- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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: Keith Olbermann suspended from Twitter
Posted on 12/15/22 at 10:26 pm to crazy4lsu
Posted on 12/15/22 at 10:26 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:not the subject of endangerment, nor of your comment.
Milo, getting banned for mocking that comedian on SNL, was endangerment? I'm not following you here.
quote:the latter situation endangered Musk directly
But that is exactly what ElonJet did, using publicly available information to reveal the locations of Musk, and other billionaires. The distinction you want to make is that the latter situation endangered Musk directly.
1
Posted on 12/15/22 at 10:27 pm to NC_Tigah
So we agree?
Posted on 12/15/22 at 10:27 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
He's just banning references to ElonJet, even in links to other websites, as well as banning another platform's account, Mastodon, which mentioned that users could follow ElonJet on Mastodon. He's creating a Streisand Effect for himself, which is hilarious.
Yes. He's banning accounts that are doxxing or telling others how to circumvent Twitter rules. Both of these things have been against Twitters TOS for a long time, they just haven't been used against the left.
This post was edited on 12/15/22 at 10:28 pm
Posted on 12/15/22 at 10:28 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:Not if you are arguing against the suspensions.
So we agree?
This post was edited on 12/16/22 at 6:38 am
Posted on 12/15/22 at 10:28 pm to boosiebadazz
If you consider groomers people
Posted on 12/15/22 at 10:29 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Fire! in a crowded theater is not protected language under the 1stA. Is that a problem? It sure is if you're the one shouting "Fire!"
It is protected. The comment was mere dictum and the case was later overturned. It was actually a terrible anti free speech case.
Posted on 12/15/22 at 10:30 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
Yes. He's banning accounts that are doxxing or telling others how to get around his ban of doxxing.
I'm actually skeptical of this, given some of the accounts which were banned, as some were just reporters reporting on Elon banning ElonJet, like Donie O'Sullivan and Ryan Mac.
He's still creating a Streisand Effect, which is the opposite thing you want to do if you were worried about your family's well-being, one would think.
Posted on 12/15/22 at 10:31 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Not if you are arguing again the suspensions.
I think you should read the thread more closely.
Posted on 12/15/22 at 10:32 pm to cwill
quote:
There is no 1st amendment violation in posting publicly available information. Free speech absolutism ftw!!!
There’s no 1A problem just not for the reason you stated: The State Action Doctrine is the reason. You can’t assert a constitutional rights violation against a non-state/governmental actor, like Elon or Twitter, absent evidence of substantial government entanglement with the private company—like what occurred before Elon bought the company in 2020-2021 when the FBI and DHS told Twitter who to ban and censor.
Posted on 12/15/22 at 10:34 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
He's banning the spread of immediate, real-time tracking of a person's location.
How is that information protected and how is knowing and publicly providing declaring that info not protected free speech?
Posted on 12/15/22 at 10:34 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:Long thread. I'm multitasking. Are you supportive of these suspensions based on endangerment as a separate issue from previous political bans?
I think you should read the thread more closely.
Posted on 12/15/22 at 10:35 pm to Riverside
quote:
There’s no 1A problem just not for the reason you stated: The State Action Doctrine is the reason. You can’t assert a constitutional rights violation against a non-state/governmental actor, like Elon or Twitter, absent evidence of substantial government entanglement with the private company
Correctomundo!
quote:
like what occurred before Elon bought the company in 2020-2021 when the FBI and DHS told Twitter who to ban and censor.
Evidence?
Posted on 12/15/22 at 10:35 pm to boosiebadazz
Idk shite about free speech on a private platform, but I do know I was pissed that their tos was only really applied in one direction. Now... I see more equality. All sides need to be mindful of the Twitter tos. That olberman prick would've been permanently banned years ago had the TOS always been applied equally.
Posted on 12/15/22 at 10:36 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Are you supportive of these suspensions based on endangerment
The ones like Olbermann's last tweet, definitely. And I'm fine with banning ElonJet and BezosJet, as people can still find out that information quite easily, though I'm not sure that the TOS changes that Twitter made today could justify those bannings. I'm less sure about the reporters who seemed to have only crossed some invisible TOS by just writing about what Elon was doing, from what I can piece together of the last tweets of a few of the accounts.
This post was edited on 12/15/22 at 10:38 pm
Posted on 12/15/22 at 10:40 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:They apparently crosslinked a Mastodon account with the same info.
from what I can piece together of the last tweets of a few of the accounts.
Posted on 12/15/22 at 10:40 pm to cwill
quote:
How is that information protected and how is knowing and publicly providing declaring that info not protected free speech?
You cannot assert “free speech rights” against a private individual or company. Your points are irrelevant to this discussion. The constitution only guarantees that the government must respect your right to free speech generally. You have no “free speech” rights (absent some notable exceptions where governmental actors are involved) as a customer that you can assert against Walmart, Twitter, Circle K, etc…
Posted on 12/15/22 at 10:40 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
they just haven't been used against the left.
quote:
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
·
35m
Replying to
@elonmusk
If anyone posted real-time locations & addresses of NYT reporters, FBI would be investigating, there’d be hearings on Capitol Hill & Biden would give speeches about end of democracy!
Posted on 12/15/22 at 10:45 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
They apparently crosslinked a Mastodon account with the same info.
Donie O'Sullivan's last tweet was just a statement from the LAPD on Elon's incident. That didn't dox Elon's location, nor did it endanger him. I suspect we will find that very few accounts actually violated any TOS.
Posted on 12/15/22 at 10:46 pm to cwill
quote:
Evidence?
Yoel Roth’s slack messages raise a question of fact as to whether the government was instructing Twitter to censor certain information and ban certain accounts. It’s by no means a slam dunk 1A claim but those Slack messages create a triable issue for those who were banned against the FBI/DHS—but not Twitter (since it doesn’t have to respect your freedom of speech). In a civil case, you just have to prove that it’s probable that the government infringed your free speech rights. I think those Slack messages are the smoking gun.
Posted on 12/15/22 at 10:46 pm to Riverside
quote:Regardless, endangering speech is not protected under the 1st A.
You cannot assert “free speech rights” against a private individual or company.
The "FIRE! in a crowded theater" analogy applies.
Page 7 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News