Trump asks U.S. judge to force Twitter to restart his account

[OscarLevant]

even as a president he had no rights to force speech. He will lose on those first amendment grounds, because the courts have determined that you cannot compel speech either. So, the government cannot force a private entity to publish or accept someone else's speech in their forum

Yes, 1A goes to Twitter, not Trump,.

 

[OscarLevant]

He had a stronger argument because he was president and so on.

Stronger but not winnable. Granted scotus I think would see it the other way given the make up of the court

It's a conservative court, but even a conservative court knows what the first amendment is all about, and Twitter has no obligation to publish anyway who violates their TOS. It's not even a 1A case.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

The standard here, which is a very good one, is subjective and legality has little to do with it. It’s also dictatorial which is as it should be.

I propose you are wrong in what you say. The standard (here) is objectivity: to see things as they are, to recognize them for what they in fact are. To see clearly, to decide clearly and fairly.

Objectivity implies distance, sound and fair judgment, and proper objective decision.

Not through *subjective* assessments which would imply decisions based in the non-objective, by definition.

Dictatorial? No. Objective, fair and just.

Anyone with some part of an objective mind still intact in our hysterical, subjective present, recognizes that Trump was hated, with hatred cultivated, honed and encouraged — for irrational and also subjective reasons. The Twitter ban came about as culmination of a long effort.

You-plural will trade away your patrimony ‘for a mess of pottage’ before you know it.

 

[OscarLevant]

Now he's bumming off the Saving America PAC site to issue his fiats. Imagine a billionaire couch surfing social media sites because he was thrown off the reputable sites for being a stochastic terrorist.
That's who our last president was, folks. Now he's panhandling and pretending he's still in charge of something.... pathetic him, and pathetic us for ever letting him near 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

The ONLY reason he hasn't announced his candidacy is because if he did, the campaign finance laws would kick in, and he'd no longer be able to spend the donations on himself.

 

[OscarLevant]

the thing about having your own servers...even the internet provider can decline you service...I know this, because when I did a short stint with Spectrum Internet services, we frequently shut people down for activities that were illegal or highly unethical. There was even a cut and paste form that we read off of for those people and we would switch them to legal. This applied to people like white nationalist groups, piracy of copyrighted materials, illegal downloads, uploads, etc, child porn, drugs, etc.

I don't know why Trump doesn't start his own ISP ?

 

[OscarLevant]

So I have to ask, when Facebook, Reddit, and Twitter run to Congress and declare they aren't going to target or violate political speech, doesn't going after Trump do exactly that?

I don't know that they did that, can you post a link? Your question is premised on that point, so if you can't post a link, then the premise is moot.

That being said, social media are private concerns, and they have a right to refuse anyone or any entity that violates their TOS. It's a matter for contract law, the law of torts. (IANAL, in case anyone is asking).

Their lawsuit protections are based on their neutrality towards political speech and allowing differing voices to be heard. If I were going to try to win a case on this matter, you go after the previous assurances made before Congress to maintain their legal advantage against suit---knowing full well it was predicated upon them maintaining free speech as they construed it, alongside government

All the replies here seem to ignore promises made before Congress regarding political speech in particular, which it seems to me they violated as soon as it looks like it could ingratiate them to the new administration. It could be argued this was an in kind political donation to ignore their previous commitments to attack political speech they did not like. Dorsey covered his tracks already, I'm sure, the man isn't stupid, but no one bans a sitting US president without it going up the corporate food chain so someone, somewhere discussed it.

PS sorry for word choice edits, its 6am here even a coffee IV isn't that fast.

None of the social media sites would ban him merely for 'political speech' noting that many conservatives are on twitter, including libertarians, Green party, etc. Even the Taliban. What SM's issues are speech that incites violence. It is clear the "Big Lie" was the prime mover on 1/6 which gave rise the 'Stop The Steal' mantra, and it is logica, therefore, that the the BL was the cause of the juggernaut of rage which was the engine of the violence, which goes back to TOS violations.

It is not, therefore, about speech, exchanges of differing views, etc., it's about a violation of contract, the TOS.

 

[OscarLevant]

We in England miss our daily helping of Trump stupidity; a comedy 'president' brightening our otherwise dismal lives with exciting tales of nuking hurricanes and ultra-violet enemas...

Comedy for you, hell for us. Sorry, he had to go.

 

[OscarLevant]

So you didn't watch Jack Dorsey and that egg faced prat Zuckerburg tell congress they don't have bias towards political speech and would not ban on that basis.

Trump's speech is not about a different point of view, it's about speech that gives rise to violence, a violation of TOS.

 

[JasperL]

I propose you are wrong in what you say. The standard (here) is objectivity: to see things as they are, to recognize them for what they in fact are. To see clearly, to decide clearly and fairly.

Objectivity implies distance, sound and fair judgment, and proper objective decision.

Not through *subjective* assessments which would imply decisions based in the non-objective, by definition.

Dictatorial? No. Objective, fair and just.

