- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Didn't the courts rule it illegal for Trump to block followers on twitter?
Posted on 1/13/21 at 8:30 am to LuckyTiger
Posted on 1/13/21 at 8:30 am to LuckyTiger
quote:
He has no rights with twitter, private company, can do what they want, don’t like it build your own twitter, build your own servers, yada yada yada
Since there is nothing special about social media software and Trump has had the biggest followings, this could indeed trigger rival companies outside of the clutches of the left leaning big tech tyrants. It should.
0
Posted on 1/13/21 at 8:31 am to DotBling
quote:No. Discrimination based on race in places of public accommodation is explicitly prohibited by Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1965.
So if Twitter doesn't want black people using their platform, they can ban black people?
This post was edited on 1/13/21 at 8:32 am
Posted on 1/13/21 at 8:32 am to Gravitiger
quote:
Totally agree. It's super shitty and unethical. Just not unconstitutional.
based on the ruling, it is unconstitutional
either Twitter is a public form that loses its private nature once it becomes an avenue for government or it's not
if it's formerly private area that is now a public forum for governmental policy/speech, then the 1A applies
if Twitter remained neutral then it wouldn't have any problems, but once it chooses a side, then it's becoming an actor of the government (b/c the space itself is the government and no longer private). if that behavior involves viewpoint discrimination, then the 1A is triggered
This post was edited on 1/13/21 at 8:33 am
Posted on 1/13/21 at 8:34 am to SlowFlowPro
You are wrong.
Posted on 1/13/21 at 8:35 am to Gravitiger
you have yet to explain why other than making definitive statements
Posted on 1/13/21 at 8:35 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:No. But he can't turn off the phone based on who is calling.
does an elected official have to answer the phone every time someone wants to discuss something he said?
Posted on 1/13/21 at 8:36 am to SlowFlowPro
I explained yesterday and you failed to respond.
Posted on 1/13/21 at 8:37 am to Gravitiger
quote:
Is it yesterday again? Do we need to have this conversation about misunderstanding the First Amendment for the umpteenth time?
How about anti trust and 230?
Posted on 1/13/21 at 8:38 am to Gravitiger
ctrl + c
ctrl + v
ctrl + v
Posted on 1/13/21 at 8:40 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
you can't see in your blocked account but can see when logged off or on another account
So The whole complaint seems based on a falsehood. Wtf?
Posted on 1/13/21 at 8:40 am to udtiger
quote:
But you missed the orange man bad footnote
Posted on 1/13/21 at 8:41 am to CaTiger85
quote:I'm not sold on 230. I think it is misunderstood by most people. But there is definitely an antitrust argument to be made. And should be made.
How about anti trust and 230?
This post was edited on 1/13/21 at 8:43 am
Posted on 1/13/21 at 8:43 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
ctrl + c
ctrl + v
Most people don't use these shortcuts. You have to spell it out.
Posted on 1/13/21 at 8:43 am to Gravitiger
quote:
I'm not sold on 230. I think it is misunderstood by most people. But there is definitely an antitrust argument to be made. And should be made.
I think 230 is an easier case than the anti trust case. Though, the alleged collusion with the other tech giants makes the anti trust case stronger.
Posted on 1/13/21 at 8:45 am to DotBling
quote:
So if Twitter doesn't want black people using their platform, they can ban black people?
Your premise is accurate in the general concept. To show accuracy in a finite, specific example, replace the descriptor "black" with "Trump supporter" and you are at exactly our space in time.
"I'd love to change the world, but i dont know what to do".
Thanks Alvin.
Posted on 1/13/21 at 8:46 am to rattlebucket
quote:
Twatter became too large. Monopoly
what does twitter hold a monopoly on? 280 character thoughts?
Posted on 1/13/21 at 8:51 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:I even explained it again at the bottom of page 1 of this very thread. You conveniently only copied and pasted one piece.
ctrl + c
ctrl + v
Posted on 1/13/21 at 9:55 am to Gravitiger
quote:
I even explained it again at the bottom of page 1 of this very thread. You conveniently only copied and pasted one piece.
this one?
quote:
The government can't block your speech in a public forum. A private company can block your speech in a public forum. This is basic con law 101.
the private company is the public forum, in this case. there isn't a tactile forum because this is data being delivered over the air. you can't really separate "the company" from "The forum"
even if it is a tactile example, say it's a movie theater that is private but leased to the government for public usage (which is the precedent that the 2nd circuit relied upon iirc). the movie theater cannot enter into this agreement (and thus, making the theater the public forum) and then ban individual politicians from participating within the theater. that's what Twitter did
Posted on 1/13/21 at 9:58 am to LuckyTiger
quote:
don’t like it build your own twitter, build your own servers, yada yada yada
Build your own internet from scratch to host and market your social media website of you dont like it, Mr butthurt free speech conservative!
Posted on 1/13/21 at 10:00 am to Col Nathan Jessup
"Didn't the courts rule it illegal for Trump to block followers on twitter?"
Too lazy to look it up but I thought the issue was that it was "the government" in the form of Trump's Twitter account, squelching speech (certain comments responding to Trump) based on content. Therefore, 1A problem.
Twitter, a private company, limiting speech =/= 1A problem, though there could be other legal concerns.
Too lazy to look it up but I thought the issue was that it was "the government" in the form of Trump's Twitter account, squelching speech (certain comments responding to Trump) based on content. Therefore, 1A problem.
Twitter, a private company, limiting speech =/= 1A problem, though there could be other legal concerns.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News