BOMBSHELL: Twitter Censored Republican at the Request of the Mass, SOS Office

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by XXJefferson#51, May 15, 2021.

  1. XXJefferson#51

    XXJefferson#51 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2017
    Messages:
    12,776
    Likes Received:
    11,364
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    …Dr. Ayyadurai later discovered that his tweets were deleted at the request of employees in the Secretary of State’s office. This was done to affect the outcome of an election.



    Federal Judge Mark L. Wolf, a 1985 Reagan Appointee is hearing the case and his remarks have to be chilling to the social media giants. he has ordered a hearing on May 20th at 9:30 AM (EST) at which time Twitter must explain whether they are a private company or if they are a “state actor.” The judge then brought up two examples that the plaintiff didn’t even mention.

    Here are the two cases cited by the judge:

    Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck, 139 S. Ct. 1921, 1928 (2019)

    “A private entity can qualify as a state actor in a few limited circumstances-including, for example, … when the government compels the private entity to take a particular action…”

    Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1004 (1982)

    “a State normally can be held responsible for a private decision only when it has exercised coercive power or has provided such significant encouragement, either overt or covert, that the choice must in law be deemed to be that of the State”

    Discovery in this case should be awesome. They should request all censored and banned sites for both conservatives and liberals. This would allow them to make the case that Twitter is biased against conservatives. If Twitter loses this case, they lose their Article 230 protection…..






    https://djhjmedia.com/steven/bombsh...ce=wnd&utm_medium=wnd&utm_campaign=syndicated







    This could be the case we need to again protect free speech in America. It will make for a crucial court case. Justice Thomas said the Supreme Court needed to address this problem issue and this case could be that ticket . Clearly in my opinion Twitter was an agent of the state government in the censorship of this candidate.
     
    HB Surfer, JET3534, Zorro and 2 others like this.
  2. XXJefferson#51

    XXJefferson#51 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2017
    Messages:
    12,776
    Likes Received:
    11,364
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This is what we’ve been looking for for awhile now. Discovery should be quite interesting.
     
    HB Surfer and ButterBalls like this.
  3. Junkieturtle

    Junkieturtle Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Messages:
    13,787
    Likes Received:
    4,772
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Free speech in America was never under fire because Twitter and Facebook are not the government. There has never, ever, been a right to say whatever you want wherever you want and expect that you must be permitted to say it even when you're doing so on someone else's property. You might disagree with it, but when you start trying to make it about free speech, it just shows that your concept of free speech and the actual legal concept of free speech are simply not the same.

    Take this example. Many people put writing on the sides of barns, or at least they do up here in northwestern PA. If I had a barn and I invited people to come write on it, my invitation does not give anyone the absolute right to put whatever they want up there and does not erase my right to prevent them or remove what they've put there(and especially when they have to agree to terms of use that spell that out). Because the barn is my property, not the writer's, just like Facebook and Twitter belong to Facebook and Twitter, not the people posting on it.
     
    mdrobster, Pants, grapeape and 3 others like this.
  4. Junkieturtle

    Junkieturtle Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Messages:
    13,787
    Likes Received:
    4,772
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Somehow folks have gotten the notion that because Facebook and Twitter have become so big and popular that they should have less control over their property than others. It's nonsense.

    And do you know what else it is?

    False entitlement.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2021
  5. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    47,845
    Likes Received:
    19,932
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Confirmation bias, in other words.
     
    Surfer Joe and Bowerbird like this.
  6. AmericanNationalist

    AmericanNationalist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Messages:
    37,927
    Likes Received:
    18,839
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I disagree. In the example of your barns post, you yourself point out: It was your private property and therefore to your discretion what is or what's not to be written on it. The issue then, wasn't a first amendment issue but a fourth amendment one. However, Facebook and Twitter cannot be by definition public squares and at the same time, subject to private property ownership. That simply and utterly makes no sense.

    Simply put, no one is the owner of a person's words, but their own. Period. Facebook doesn't own it, Twitter doesn't own it. PF doesn't own it. That's why Section 230 exists to begin with, to essentially write off any responsibility from 'hosting' content that might be against the law. However, if the social media enterprises start claiming private property, as a justification for regulating speech then it no longer qualifies under Section 230 protection, you "own" it now and it's not a public space but a private venue.

    So the issue is to pick and choose what they are: A public social networking circle or is it a private enterprise, and therefore has to take ownership of what's posted on it.
     