I provided the context for what I meant, and I'm sure you understand my point just fine. I love the moderators, believe they do a great job, and a fair job, and made that very clear. My point is there is no way to write a law that would allow them to do what they do without changing this place for the worse. We should all be thankful Sec. 230 protects the site and the mods and allows them to freedom to police this place as they want without fear of some whiny idiot suing them for unfairly banning him or her.

Trump was hated, with hatred cultivated, honed and encouraged — for irrational and also subjective reasons.

And also rational and objective reasons.

You-plural will trade away your patrimony ‘for a mess of pottage’ before you know it.

As I've said on this topic many times, the 'right' in question is very clear cut. The right to free speech necessarily means the government cannot compel speech, and government cannot compel me or you or Twitter to host speech with which we disagree, and that's what efforts to get government involved in moderating this place or Twitter or Facebook involve.

OK, fine, you don't believe Trump should have been banned. I don't care what your view of that is, and what's relevant is how would one change the rules so that doesn't happen again, and that doesn't violate the constitutional rights of Twitter or DP or anywhere else? On what "objective" standard would you condition benefits such as liability protection that don't put government in the position of compelling speech - demanding that Twitter carry Trump's tweets, or else?

So, what of my 'patrimony' am I willing to trade away? As I see it I'm defending my 'patrimony' over those who'd take a wrecking ball to it because they don't actually believe in the 1A, freedom of association if it means they don't get what they want.

 

[OscarLevant]

But there is a larger legal and Constitutional issue that definitely bears on 1A issues. When all speech is transmitted through private platforms and the banning or editing of speech is carried out arbitrarily.

Yes, private property is certainly a valid concern. But it is obvious there are other concerns just as valid. In time, in the courts, these will be addressed. They need to be addressed.

So it is good that Trump is bringing the case — even if it is brushed aside, for now. Eventually it will be addressed.

If it isn't tossed out, which I believe it will be, because without going into the weeds of whether or not Trump's speech did, indeed, violate SM's 'TOS', the SM's will be recognized by the courts as having the right to determine, without needing arbitration by a court, as to what constitutes a violation of their own TOS.

IF the courts allow Trump to prove his speech didn't violate the TOS, that opens up a can of worms for Trump. How many 1/6 participants whom he didn't pardon will be willing to state that the big reason they attacked the capital was due to Trump? Speech doesn't require explicit language, which is how they prosecute the mafia, And it will be long and costly, and still will result in his losing the suit, anyway. Not only that, all that testimony (as I understand it) can be used against him if the DOJ decides to indict him on seditious conspiracy grounds. I don't think Trump will want to go there, and I think the lawsuit is just a stunt to garner donations, only.

 

[OscarLevant]

The FIRST AMENDMENT is what allows internet companies to do whatever they desire with political speech, not section 230.

That's what I was saying, Twitters right to exclude on TOS violations is Twitters 1a, not Trump's.

 

[OscarLevant]

You have moved closer to the heart of the issue — but inadvertently it seems.

Is there any problem at all with any aspect or manifestation of banning or eliminating speech on Twitter?

Violations of TOS is the issue with Trump's bans.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Trump's speech is not about a different point of view, it's about speech that gives rise to violence, a violation of TOS.

Which no one here has even attempted to substantiate. You are now the 16th liberal/progressive to give pushback on this without offering anything more than I say so.

 

[OpportunityCost]

I don't know that they did that, can you post a link? Your question is premised on that point, so if you can't post a link, then the premise is moot.

That being said, social media are private concerns, and they have a right to refuse anyone or any entity that violates their TOS. It's a matter for contract law, the law of torts. (IANAL, in case anyone is asking).




None of the social media sites would ban him merely for 'political speech' noting that many conservatives are on twitter, including libertarians, Green party, etc. Even the Taliban. What SM's issues are speech that incites violence. It is clear the "Big Lie" was the prime mover on 1/6 which gave rise the 'Stop The Steal' mantra, and it is logica, therefore, that the the BL was the cause of the juggernaut of rage which was the engine of the violence, which goes back to TOS violations.

It is not, therefore, about speech, exchanges of differing views, etc., it's about a violation of contract, the TOS.

Since you are late to the party, I already did.

Sure they would, they have been proven to ban conservative voices and only changed the status when they got caught. They were overjoyed to ban Trump.

To be clear I have been outlining this is a tort all along and not a 1a matter.

 

[OscarLevant]

The concern I have, which I think is coherent and reasonable, pertains to the platforms Twitter, FaceBook and perhaps also to YouTube, and surrounds a function they have assumed: they are platforms where people publish and broadcast ideas, opinions and views of the sort pertinent to our fundamental notion of civic discourse — the public square is generally how this is represented.

The 'public squares' of which were owned by the public ( the local gov ), here, it is owned by a private company. Take the bulletin board at a local supermarket, they have the right to take down any ad on the board the deem unfit.

Trump was banned from Twitter for political reasons (the unbiased tend to see this, the biased tend not to see it). And this occurred in a very contentious political and social atmosphere of consequence.

