Trump sues Zuckerberg, Dorsey, Pichai
-
@klaus he won't.
His argument is that his "free speech" was suppressed. Free speech in the US specifically says the government can't censor speech. FB, Twitter, etc are not the government.
He argues that, since these organizations worked with the government in various areas, they are de facto, the government and subject to 1st amendment restrictions.
Good luck.
But, I agree with your sentiment.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
My guess is that he'll make all kinds of statements on-line and elsewhere, but then fail to back it up with anything substantive in court.
Just like last time, IOW.
-
@klaus he won't.
His argument is that his "free speech" was suppressed. Free speech in the US specifically says the government can't censor speech. FB, Twitter, etc are not the government.
He argues that, since these organizations worked with the government in various areas, they are de facto, the government and subject to 1st amendment restrictions.
Good luck.
But, I agree with your sentiment.
@george-k said in Trump sues Zuckerberg, Dorsey, Pichai:
@klaus he won't.
His argument is that his "free speech" was suppressed. Free speech in the US specifically says the government can't censor speech. FB, Twitter, etc are not the government.
So let's assume for a second that Twitter would ban all (visibly) black people from using their platform. Would they be allowed to do that?
-
@george-k said in Trump sues Zuckerberg, Dorsey, Pichai:
@klaus he won't.
His argument is that his "free speech" was suppressed. Free speech in the US specifically says the government can't censor speech. FB, Twitter, etc are not the government.
So let's assume for a second that Twitter would ban all (visibly) black people from using their platform. Would they be allowed to do that?
@klaus said in Trump sues Zuckerberg, Dorsey, Pichai:
@george-k said in Trump sues Zuckerberg, Dorsey, Pichai:
@klaus he won't.
His argument is that his "free speech" was suppressed. Free speech in the US specifically says the government can't censor speech. FB, Twitter, etc are not the government.
So let's assume for a second that Twitter would ban all (visibly) black people from using their platform. Would they be allowed to do that?
No. Civil rights laws prohibiting any group based on race, religion, gender, etc. It's the same as saying "No blacks allowed in my store."
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
Trump sues like you breathe. In his civilian New York life, his organization had literally hundreds of lawsuits ongoing.
-
since these organizations worked with the government in various areas
We split off separate Federal divisions to deal with government contracts.
If we didn't do that, the whole company would have been hit with some significant and expensive restrictions.
I assume these organizations did the same.
-
This is about winning the House and Senate in 2022. Keeps the base motivated to vote.
The outcome is irrelevant.
-
@klaus said in Trump sues Zuckerberg, Dorsey, Pichai:
@george-k said in Trump sues Zuckerberg, Dorsey, Pichai:
@klaus he won't.
His argument is that his "free speech" was suppressed. Free speech in the US specifically says the government can't censor speech. FB, Twitter, etc are not the government.
So let's assume for a second that Twitter would ban all (visibly) black people from using their platform. Would they be allowed to do that?
No. Civil rights laws prohibiting any group based on race, religion, gender, etc. It's the same as saying "No blacks allowed in my store."
@george-k said in Trump sues Zuckerberg, Dorsey, Pichai:
@klaus said in Trump sues Zuckerberg, Dorsey, Pichai:
@george-k said in Trump sues Zuckerberg, Dorsey, Pichai:
@klaus he won't.
His argument is that his "free speech" was suppressed. Free speech in the US specifically says the government can't censor speech. FB, Twitter, etc are not the government.
So let's assume for a second that Twitter would ban all (visibly) black people from using their platform. Would they be allowed to do that?
No. Civil rights laws prohibiting any group based on race, religion, gender, etc. It's the same as saying "No blacks allowed in my store."
Hm, ok. I don't quite get, though, why it's not OK to ban groups of many people for arbitrary reasons but it is OK to ban a group of one for arbitrary reasons.
-
@george-k said in Trump sues Zuckerberg, Dorsey, Pichai:
@klaus said in Trump sues Zuckerberg, Dorsey, Pichai:
@george-k said in Trump sues Zuckerberg, Dorsey, Pichai:
@klaus he won't.
His argument is that his "free speech" was suppressed. Free speech in the US specifically says the government can't censor speech. FB, Twitter, etc are not the government.
So let's assume for a second that Twitter would ban all (visibly) black people from using their platform. Would they be allowed to do that?
No. Civil rights laws prohibiting any group based on race, religion, gender, etc. It's the same as saying "No blacks allowed in my store."
Hm, ok. I don't quite get, though, why it's not OK to ban groups of many people for arbitrary reasons but it is OK to ban a group of one for arbitrary reasons.
