A closer look at the rights of public platforms to censor posts

Thing is, you have freedom of speech but nobody owes you a platform
So if you want to be like Greg Locke and accuse people of being witches, find your own platform

Wow, that sounds like a lot of work.

First you'd have to build a platform. Currently that would take making an app, getting it in the google play and iphone stores and having a server that could handle the traffic.

Then you'd have to get people to pay attention to and use your app. And you'd probably have to do it for free, because nobody pays for those things anymore.

Forget that. It's MUCH easier to just use this platform to complain about the platforms we're butthurt about.

Just saying if you own a private platform and you don't want to let cuckoo's like Greg Locke use your platform, you don't have to.

I know. I was playing along.

Cuckoo... Interesting choice. A bird that throws other eggs out and borrows the nest for its own eggs. Pretty good analogy for someone who tries to use someone else's platform, then gets outraged when told "we don't want that here."

Ruling on Trump's lawsuit against Twitter

But in his 17-page ruling, Donato wrote that Trump and the other plaintiffs “are not starting from a position of strength” with their First Amendment claim.

The judge noted, citing federal case law, that, “Twitter is a private company, and ‘the First Amendment applies only to governmental abridgements of speech, and not to alleged abridgements by private companies.’ ”

Donato rejected the notion that Twitter’s ban of Trump and the others was attributable to the government’s actions, which would be the only way to uphold the claim of a violation of the First Amendment.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/06/trump-lawsuit-asking-to-lift-twitter-ban-is-dismissed.html

The Judge in that case left the door open for a lawsuit if it could be proved that the censorship was attributable to government actions. Therefore the recent disclosure that Homeland Security was working with Twitter to tell them who to censor is a very big deal.

New Documents Prove DHS Involvement In Facebook And Twitter Censorship

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/oth...n-facebook-and-twitter-censorship/ar-AA13Au88

These documents prove that DHS was working with Twitter, Youtube, and Facebook.

Anyone who was censored as a result of collusion with DHS according to the judge in the DJT case has the right to sue and will have a strong case.

Class-action lawsuit filed against Twitter says layoffs violate federal law

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...suit-against-twitter-says-layoffs-violate-law

This lawsuit will require Elon Musk and His legal team to disclose all illegal activity of Twitter prior to his purchase. It will be a tit for tat battle where to defend himself he can prove they were involved in criminal activity. Also, if he can expose them to massive lawsuits prior to his purchase he can take that settlement out of the $44 billion he paid for them. In other words you have the CEO of Twitter who has a vested interest in proving that Twitter colluded with DHS to censor others.

Using legal precedent to determine morality leads to very tangled rulings... Did you know a bumblebee is now officially a fish?

I only WISH I was making that up. It's all properly decided according to legal precedent. Bumblebees are now considered fish according to California Supreme Court.

You might want to be careful what you use to justify what you want to claim. Legal precedent can be a very slippery fish... er, bee.

That is why it is illegal for the US government to censor free speech.

And for the bozo's out there everyone, and I mean everyone, knows that threats of violence are not protected speech.

If the judge had determined that the speech being censored was threats of violence he would not have left the door open in his ruling.

I'm not an attorney or anything but I'm thinking a private platform is probably allowed to be biased.
Trump could probably start his own conservative platform and get a pretty good following

Of course you could. If you wanted you could be biased against 50% of your customer base. It's called go woke go broke.

Well I got 30 days over a list of Metallica albums.
Kill'em All, there debut album, I'm assuming that's the one that got me zuched
But there are no actual people who look at it, it's just bought two flag keywords without regards to context.
A person with common sense would know I wasn't advocating killing people by posting a list of Metallica albums
They've also locked me out of my account three times in the past month or so saying it's for security reasons. Could be someone trying to hack my account or something

I agree with ZNP in that the law isn't equally applied. Blatant discrimination is a right (not of government, but of every man and woman) - whether this discimination is based on sex, age, religion, marital status etc. It's the government stepping in and prohibiting discrimination against evil-doers whilst allowing discrimination on ordinary folk that makes people angry.

If Facebook were my platform, I would have banned you for your Metallica albums. Classical music should be allowed, but Metallica can be painful to listen to, so I would have done it for the safety of others. I wouldn't have banned Alex Jones for his theory on the Sandy Hoax, though. That could well be true, and free speech is important, even if you don't agree with it.

When I was teenager without any discernment I bought an album from Black Sabbath, Sabbath bloody Sabbath. On that album Ozzy Osbourne asks "am I going insane?" Even with my total lack of discernment I had to conclude that yes, he was going insane. So I stopped listening to it. Ultimately I burned the album in the fire. I don't support the US government censoring Ozzy, but as an individual I have the right to listen or not or even throw it in the fire if I choose.

I think Ozzy just burned himself out with too much drugs and alcohol. That's why Black Sabbath fired him. He kept showing up too drunk to even perform

its a US problem that they've created so it doesnt really concern me (dont live there)

Most countries have broadcasting standards and authorities, if anyone goes out of line but its also personal responsibility to discern between false advertising etc. There will always be barnum and Bailey shows that will take advantage of peoples gullibility.

Things like CNN, Twitter, in fact almost all media rely on ads to run. Advertising by its nature is deceptive, it wants to sell you something or influence you in some way. You dont HAVE to watch it. Just turn it off.

Journalists are not really held to many standards anymore.

i think people dont really understand how propaganda works so they end up being deceived anyway. If you want the truth you got to take your eyes off the idiot box or screen and read the Bible.

I have almost completed my Facebook jail sentence. 6 days left