  7. Junkieturtle

    Junkieturtle Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Messages:
    13,787
    Likes Received:
    4,772
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Facebook and Twitter don't own your words. They own the space where you've put your words. You're free to keep putting the same words in other spaces.

    Like here. If Facebook banned me, I could come here and write the same exact things that got me banned. Depending on what it was, it might get me banned here too. If I was banned at all, it would be because I broke the terms of the space I was using. Ones that I had agreed to follow. We have a right to free speech, not free space.

    But it's a valid point that social media companies cannot have it both ways. Beginning to censor things creates the expectation of further censoring and just like the Facebook Oversight board said, standards then need to be created. I think it is their right to choose what content is on their site(just like newspaper/magazine/network television/cable televsion/steaming services/talk radio all do, but they must accept the changes it may bring as far as their liability goes.
     
  8. FatBack

    FatBack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    35,689
    Likes Received:
    34,195
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You might have a point if you were talking about your barn however it's not a barn we're talking about it's a social media site read by a great majority of the country and indeed many people around the world if you're going to give a political platform to only one party on it and send to the views of another then what you say just went right out the window you only say that because the censorship leans against your political party or should I say with
     
  9. Junkieturtle

    Junkieturtle Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Messages:
    13,787
    Likes Received:
    4,772
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If you think I like the Democrats you'd be mistaken. I like the moderate ones. Just like I like the moderate Republicans. The ones who can have conversations. The ones who aren't batshit crazy.

    Being read by the majority of the country doesn't mean a thing.

    So my position is that they ultimately have control of their own space. It's theirs. The public doesn't own it. But the public can regulate it through the legal system with things like Section 230. If the social media companies start changing the terms of what they are allowed to do, the law can change too.
     
    AZ. and Bowerbird like this.
  10. FatBack

    FatBack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    35,689
    Likes Received:
    34,195
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well it's very obvious that their censorship has a political bias and did we not just go through an election where it was argued that Facebook was able to influence elections? So I would argue they're a little bit more than just some private property on the internet if someone gives a platform to people to post their opinions on, they can actually influence elections and in a more broader spectrum public opinion itself
     
    ButterBalls and XXJefferson#51 like this.
  11. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    79,269
    Likes Received:
    63,932
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Expect this to go to the Supreme Court
     
  12. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    131,453
    Likes Received:
    51,190
    Trophy Points:
    113
    anyone can report anyone for violating the TOS, the mods on twitter obviously agreed with the report that some "employees" allegedly filed

    lets ask if Trump ever reported anyone for violating the twitter TOS or any republican employee for that matter
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2021
    Bowerbird likes this.
  13. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    131,453
    Likes Received:
    51,190
    Trophy Points:
    113
    should we make it a federal crime for any government employee to file a complaint on any social media site?
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  14. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    131,453
    Likes Received:
    51,190
    Trophy Points:
    113
    twitter is a free site, people have to agree to the TOS to use it

    if Trump opens his site to the masses for free, he can have a TOS too

    if someone violates Trump's TOS, he can ban them, the Government should not step in and tell Trump he can not
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2021
    Bowerbird likes this.
  15. AmericanNationalist

    AmericanNationalist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Messages:
    37,927
    Likes Received:
    18,839
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    "They own the space where you've put the words". That would make it a private club, which is totally fine except at that point they own the responsibility for what happens in their club. Let's take as a comparable example, public parking. The streets are owned by the federal government, so the federal government can establish any laws or rules it sees fit.

    At the same time, were the government to sanction behavior that breaks its own rules and laws, the government would lose that particular case in court. As a public sector, the government's ability to regulate speech is limited to the incitement test(or that of an alleged criminality.) Short of these violations, someone can actually speak out words of hate and still not be prosecuted for it. This has been deliberated in the SCOTUS.


    So what would the future look like if the conservative court rules to remove 230? Well, these companies would then live under the same regulations as I just explained the government is under: The companies would have to hold themselves to the same rules that's established, and the companies would have to be held to the same rules that the government is under in free speech provisions.
     
  16. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    131,453
    Likes Received:
    51,190
    Trophy Points:
    113
    if 230 was removed, sites like this would have to review every post, thus no real time posted would ever be allowed on any social media platform again

    and of course they would have to error on the side of caution when deleting posts as it would be them that would also be at legal risk if they allowed it
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2021
    bigfella and Bowerbird like this.
  17. Andrew Jackson

    Andrew Jackson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2016
    Messages:
    43,216
    Likes Received:
    28,205
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This case could spell the end of CDA 230.