@klaus said in Trump sues Zuckerberg, Dorsey, Pichai:
@george-k said in Trump sues Zuckerberg, Dorsey, Pichai:
@klaus said in Trump sues Zuckerberg, Dorsey, Pichai:
@george-k said in Trump sues Zuckerberg, Dorsey, Pichai:
@klaus he won't.
His argument is that his "free speech" was suppressed. Free speech in the US specifically says the government can't censor speech. FB, Twitter, etc are not the government.
So let's assume for a second that Twitter would ban all (visibly) black people from using their platform. Would they be allowed to do that?
No. Civil rights laws prohibiting any group based on race, religion, gender, etc. It's the same as saying "No blacks allowed in my store."
Hm, ok. I don't quite get, though, why it's not OK to ban groups of many people for arbitrary reasons but it is OK to ban a group of one for arbitrary reasons.
It really depends on who is doing the banning (government vs "private" groups) and who is being banned (an identifiable group, ie, race, religion vs a specific thought).
I'll grant you the second one gets pretty murky and that is where the problem lies.
-
@george-k said in Trump sues Zuckerberg, Dorsey, Pichai:
@klaus said in Trump sues Zuckerberg, Dorsey, Pichai:
@george-k said in Trump sues Zuckerberg, Dorsey, Pichai:
@klaus he won't.
His argument is that his "free speech" was suppressed. Free speech in the US specifically says the government can't censor speech. FB, Twitter, etc are not the government.
So let's assume for a second that Twitter would ban all (visibly) black people from using their platform. Would they be allowed to do that?
No. Civil rights laws prohibiting any group based on race, religion, gender, etc. It's the same as saying "No blacks allowed in my store."
Hm, ok. I don't quite get, though, why it's not OK to ban groups of many people for arbitrary reasons but it is OK to ban a group of one for arbitrary reasons.
@klaus said in Trump sues Zuckerberg, Dorsey, Pichai:
@george-k said in Trump sues Zuckerberg, Dorsey, Pichai:
@klaus said in Trump sues Zuckerberg, Dorsey, Pichai:
@george-k said in Trump sues Zuckerberg, Dorsey, Pichai:
@klaus he won't.
His argument is that his "free speech" was suppressed. Free speech in the US specifically says the government can't censor speech. FB, Twitter, etc are not the government.
So let's assume for a second that Twitter would ban all (visibly) black people from using their platform. Would they be allowed to do that?
No. Civil rights laws prohibiting any group based on race, religion, gender, etc. It's the same as saying "No blacks allowed in my store."
Hm, ok. I don't quite get, though, why it's not OK to ban groups of many people for arbitrary reasons but it is OK to ban a group of one for arbitrary reasons.
Short answer is “because that’s what the law as written says”. Longer answer is the law was trying to address deep prejudices in society that occurred along such lines.
-
@klaus said in Trump sues Zuckerberg, Dorsey, Pichai:
@george-k said in Trump sues Zuckerberg, Dorsey, Pichai:
@klaus said in Trump sues Zuckerberg, Dorsey, Pichai:
@george-k said in Trump sues Zuckerberg, Dorsey, Pichai:
@klaus he won't.
His argument is that his "free speech" was suppressed. Free speech in the US specifically says the government can't censor speech. FB, Twitter, etc are not the government.
So let's assume for a second that Twitter would ban all (visibly) black people from using their platform. Would they be allowed to do that?
No. Civil rights laws prohibiting any group based on race, religion, gender, etc. It's the same as saying "No blacks allowed in my store."
Hm, ok. I don't quite get, though, why it's not OK to ban groups of many people for arbitrary reasons but it is OK to ban a group of one for arbitrary reasons.
Short answer is “because that’s what the law as written says”. Longer answer is the law was trying to address deep prejudices in society that occurred along such lines.
@jon-nyc said in Trump sues Zuckerberg, Dorsey, Pichai:
Short answer is “because that’s what the law as written says”. Longer answer is the law was trying to address deep prejudices in society that occurred along such lines.
As usual, @jon-nyc 's answer is simpler than mine.
-
This is about winning the House and Senate in 2022. Keeps the base motivated to vote.
The outcome is irrelevant.
@loki said in Trump sues Zuckerberg, Dorsey, Pichai:
This is about winning the House and Senate in 2022. Keeps the base motivated to vote.
The outcome is irrelevant.
Ding! Ding! Ding!
And so are the bills working their way through the House (although the GOP thinks they have some Dem votes on this issue).
-
This is about winning the House and Senate in 2022. Keeps the base motivated to vote.
The outcome is irrelevant.