That's not true. Trump was banned for promoting egregious falsehoods so pronounced it galvanized a population to hate, and ultimately gave rise to 1/6 and mantra's of 'hang mike pence' 'where is pelosi' and 'stop the steal' and the noose for Pence, and the damage of millions ot property, injury to 140 persons, 6 deaths all due to 1/6, but for Trump would not have occured, etc.

A number of conservatives agree on this point, and if you truly unbiased I can't fathom how you cannot see it.

But when a private platform with such reach — on which depend a significant percentage of civic communication and which desire to function similarly to Public Square — I think this is a new development not precisely comparable to former times.

It's no different than a local supermarket's bulletin board, where a store will take down message they deem unfit for the community.

I think that Trump’s banning was obviously problematic. But I also tend to sympathize with far less powerful and perhaps irrelevant minor individuals who have been banned from these platforms.

It is a new frontier it seems to me. Eventually the Constitutional issues will have to be addressed because they do impinge into private domains.

THe issue is simple, really.

 

[OscarLevant]

Since you are late to the party, I already did.

Late to the party? I started the thread.

Sure they would, they have been proven to ban conservative voices and only changed the status when they got caught. They were overjoyed to ban Trump.

To be clear I have been outlining this is a tort all along and not a 1a matter.

Anyone is capable of error, hence the correction when 'caught' as you have so characterized it ( which I don't necessarily accept your premise, so feel free to prove it )

IN the mean time, no such correction has occurred for Trump, so even if you point is true, which I doubt, but if it is, it's irrelevant to Trump's violation of TOS.

 

[Argent]

We in England miss our daily helping of Trump stupidity; a comedy 'president' brightening our otherwise dismal lives with exciting tales of nuking hurricanes and ultra-violet enemas...

He would probably take the position of prime minister if given the opportunity.....

 

[OscarLevant]

These do not seem commensurate or comparable.

The argument about the need to address speech issues on these platforms is not, at all, strictly a right-wing issue. For example Glen Greenwald and Edward Snowdon talk a great deal about certain dangers that they recognize as immanent.

Okay, feel free to pinpoint precisely their concerns and how that applies to Trump's TOS violations.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

To be clear I have been outlining this is a tort all along and not a 1a matter.

First it was a contract violation, and now it's a tort.

None of this works the way you seem to think it does.

 

[OscarLevant]

The choice of who to associate with based on politics is PROTECTED by the first amendment.

Whom would Twitter prefer to associate with?


Not with Trump, and for darn good reason.

 

[OscarLevant]

First, the nation was divided. Donald Trump did not create that division. And it will continue. I am more interested in defining why the division exists and why, to all appearances, it will continue.

When you say ‘handler’ I take it to mean personages who represent the interests of specific ideological and economic faction in the nation, with different plans and ideas about what policies and directions are “good for the nation”.

The advent of neoliberalism, in my view, is the essential culprit, which had earlier beginnings, but was accelerated under Reagan and the neoliberalism infected the news.

1. Under neoliberal 'laissez-faire' thinking, Reagan repealed the Fairness Doctrine ( where a news station, if they aired a view for 5 minutes, they would have to give equal time to an opposing view, for political speeches. ) This enabled Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, and 'hate-the-left' radio on AM.

2. Prior to Cable, there were only three broadcast networks, and it was generally understood that the news programs were not profit centers, and were there under the auspices of 'civic duty'. News programs in prior to cable tended to be non--political, and where there political discussion, it was relegated to sunday mornings with Buckley's firing line, etc. With the advent of cable, 25/7 news, CNN being the first, the only way they could survive with that kind of coverage, since that is all the network was about, news, etc, having to earn a profit means they have to cater to news that was popular, so the various news show coalesced around left and right points of view, each carving out their niche. IN this scenario, the 'echo chambers' were created, further widening the divide.

(Under neoliberalism, even news has to earn a profit ) so news for profit is the source of the problem, plus the fact of the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, led to right wing hate-the-left radio, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, and this led to the toxic hurt the left by any means justified politics of Newt Gingrich (when he became Speaker under Clinton), which later gave rise to the T Party, then the Freedom Caucus, the divide ever widening and this resulted in a clever opportunist sensing a vacuum in a particular demographic that was beckoning for a demagogue, enter Trump, and in Trump they found their champion, and the great divide we find ourselves today

The essence of the thing is neoliberalism took America, and over the news.

The enemy, in my view, therefore, is neoliberalism.

Neoliberalism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[OscarLevant]

First it was a contract violation, and now it's a tort.

None of this works the way you seem to think it does.

Well, a breach of contract is a tort, meaning it's a cause of action, is it not?

 

[Argent]

Whom would Twitter prefer to associate with?

With whom would Twitter prefer to associate.

 

[OscarLevant]

I admit it: I tried ayahuasca but for some reason it had no effect. The shamaness who presided was also baffled and gave me frowning looks.

Try LSD, 250 micrograms.

Just kidding, no, don't try it.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

Well, a breach of contract is a tort, is it not?

Not really. It's a breach of contract.

"Torts", as a category are often defined as causes of action not arising from a separately defined field of law- such as contracts (or property, or estates).