First. I am not a republican.Milo wrote: ↑Sat Oct 17, 2020 10:56 amFunny how nobody on earth has sued on that ratio.Doc wrote: ↑Sat Oct 17, 2020 9:18 amThe supreme court has already ruled your opinion as unconstitutionalMilo wrote: ↑Sat Oct 17, 2020 7:59 am"Censorship" implies some sort of public sphere, Twitter and Facebook are not, so there's nothing "authoritarian" about it.Doc wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 7:35 pmYet Hunter Biden claimed he was broke when he was hit by a paternity law suit.Milo wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 4:30 amIncome tax returns show income, yes...Doc wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 5:27 pm
Have you posted your income tax returns online yet Milo?
Has Biden posted his tax returns that include the money he got through his son from Ukraine and the CCP Plus any other money he made illicitly?
Biden's campaign stated that Joe Biden had "No *scheduled* meetings" Not "No meetings" Oh the twisted web we weave when our intention is to deceive. .
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/hun ... ail-shows/
Hunter Biden Offered $10 Million Annually by Chinese Energy Firm for ‘Introductions Alone,’ Email ShowsYou are misquoting me. I said "the Biden campaign"
You misquote Biden there.Did you get an email from a Chinese oil company offering you $10 million a year that you posted on Twitter and Facebook that was censored by the authoritarian and got you banned? Or are you all for censorship because you don't feel that people can judge information for themselves?
I just got an email today "offering" me dates with Russian models...
Go join ThinkSpot if you want:
I'm sure you and the five other white, angry geriatrics will be happy there.
You Republicans have a pretty shaky faith in free enterprise!
Marsh vs Alabama
Social media invited the public into it's "property"
Had Twitter Facebook et al only invited the part of the public whose ideas it agreed with then they might have a case. But they invited everyone to their platform without such stipulation. They did so because the more public they are the more money they make.Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which it ruled that a state trespassing statute could not be used to prevent the distribution of religious materials on a town's sidewalk, even though the sidewalk was part of a privately owned company town. The Court based its ruling on the provisions of the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment.
You Republicans sure let a lot of unconstitutional behaviour go!
As to the first sentence of your reply Quit being lazy Milo. You has a much better retort that I gave to you in the link I posted to you
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan ... _the_Court
To Which I would have retorted that Twitter appears to have committed a massive fraud on the public:
As, all of a sudden, Twitter realizes that it has a problem with its TOS given how much it has back tracked of its censorship over the NY Post article:
1. Who May Use the Services
You may use the Services only if you agree to form a binding contract with Twitter and are not a person barred from receiving services under the laws of the applicable jurisdiction. In any case, you must be at least 13 years old, or in the case of Periscope 16 years old, to use the Services. If you are accepting these Terms and using the Services on behalf of a company, organization, government, or other legal entity, you represent and warrant that you are authorized to do so and have the authority to bind such entity to these Terms, in which case the words “you” and “your” as used in these Terms shall refer to such entity.
https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-p ... uct-policy
Now why is it that Twitter disable the account of the NY post? What is the cause from their terms of service that they cite? Oh right they said "it was just a bad algorithm" So it is just a bad algorithm that not only caused The NY Post's to be lock out of its account but also suspended account of Trump's White house press secretary. And the account of the house of representatives? Not to mention countless twitter subscribers that tried to retweet the NY Post's Tweet and were also either banned or prevented to do so?Rationale
Twitter’s mission is to give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information, and to express their opinions and beliefs without barriers. Free expression is a human right – we believe that everyone has a voice, and the right to use it. Our role is to serve the public conversation, which requires representation of a diverse range of perspectives.
We recognise that if people experience abuse on Twitter, it can jeopardize their ability to express themselves. Research has shown that some groups of people are disproportionately targeted with abuse online. This includes; women, people of color, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual individuals, marginalized and historically underrepresented communities. For those who identity with multiple underrepresented groups, abuse may be more common, more severe in nature and have a higher impact on those targeted.
We are committed to combating abuse motivated by hatred, prejudice or intolerance, particularly abuse that seeks to silence the voices of those who have been historically marginalized. For this reason, we prohibit behavior that targets individuals with abuse based on protected category.
If you see something on Twitter that you believe violates our hateful conduct policy, please report it to us.
"Free speech is a human right"?
Clear Twitter is acknowledging that users of its service have a right to free speech on its service. Twitter can not have it both ways. Even if statements of incitement to violence are made.
Dick Costello is the former CEO of Twitter and one of its largest shareholders. His tweet was not suspended by Twitter until his tweet was deleted. After several days he deleted it himself and was penalized by having his account temporarily suspended:
But Costello also stated in the Tweet regards to "me to ocapitalists":
" who think you can separate society from business"
SO again Twitter wants to have to both ways.
Is Twitter then above the law?