    ^LOL. NO it Won't Dream on.:roflol:

    Btw--The person in question (Dr. Ayyadurai) is an absolute mental case (with less credibility that the President of the Bigfoot society).

    Dr. Ayyadurai? Really? :roflol:

    V. A. Shiva Ayyadurai (born Vellayappa Ayyadurai Shiva, December 2, 1963) is an Indian-American engineer, politician, entrepreneur, and promoter of conspiracy theories, pseudoscience and unfounded medical claims. Ayyadurai makes the widely disputed claim to have invented email.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva_Ayyadurai

    ___________

    Anyway, good luck in having anybody take this absurd "claim" seriously.

    Twitter can do whatever they want.

    Anybody who doesn't like it, can leave Twitter (or invent their own site).

    ^Problem solved.


    Also, I am not really sure if Ahle's OPINION would qualify as a "Bombshell".:bored:

    by Steven Ahle in Opinion, Politics May 15, 2021

    That sounds like ridiculously misguided hyperbole.

    Anyway, the "source" also seems rather suspect.

    [​IMG]

    An OPINION Article (and clearly labeled as "Opinion" in the header) from an Extreme RW Blog?

    Not really much of a "bombshell". :bored:





     
  18. XXJefferson#51

    XXJefferson#51 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2017
    Messages:
    12,776
    Likes Received:
    11,364
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I do expect that…
     
    ButterBalls likes this.
  19. XXJefferson#51

    XXJefferson#51 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2017
    Messages:
    12,776
    Likes Received:
    11,364
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Since it originally was found and linked from here:
    Twitter censored Republican at request of Massachusettes Secretary of State
    Lawsuit could put an end to censoring conservatives
    [​IMG]By WND News Services
    Published May 15, 2021 at 10:25pm
    By WND News Services, thus clearly news about the issue of Twitter censorship of the candidate and the pending case and the judges comments. Lots of news in the story.
     
    ButterBalls likes this.
  20. ShadowX

    ShadowX Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2014
    Messages:
    12,206
    Likes Received:
    6,033
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Damn I think I just got a chubby.
     
    ButterBalls likes this.
  21. ShadowX

    ShadowX Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2014
    Messages:
    12,206
    Likes Received:
    6,033
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then they should allow people to post whatever they wish without editorializing or removing posts for non-criminal behavior. Otherwise they’re going to lose their 230 protections.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2021
    XXJefferson#51 and ButterBalls like this.
  22. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    19,147
    Likes Received:
    9,316
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is fascinating to see citizens rationalize assault on the First Amendment principles involved here. The sophistry they use to rationalize is a fascinating demonstration of why we have the government we deserve.
     
    XXJefferson#51 and ButterBalls like this.
  23. Junkieturtle

    Junkieturtle Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Messages:
    13,787
    Likes Received:
    4,772
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The 1st amendment was always meant to prevent the government from stifling your speech. It was never ever meant to give you the freedom to say whatever you want wherever you want, even on someone else's property. Twitter and Facebook are someone else's property with rules you must agree upon to begin to use. I would think for someone as anti-authority as you that you could see the private property principles inherent in this. It is not a free speech issue, it is a speech location issue. It would only become a free speech issue if Facebook and Twitter had the power to prevent you from saying things anywhere, not just on their property.

    Something else to consider are things like Facebook groups. Those can be moderated by the group creator and anyone they've given admin status to. That includes deleting posts and removing users from the group entirely. The same exact principles work in places like this forum, where you've agreed to a set of rules and can have your posts edited or removed or your access revoked entirely if you don't follow them. I never hear people bringing up examples like these in their faux free speech outrage. It is only the size and popularity of social media that creates this sense of false entitlement that people have the right to dictate the terms of speech on private property, not the property owners themselves.
     
    mdrobster likes this.
  24. ShadowX

    ShadowX Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2014
    Messages:
    12,206
    Likes Received:
    6,033
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well that’s true but if this story is true then the government coerced them into pulling the speech. Making it a government intrusion of free speech and Twitter is culpable for participating.

    Moreover it appears to be done in an effort to manipulate an election.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2021
    XXJefferson#51 and ButterBalls like this.
  25. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    19,147
    Likes Received:
    9,316
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you support censoring people from speaking the truth?

    A very interesting position JunkieTurtle, a fascinating display of rationalization.
     
    XXJefferson#51 and ButterBalls like this.

Share This Page