Trump sues Zuckerberg, Dorsey, Pichai
-
wrote on 7 Jul 2021, 19:07 last edited by
I don't support Trump in most ways, but I hope he wins this.
-
wrote on 7 Jul 2021, 19:19 last edited by
@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.
-
wrote on 7 Jul 2021, 19:53 last edited by
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.
wrote on 7 Jul 2021, 20:01 last edited by@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?
wrote on 7 Jul 2021, 20:09 last edited by@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."
-
wrote on 7 Jul 2021, 20:27 last edited by
To clarify the distinction, the civil rights laws apply to society as a whole, the free speech right is from the 1st amendment to the constitution and specifically restricts government itself.
-
wrote on 7 Jul 2021, 20:42 last edited by
Trump sues like you breathe. In his civilian New York life, his organization had literally hundreds of lawsuits ongoing.
-
Trump sues like you breathe. In his civilian New York life, his organization had literally hundreds of lawsuits ongoing.
wrote on 7 Jul 2021, 21:02 last edited by -
wrote on 7 Jul 2021, 21:33 last edited by
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.
-
wrote on 7 Jul 2021, 21:38 last edited by
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."
wrote on 7 Jul 2021, 21:46 last edited by@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.
wrote on 7 Jul 2021, 22:09 last edited by@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.
wrote on 7 Jul 2021, 22:15 last edited by@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.
wrote on 7 Jul 2021, 22:22 last edited by@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.
wrote on 7 Jul 2021, 23:47 last edited by@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.
wrote on 7 Jul 2021, 23:50 last edited by@loki said in Trump sues Zuckerberg, Dorsey, Pichai:
This is about winning the House and Senate in 2022.
And then, Kevin McCarthy nominates Teh Donald to be Speaker of the House....
-
wrote on 8 Jul 2021, 22:09 last edited by
-
wrote on 8 Jul 2021, 22:30 last edited by
Keith Olbermann. Is Dean so hard up to quote that idiot. It’s a term I don’t use for too many people. Feel bad for Dean to be reduced to having to pair up with him.
-
wrote on 8 Jul 2021, 22:34 last edited by
It's interesting how, when you step outside the propaganda machine that Ax embraces, and actually listen to top Constitutional attornies, their take is the exact opposite of the spin Ax is trying to put on it.
