the country more technological options, reports the Associated Press.  The commission is not expected to address out-and-out cell signal jamming, something corrections officials say would help them render contraband phones useless to inmates, who use the devices for unfettered, unmonitored communication."

Source:
 FCC To Combat Contraband Cell Phones In State Prisons 


_________________
 Link to Official List of Trump's Atrocities 

45OFFICE = TRE45ON
Lock Him Up!


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,101

14 Jul 2021, 8:37 pm

Fnord wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Trump wants to ensure he still has access to his MAGA faithful via twitter when he's in jail.
The FCC is participating in hearings on how to control cellular radio signals within prison walls.  Watch how quickly Mr. Trump becomes an advocate of inmates' rights once he puts on the orange jumpsuit.

"The Federal Communications Commission will discuss next Tuesday (2021-07-13) steps to combat contraband wireless devices in correctional facilities, which prison officials have long said represent the greatest security threat behind bars.  Federal regulators are considering allowing state prisons across the country more technological options, reports the Associated Press.  The commission is not expected to address out-and-out cell signal jamming, something corrections officials say would help them render contraband phones useless to inmates, who use the devices for unfettered, unmonitored communication."

Source:
 FCC To Combat Contraband Cell Phones In State Prisons 


He'll probably also want to legalise delivery drones to deliver him his favourite fast food and adult sized diapers.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,715
Location: Australia

14 Jul 2021, 9:11 pm

Jiheisho wrote:
Mikah wrote:
demeus wrote:
Eventually people will realize that our Constitutional Rights does not apply to private companies.


Might this be an oversight on the part of the Constitution? Why do we want free speech in the first place?


Free speech laws protect you from government censorship. Are you saying that you now want government controlling the speech of private companies and citizens?


If a private website censors people's posts, it is no longer protected under section 230.
If it does, it becomes a publisher, with the legal ramifications attached. 8)

In essence, "You can't have your cake and eat it, too." :mrgreen:

So, what is it?
"Spitts or Swallows? :scratch: :mrgreen:


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,


"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet." Humour is not meant to be taken seriously, yet many pervert its intent.
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)


I luv KFC!


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,715
Location: Australia

14 Jul 2021, 9:15 pm

Kitty4670 wrote:
Trump shouldn’t win, he not allow. Facebook & Twitter has rights to continue ban the orange guy.


I'm not defending Trump, btw.
I believe in fighting corruption on either side of the political divide.

God, I hate corrupt big business. :eew:


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,


"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet." Humour is not meant to be taken seriously, yet many pervert its intent.
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)


I luv KFC!