Yes Donald. Twitter has the right to fact check you

Show me where in the First Amendment it prevents him from enforcing a law passed by Congress? Please.

Here's a hint it doesnt...in fact his EO goes into detail of why the law was needed and the immunity given because the First Amendment doesn't protect these websites and while the law was necessary.

You haven't pointed anything out...

Since you continue to not do any of that...I'll simply note your white flag....hopefully that saves you some face.

 

Once they open their business up to where anyone can use it, they are no longer a private company. It is just like a bakery who discriminates against different people because of their beliefs. They have a license and that license requires equal treatment of their customers.

 

Twitter can run their company and set TOS however they’d like. However if they want to continue to qualify for protections under 230 they’ll have to stop providing their own opinions through “fact checking”.

 

no they aren't. just like this forum isn't.

any court this gets to will throw it out immediately, as they are protected by the first amendment from any government action against their right to free speech.

they do not have to be, and the first amendment precludes the government from doing anything at all about it.

 

yes they are. You have to agree to the TOS in order to join and crate an account. They are a private company and the government can do nothing at all about them fact checking anyone they wish.

no

 

strawman

I see your confusion has returned. Directly refuting your silly claims is not a white flag.

 

Are you saying this forum and Tweet can arbitrarily keep anyone from joining because they are a private company?

That would be just like a grocery store or bar keeping out customers because of their beliefs. Once you open your business up to the public, you are subject to all the laws requiring you to be fair.

 

The fact check was wrong! If Twitter is going to fact check people's Tweets, they probably should do it properly!

 

define arbitrarily

 

Do we not have the right to fact check Trumps tweets like we can Twitter?

 

arbitrarily

ADVERB

1. on the basis of random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
   "recurrent infection is arbitrarily defined as three or more infections a year"
2. without restraint in the use of authority; autocratically.
   "everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained"

 

they can't discriminate based on race, religion or sex. They can ban or not allow to join someone for their political affiliation if they choose. It's no different than a facbebook group screening members. I belong to several different hunting groups and tactical buy/sell/trade groups. Everyone is carefully screened and must meet certain requirements for each group they wish to join.

 

They cannot pick and choose which republicans or democrats they are going to discriminate against.

 

Checks and valences suggests you measured his office for new drapes but fell flat once the check bounced. Fun with typos aside, had the trash at Twa...um, er...those guys...done this to Hussein the Magnificent, Lord of the TelePrompter, there'd be a guillotine in their lobby and villagers with torches.

 

of course they can

 

Then you must think it is OK for a grocery store, bakery or any other store to decide which customers they want to allow in their store.

 

Stores aren't legally able to discriminate based on race, religion or gender. They are free to not allow anyone else they wish for any other reason, depending on the state. Some have stricter public accommodation laws. But that is entirely irrelevant to twitter, as that is a private platform and not a public accommodation.

 

I see you continue to be confused...I suggest you read the EO. You continue to not understand the discussion

 

I've read it. It's unenforceable. The president, nor anyone else in government can punish twitter for fact checking the president. They are precluded from doing so. They can not lose their 230 protections from liability because it specifically protects what twitter did. I'm sorry that you are always wrong, but that's entirely your problem.

 

This forum doesn't add editorials on people's post.

Well 1) the First Amendment does not protect against ANY Govt actons against free speech...but more importantly this EO isn't attacking their free speech.

You seem to be very confused on what the discussion and EO is about.

 

You have no read it...that much is obvious. The EO isn't about "punishing" Twitter for fact checking them. They are free to do it, and act like all the other fact checking news outlets out there...they simply then do not fall under the protection of Section 230, and all the president has directed the FTC and FCC to do in the EO is see if they still do.

 

nobody put editorials on trumps tweets. They added a fact check link to his comment, which showed he was talking out of his ass.

of course it is.

by directly refuting the claims you keep making? lol, ok

 

I have read it, which is why I'm able to keep correcting you.

that is a threat against twitter for fact checking his comments. He can't do that. The first amendment precludes him from doing so. And the law as written for 230, specifically allows for twitter to fact check him. There is nothing at all trump or anyone else in government can do, short of repealing 230, or amending the constitution.

 

You mean like the post they left up that said they should start hanging white people tomorrow and quit when they run out of white people?

 

Does your electric company have the right to shut off your electricity if they don’t like what you watch on television?
Twitter is a public utility.