FAKE NEWS EXPOSED: A Service of PoliticalChat.com

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

Let me pose you a question on the same topic.

Why does bobabode reserve the right to delete my posts if he does so according to the rules of this forum, or for that matter, what gives PC owner Grumpy the right to make rules that suppresses my right to free speech?

What really baffles me is why didn't Trump sue Twitter or Facebook for suspending him?

He did and it was thrown out of court.

A federal judge in San Francisco on Friday dismissed a lawsuit filed by former President Donald Trump against Twitter over its decision to permanently kick him off the social media platform following the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Last July, Trump filed separate cases against Twitter, Facebook and Google’s YouTube service over similar decisions to limit or eliminate his ability to use their sites to spread his messages about election fraud and other issues. The suits contended that the social media companies were essentially acting as government agents when they banned his speech and that doing so violated the First Amendment, which applies only to government action, not that of private companies or individuals.

However, U.S. District Court Judge James Donato ruled Friday that federal lawmakers’ proposals for legislation regulating Twitter and similar platforms did not amount to the kind of direct intimidation or demand that could plausibly lead to the conclusion that Twitter was acting on behalf of the federal government when it shut down Trump’s account.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/0...itter-00030825

It appears that Trump was trying to blame government for throwing him off Twitter at the time when he was still head of that government. This is the kind of shit-for-brains reasoning that Whell so readily gloms onto.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

Let me pose you a question on the same topic.

Why does bobabode reserve the right to delete my posts if he does so according to the rules of this forum, or for that matter, what gives PC owner Grumpy the right to make rules that suppresses my right to free speech?

What really baffles me is why didn't Trump sue Twitter or Facebook for suspending him?

Indeed. Just go over to Truth Social and post a negative (but true) comment about Trump and watch how quickly it is deleted.

Meanwhile over at Truth Social, look what doesn't get deleted (revealed in court filings), which resulted in this MAGAt showing up at Obama's place with 2 weapons and hundreds of rounds of ammo saying he wanted to get a “good angle on a shot.”

[Rajoo]

Thanks finn for both posts. I was unaware that Trump had sued the three social media companies. On the Obama stalker, did not know Trump had posted his address. Yet Trump had ordered Secret Service to protect his four adult children and three others for an additional six months costing us $1.7 Million.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...22f_story.html

[whell]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

Let me pose you a question on the same topic.

Why does bobabode reserve the right to delete my posts if he does so according to the rules of this forum, or for that matter, what gives PC owner Grumpy the right to make rules that suppresses my right to free speech?

What really baffles me is why didn't Trump sue Twitter or Facebook for suspending him?

I have no issue with Bob deleting your posts! :-)

Seriously, Bob can delete all the posts he wants. But as soon as the FBI starts identifying posts for Bob that the FBI thinks violate the forums' rules, the problems start.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

I have no issue with Bob deleting your posts! :-)

Seriously, Bob can delete all the posts he wants. But as soon as the FBI starts identifying posts for Bob that the FBI thinks violate the forums' rules, the problems start.

You act as though this whole thing actually has something to do with free speech as opposed to conservatives' fear that their (and their Russian allies') ability to rile the MAGA rubes with dangerous lies and misinformation may be threatened, notwithstanding the damage they have already done to the nation and the world.

Consider for a moment that these same MAGA conservatives are at the forefront of a movement to ban books that tell the truth about American history or that reveal that gays actually exist. Moreover, they censured Adam Schiff for what he said in the House( Speech and Debate Clause notwithstanding). What these actions have in common is conservatives' desire to maintain political and cultural hegemony over the ignorant, credulous fools that comprise their base. Falsely claiming censorship (while censuring Schiff) and banning books are all tools in this effort and not principled stands for free speech.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by whell

I have no issue with Bob deleting your posts! :-)

Seriously, Bob can delete all the posts he wants. But as soon as the FBI starts identifying posts for Bob that the FBI thinks violate the forums' rules, the problems start.

Why, FBI is not authorized to notify Bob/Grumpy if they see a problem here?
Isn't their job to identify national security threats or threats to VIP's like Mr. Obama?

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

You act as though this whole thing actually has something to do with free speech as opposed to conservatives' fear that their (and their Russian allies') ability to rile the MAGA rubes with dangerous lies and misinformation may be threatened, notwithstanding the damage they have already done to the nation and the world.

