remember this is sportello who for years fell for mainstream liberal position that trump was going to be in trouble because of russian interference in election.
The Former Guy sues the internet
- Thread starter Sportello
- Start date
PT 4 Life
Most-Hated Member
The rich don’t have to go fight. They drafted poor American boys like my grandfather to go and fight their dumb wars.
DriveInDriѵeOut
Inordinately Right
Yes that's what the case is about you stable genius.
He wrote a concurring opinion, signaling that the court would likely uphold regulating social media as common carriers. Try reading the link smart guy.
Maple Grove MN Driver
Cocaine Mang!
I did
The difference is I comprehended what I read, you didn't.
DriveInDriѵeOut
Inordinately Right
You clearly suffer from the Dunning–Kruger effect. I would explain it to you, but that would be an exercise in futility.
Carry on, stable genius.
Sportello
Well-Known Member
A person with asthma was deferred for military service at that time. Of course you knew that, but spreading disinformation is what you do.
DriveInDriѵeOut
Inordinately Right
You're so gullible!
Sloppy Joe dodged the draft, like most rich kids. Deal with it Susie.
Netsua 3:16
AND THAT’S THE BOTTOM LINE
Is it Susie? Or Karen?
Who’s Susie now? And why do you keep addressing men by woman’s names?
floridays
Well-Known Member
Would you name that person?
Serious question.
I'm not aware of the certain individual you refer to.
DriveInDriѵeOut
Inordinately Right
SMHIs it Susie? Or Karen?
Who’s Susie now? And why do you keep addressing men by woman’s names?
She's a woman.
Her name is Susie.
Get a grip Karen.
Netsua 3:16
AND THAT’S THE BOTTOM LINE
Are you sure? I thought there were only 3 women on BC:
@cheryl
@Operational needs
And the man posing as @olroadbeech?
Send him your money yet? How else will his lawyers get paid?
DriveInDriѵeOut
Inordinately Right
Do you find the lawsuit to be frivolous?
Non sequitur
Well-Known Member
Did you ever read Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. ? Combined with the fact that the First Amendment in the minds of numerous qualified legal experts does not apply to private industry along with the fact that Trump freely agreed to the terms set forth by the social media platforms which grants them the right to suspend him.
He started his own blog but after the free 30 days were up and he had to starting paying.... he shut it down.
Might help to explain why the defendants aren't even bothering to respond publicly.
The minute the suit was filed the appeal for money went out to his donors. Will there be a public accounting of the dollars raised and how it was spent? We'll see.
That really means a lot when people like the Iranian president are on Twitter chanting "Death to Israel! Death to America!" But the former president of the United States is denied access. That makes it political. If social media is the new public square then they have an obligation to give equal access, not deny those with differing viewpoints from participating.
DriveInDriѵeOut
Inordinately Right
Thanks for your brilliant legal analysis lol.
You might want to read this, the supreme court just signaled that they would uphold regulating social media as common carriers.
Justice Thomas sends a message on social media regulation
Justice Thomas says platforms can be regulated as common carriers; an approach like broadcast regulation is better, says Mark MacCarthy.
www.brookings.edu
First of all this is simply the opinion of just one judge. Now if you want social media platforms to carry content in any form from anybody then be prepared for content that you personally might be offended by or personally consider pornographic or inappropriate . If that is what happens then you'll simply have to accept that new norm and forget about trying to censor content.Thanks for your brilliant legal analysis lol.
You might want to read this, the supreme court just signaled that they would uphold regulating social media as common carriers.
Justice Thomas sends a message on social media regulation
Justice Thomas says platforms can be regulated as common carriers; an approach like broadcast regulation is better, says Mark MacCarthy.
Then again you won't pay for information anyway so why should it matter to you?
DriveInDriѵeOut
Inordinately Right
You didn't read it apparently.
Again when the platform is a form of private enterprise it's their property and their rules. They don't HAVE to provide that service. If you want a completely wide open social media platform then be prepared for content you might find obscene and offensive. But, this is the what you wanted and there won't be anything you can do about it. And furthermore you could expect Facebook, Twitter etc to begin charging you for every second or every word of content you post. When it's no longer free , that will be the game changer.
Similar threads
