Twitter adopts 'poison pill' to prevent Elon Musk takeover (1 Viewer)

[JasperL]

I suppose if there were only two options - Twitter as it is now or Twitter with no moderation whatsoever - then you might have a point.

Alas, all you have is a false dichotomy.

The bottom line is Twitter can censor as it damn well pleases and doesn't need to ask anyone's permission, including Big Brother's, and if you don't like it you can whine if you want, and no one will care. The government cannot restrict their ability to censor as they damn well want, thanks to the 1A. Texas morons in the legislature and the idiot governor tried that and the law failed at its first contact with non-morons, which was the district court that enjoined it for about 10 different reasons. What you're suggesting is what failed so miserably in Texas and Florida, so it's a dumb idea, already proven dumb. You don't understand the law, Sec. 230, or the 1A.

 

[JasperL]

It's not a private company either.

For purposes of any principle it is a private company. Its shares are publicly traded, but that doesn't make it "public" property. It's private for purposes of the 1A, etc...

 

[GummyVitamins]

Notice how they like Musk, he is an immigrant, but because he is white and wealthy, they like him....but if he were brown and poor they would call him a rapist or drug trafficker.

And I guess liberals want to hold him back because he's an African American? This is a fun logic game.

 

[GummyVitamins]

I find it ironic that liberals care so much about this. If Musk takes over Twitter they'll be able to keep posting the same things they're posting now. They're just upset that people they disagree with will be able to post things they don't agree with. These are the same people who claim to hate fascism and authoritarianism.

 

[JasperL]

First Amendment go bye-bye?

Why are all you guys so confused about the 1A. It's short - just read it. Pay attention to the first few words - "Congress shall make no law....."

Twitter ain't Congress.

And of course if Congress restricted Twitter's ability to censor as they see fit, cannot censor based on viewpoint for example, that is Congress 'making a law' that interferes with 'free speech' by compelling speech.

 

[CLAX1911]

For purposes of any principle it is a private company.

No it's not. It is a public company they went public they're not private under any circumstances.

Its shares are publicly traded, but that doesn't make it "public" property. It's private for purposes of the 1A, etc...

You didn't say anything about property the company is public. It's not private for the purposes of the first amendment it answers to it shareholders it's public.

That's what that means.

 

[BlueTex]

This statement doesn't make sense. Leftists in California when his business was based there tried to force him out of business because of draconian lockdown rules. In this case leftist pushed him right. He didn't go to Illinois he didn't go to Oregon and he didn't go to New York or Massachusetts he went to Texas.

Did he shut down the Fremont plant?

 

[Logician Man]

all you guys

Straight to the er.

 

[CLAX1911]

Did he shut down the Fremont plant?

Who cares?

 

[BlueTex]

Who cares?

LMAO.. Those making the claim he left California.. Answer the question, did he shut down the Fremont plant?

 

[JasperL]

I find it ironic that liberals care so much about this. If Musk takes over Twitter they'll be able to keep posting the same things they're posting now. They're just upset that people they disagree with will be able to post things they don't agree with. These are the same people who claim to hate fascism and authoritarianism.

I'm not sure who is worried that Musk might be more permissive. I don't care who he lets use the platform. And there are millions of users of Twitter who post things I disagree with, including MAGAs, right wingers, etc. The idea that Twitter has purged right wing thought is kind of dumb, and it's certainly ignorant - just do on the site, see who's there, what they say.

 

[CLAX1911]

LMAO.. Those making the claim he left California.. Answer the question, did he shut down the Fremont plant?

He's in Texas he can't be in Texas and California at the same time. He had you first leave California and then enter Texas.

Who cares again if he shut the plant down he's not based there anymore it's a Texas company that operates a satellite in California.

 

[GummyVitamins]

LMAO.. Those making the claim he left California.. Answer the question, did he shut down the Fremont plant?

He has plants all over. He's not really investing in California anymore though. He would be pretty stupid if he did.

Gigafactory Texas - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[JasperL]

No it's not. It is a public company they went public they're not private under any circumstances.

You didn't say anything about property the company is public. It's not private for the purposes of the first amendment it answers to it shareholders it's public.

That's what that means.

When the 1A says, "Congress shall make no law....." that is not referring to Twitter. They can 'abridge..the freedom of speech' all they want. Same as you in your kitchen, or the owners of this place.

 

[CLAX1911]

When the 1A says, "Congress shall make no law....." that is not referring to Twitter. They can 'abridge..the freedom of speech' all they want. Same as you in your kitchen, or the owners of this place.

So Elon musk represents Congress? When did that happen?

 

[JasperL]

So Elon musk represents Congress? When did that happen?

No, he doesn't, and it didn't happen and I didn't say or imply it did. You can address my actual comment if you want. Perhaps reread it, since you didn't get it the first time.

For purposes of the 1A there is no difference between a "private" company like, say, any of Trump's corporations, and a "public" company such as Twitter, so I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

 

[CLAX1911]

No, he doesn't, and it didn't happen and I didn't say or imply it did. You can address my actual comment if you want. Perhaps reread it, since you didn't get it the first time.

For purposes of the 1A there is no difference between a "private" company like, say, any of Trump's corporations, and a "public" company such as Twitter, so I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

I'm only saying it's a public company. It's not private.

