Trump sues Twitter and Facebook in class action

Post Reply New Topic

These are easy to answer. A private company does have the power to deny service. Facebook is not a public platform.

Trump can still exercise his right to speech. The media you spoke about clearly reports on him and so has not censored or banned him in anyway.

Trump's ban was after the election and so had no baring on it. (As I remember, Biden did not actually instigate an insurrection on our Capitol, so I am unsure why he would have a ban.)

If you read most legal commentary on this, Trump has no case.

Personally, I don't mind Trump on Facebook or Twitter. I don't go to either. I also think if he keeps a high profile, he will hurt his party more than help it.

But this is bigger than Trump. The US government cannot not compel the speech of a company. This case is going no where. Just read the 1st amendment.

I understood that Trump supporters stormed the building without Donald Trump being involved. Mr Trump said their actions were not right. I saw him make a statement as it came on our UK news at the time. (Or is the USA news biassed so they censor it but we watch the full USA coverage of it? Our UK news is definately censored and we actually get the whole picture from you guys in the USA, so I expect your news is censored in a similar way).

You haven't, I've said that there should perhaps be some "right to a platform" in the internet age. You have just said "there is no right", barely justifying it. When I ask you about free speech, why it is good and why the government should not curtail it, you've not answered and simply proclaimed you understand free speech better than I do. I'll ask again: Why is free speech a good thing? Why shouldn't governments engage in censorship?



I imagine it would simply be a set of restrictions on the reasons you can kick someone off certain internet services and making stronger legal recourse available to appeal such a decision. I'd also put in something about abusing algorithms to control traffic to any given profile. You don't need to nationalise it, regulation is more than enough. A government abusing this would announce reasons for deplatforming someone, not announcing reasons not to do so. How do you control any government doing things like that for its own purposes? As for making judgements on the weight of one person's rights over another's - I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Are you talking about the rights of a multinational mega corporations against the rights of an individual?



I don't recall it coming up, but I did enjoy seeing them get egg on their faces when they reversed their decision on the lab leak theory, that it might not be a crazy right wing conspiracy theory misinformation after all. There's another of those pesky basic free speech principles demonstrating their value in the real world, which you refuse to discuss.



You don't have to visit any particular person's page on these sites and there are many blocking tools available to stop accidental intrusions into your safe space. Your argument about a right to an audience is a non starter on these social media platforms so I'm not dodging it, I'm disagreeing with it, at least regarding the huge tech giants.

I don't know about WP, I'm mainly concerned about the social media megacorps. I believe they are beyond being "simple private businesses" now and the rules may need to be changed to accommodate that.

Off to bed now, we can pick it up again tomorrow.

No where does it say that Freedom of Speech means that you are also entitled to an audience to hear that speech. For example, a public university might be required to allow Donald Trump to speak on their campus (a private school does not have that requirement). That does not mean that the public school is also required to provide Donald Trump with an audience to hear that speech.

As for the disadvantage argument, again, I point to the fact that you are not entitled to an audience to hear that speech. The populace is not required to read a certain newspaper or watch a certain channel for news if they don't wish to. The press can also decline to interview certain individuals if they don't wish to. The same goes for social media. Regardless of the reach, you are not entitled to an audience on those platforms.

So Trump's speech is not being restricted, simply his audience which is, and should be allowed.

One must remember:

Trump said, in a tweet DURING THE EVENTS OF JANUARY 6TH, that he "loved" the protestors/insurrectionists/whatever.

Do you feel he would have said the same thing to BLM folks who are peacefully protesting?

A couple of different opinions on the case from lawyers.
This discusses contracts and what may or may not make them binding, as well as discussion on private businesses and their ability to deal with whoever they want.

This discusses the assertions within the lawsuit that Twitter was acting as a "state actor", and so bound by first ammendment.


Looked at objectively, the case certainly contains a few interesting legal theories...

Let's see where this goes; which, happens to be in the dismissal bin due to grounds of irrelevant proof of claim or merit of said suit.

So what it all comes down to is deciding which has greater significance:

• Trump's right to lie some more and provoke another coup attempt.

• FB&T's right to deny platforms for Trump's lies and provocations.

Trump wants to ensure he still has access to his MAGA faithful via twitter when he's in jail.

I hope he succeeds.
God, I hate big business.

So, are you saying you are ok with corruption, if it is left-wing corruption?

God, I hate corrupt big business.

I am not defending Trump.
I am pointing out the double standards.

If a platform wishes to maintain protection, under section 230, then it can't embrace double standards and engage in biased censorship.

I am a fan of equality.
Some don't seem to be.

God, I hate biased/partisan big business.

The FCC is participating in hearings on how to control cellular radio signals within prison walls.  Watch how quickly Mr. Trump becomes an advocate of inmates' rights once he puts on the orange jumpsuit.

"The Federal Communications Commission will discuss next Tuesday (2021-07-13) steps to combat contraband wireless devices in correctional facilities, which prison officials have long said represent the greatest security threat behind bars.  Federal regulators are considering allowing state prisons across the country more technological options, reports the Associated Press.  The commission is not expected to address out-and-out cell signal jamming, something corrections officials say would help them render contraband phones useless to inmates, who use the devices for unfettered, unmonitored communication."

Source:  FCC To Combat Contraband Cell Phones In State Prisons 

He'll probably also want to legalise delivery drones to deliver him his favourite fast food and adult sized diapers.

If a private website censors people's posts, it is no longer protected under section 230.
If it does, it becomes a publisher, with the legal ramifications attached.

In essence, "You can't have your cake and eat it, too."

So, what is it?
"Spitts or Swallows?

I'm not defending Trump, btw.
I believe in fighting corruption on either side of the political divide.

God, I hate corrupt big business.