Consider for a moment that these same MAGA conservatives are at the forefront of a movement to ban books that tell the truth about American history or that reveal that gays actually exist. Moreover, they censured Adam Schiff for what he said in the House( Speech and Debate Clause notwithstanding). What these actions have in common is conservatives' desire to maintain political and cultural hegemony over the ignorant, credulous fools that comprise their base. Falsely claiming censorship (while censuring Schiff) and banning books are all tools in this effort and not principled stands for free speech.

1) No one is "banning books". Parents, however, have every right to monitor and address the presence of inappropriate content in school. The difference is what one group considers appropriate versus what another group considers appropriate. Thus, it's not a "free speech" issue. I'd suspect even you would recognize the difference, but maybe not.

2) Do you not understand the difference between censor and censure? Not sure why you're throwing Schiff in here. No one is throttling Schiff's ability to speak. Besides, he claims the censure was a big fundraiser for him, so what's your beef?

3) So, we have foreign actors using Twitter and other platforms to influence the opinions of its users. How is that any different from what the US is doing when it's busy seeding other countries' media with pro-western messaging? Are you saying that its absolutely appropriate for the US Gov't to intervene with Twitter's operations while engaging in similar disinformation campaigns abroad?

4) The moment that we give the gov't the OK to tell media outlets what is appropriate / not appropriate communication is the date we can start planning the going-away party for the 1st Amendment.

[Chicks]

Originally Posted by whell

1) No one is "banning books".

Do try to educate yourself, it'll do you good.

https://pen.org/report/banned-in-the...on-in-schools/

[whell]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

Why, FBI is not authorized to notify Bob/Grumpy if they see a problem here?
Isn't their job to identify national security threats or threats to VIP's like Mr. Obama?

Sure, and the FBI can absolutely do so, within the limits prescribed by the Constitution and subject to judicial review.

Put it another way: if a pro-Russian sympathizer stood on a soapbox in Central Park and started spewing anti-US propaganda, would the FBI be duty-bound to silence him? Nope.

So, what's the difference between the guy spreading his message in Central Park, or spreading it on Twitter? As far as the message itself, which is what the FBI claims it is interested in, nothing.

Is the platform of a soapbox in Central Park different that Twitter? Of course, it is. It has reach, it has algorithms that will push content to you, sometimes whether you want it or not.

But does this difference, therefore, require the involvement of the FBI or other government agencies to monitor or influence it? Hell no.

In the case you cited, an individual made an alleged threat to a public figure. Is the threat actionable from a law enforcement perspective? Maybe. Does making the threat on Twitter make it any more or less actionable? No.

Social media is still a relatively new thing in the history of media. The body of case law addressing the use of social media is also pretty "young". Here's an interesting look at several court decisions regarding social media. SCOTUS decisions thus far have treated the posting of content on such forums as protected 1st Amendment activity. They provide for those platforms to enforce terms of service, provided that such enforcement is content-neutral.

Long story short, I'm highly suspicious of any efforts by the Federal Gov't to limit freedom of speech. In that vein, having the FBI inject itself into social media should be regarded with a healthy level of skepticism, and always questioned with a bias toward of preserving those rights.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Chicks

Do try to educate yourself, it'll do you good.

https://pen.org/report/banned-in-the...on-in-schools/

One could say the same to you since you apparently need educating more than most. The first sentence from your source article:

The 2022-23 school year has been marked to date by an escalation of book bans and censorship in classrooms and school libraries across the United States.

This statement is based on the premise that any book, article, or magazine, or for that matter audio and or video material, can be entered into a schools curriculum or placed in the school for kids to access, and parents have no right to question the material or request that material be removed if inappropriate.

Just because the author of your article calls this "book banning" doesn't make it so.

Now, are these parents' requests always legitimate? No. Are these requests never legitimate? Also no. The weight of case law in the past has tended to support making "controversial" books available. That's a good thing.

The recent spike in parents' concerns is related to the increasing availability of sexual/sexual preference content in schools. Some of the content is relatively benign. But there are limits and some of the material may, in some folk's opinion, go too far in exposing young kids to sexual content when they're not mature enough for it.

I think we need to allow the debates to continue. Leave the content in schools that is benign, and take out the stuff that kids aren't ready for.