 

[Taylor]

The bottom line is Twitter can censor as it damn well pleases and doesn't need to ask anyone's permission, including Big Brother's, and if you don't like it you can whine if you want, and no one will care.

Or you can buy the company and improve it.

The government cannot restrict their ability to censor as they damn well want, thanks to the 1A. Texas morons in the legislature and the idiot governor tried that and the law failed at its first contact with non-morons, which was the district court that enjoined it for about 10 different reasons. What you're suggesting is what failed so miserably in Texas and Florida, so it's a dumb idea, already proven dumb. You don't understand the law, Sec. 230, or the 1A.

Nobody is claiming that what Twitter is doing is unconstitutional, certainly not me. That's a strawman. I don't see what your beef is here. Maybe just here to pout?

 

[JasperL]

I'm only saying it's a public company. It's not private.

OK, has nothing to do with anything we're discussing, but, yes, it is publicly traded....

 

[CLAX1911]

OK, has nothing to do with anything we're discussing, but, yes, it is publicly traded....

Yeah when you say it's a private company that's false it isn't. It's a public company.

If that's not what you mean than feel free to explain.

 

[JasperL]

Or you can buy the company and improve it.

Sure, or he can cash out his shares for a big profit. We've now listed two of an unlimited number of possibilities in this world.

Nobody is claiming that what Twitter is doing is unconstitutional, certainly not me. That's a strawman. I don't see what your beef is here. Maybe just here to pout?

You don't even understand your own argument, and you sure as hell don't understand the 1A. I didn't claim what Twitter is doing is unconstitutional. So you moved the goal posts. My claim is simple - "The government cannot restrict [Twitter's] ability to censor as they damn well want, thanks to the 1A."

What you suggested, many times, in different ways is what's unconstitutional

Solution is as follows:
.....
2. Remove their Section 230 protections unless they change policies to be unbias.

Texas tried that, the law was immediately enjoined because it's unconstitutional. I cited that opinion, and you ignored it because of course you did.

Twitter has a 1A right to be "unbias." It's really that simple and we're 350 posts into this thread and you STILL don't get it. Amazing.

 

[Taylor]

Sure, or he can cash out his shares for a big profit. We've now listed two of an unlimited number of possibilities in this world.
You don't even understand your own argument, and you sure as hell don't understand the 1A. I didn't claim what Twitter is doing is unconstitutional. So you moved the goal posts. My claim is simple - "The government cannot restrict [Twitter's] ability to censor as they damn well want, thanks to the 1A."

Yes, thanks for stating the obvious. What's next? You going to argue that chickens are birds, or that tomatoes are edible?

What you suggested, many times, in different ways is what's unconstitutional

No I didn't. That's your strawman argument I mentioned earlier.

Texas tried that, the law was immediately enjoined because it's unconstitutional. I cited that opinion, and you ignored it because of course you did.

Never mentioned Texas. Never suggested anything about Texas. Could care less about what Texas did.

Twitter has a 1A right to be "unbias." It's really that simple and we're 350 posts into this thread and you STILL don't get it. Amazing.

The world is ROUND Jasper. R O U N D. When will you get it???

 

[JasperL]

Yeah when you say it's a private company that's false it isn't. It's a public company.

If that's not what you mean than feel free to explain.

For purposes of the 1A and this discussion, it is a private company, i.e. private property, no different than the local builder organized as a one-owner corporation. It makes no difference to anything that we're talking about that its shares are publicly traded on an exchange. It's accountable to its shareholders same as that local builder. When you sign up for and participate in Twitter, you are doing so on private property. It's not the "public" square - it's private property and as such the rules on that platform are up to Twitter, period.

private property

www.law.cornell.edu

private property​

Private Property: property owned by private parties - essentially anyone or anything other than the government. Private property may consist of real estate, buildings, objects, intellectual property (for example, copyrights or patents ).

This is distinguished from Public Property, which is owned by the state or government or municipality.

 

[CLAX1911]

Sure, or he can cash out his shares for a big profit. We've now listed two of an unlimited number of possibilities in this world.

You don't even understand your own argument, and you sure as hell don't understand the 1A. I didn't claim what Twitter is doing is unconstitutional. So you moved the goal posts. My claim is simple - "The government cannot restrict [Twitter's] ability to censor as they damn well want, thanks to the 1A."

What you suggested, many times, in different ways is what's unconstitutional


Texas tried that, the law was immediately enjoined because it's unconstitutional. I cited that opinion, and you ignored it because of course you did.

How is it unconstitutional to not protect a publisher from responsibility?

Twitter has a 1A right to be "unbias." It's really that simple and we're 350 posts into this thread and you STILL don't get it. Amazing.

Sure it does. It doesn't however have the right to 230 protection, especially if it acts as an editor

 

[CLAX1911]

For purposes of the 1A and this discussion, it is a private company, i.e. private property, no different than the local builder organized as a one-owner corporation.

It's a public company. It's not a one owner corporation.

It makes no difference to anything that we're talking about that its shares are publicly traded on an exchange.

Yeah it means it's a public company. I never mentioned property.

It's accountable to its shareholders same as that local builder.

It should also be accountable to laws. And it shouldn't be protected from them.

When you sign up for and participate in Twitter, you are doing so on private property. It's not the "public" square - it's private property and as such the rules on that platform are up to Twitter, period.

Disagree it is the public square.

private property

www.law.cornell.edu

I'm not talking about property.