Laura Loomer banned from Twitter after criticizing Ilhan Omar

There is no NPS as envisiond by Antiduopolist, and Twitter has no obligation beyond the TOS to honor what people write.

 

I cannot research what you based your views on, without you supplying the specifics on exactly what you based your views on. The logical conclusion to your refusal is that either A. you forgot where you got this and cannot find it. B. you found out that your sources did not say what you claimed, but you don't want to admit it. or C. you have been talking out of your bottom end all along.

In any case, your credibility is pretty much shot on this thread.

 

Antiduopolist cannot offer you specifics, btthegreat: they don't exist.

 

What did Twitter do that was disgusting?

What was?

 

Well if it is rather well custom in other countries, then how is it clear that Loomer was talking about Ethiopia?

Notice how you said, "people from different RELIGIONS do this", not people from different CULTURES do this? What does that tell you? Just because FGM is performed under more than one religion, DOES NOT mean that it isn't a religious thing! That is a preposterous suggestion!

So why aren't newspapers comic books?

 

Banning Laura Loomer

 

Post the link to ONE SINGLE Google result that is RELEVANT! Hell, just post ANY webpage that mentions "New Public Square!" I won't be surprised if you are unable to reply!

 

If free speech isn't "utterly complete" free speech, then what is it?

What do you mean "the nature of its constraints?"

Again, do you think that Twitter can be taken seriously as a free speech platform if it allows some users to have more freedom in their speech than others?

 

Yeah, pretty much. Its imperfect of course, but it provides a hell of a lot more than it ever constrains.

 

Here is my post:

What did I say that they "do?"

 

They consider themselves a free speech platform? They do?
They are NOT allowed to censor? Says who? why? They have rules just like this site does. They make money from people who go there and by the numbers that go there, attract ads. If they don't censor certain things per their rules, they will lose people and that means lost revenue. They are not the gov't.
Prove the hypocrisy and bias. Just because you don't like someone that still has an account vs someone you do like that got banned doesn't prove hypocrisy or bias.
If they did that on a regular basis, again, they'd likely lose people which means lost ads, which means lost revenue.

And NO One is forced to have an account. If one thinks they're biased and hypocratic, they are free to not use twitter.

 

Er, no.

I'm simply informing you of the actual and irrefutable nature of First Amendment rights.

Vis, that they pertain only to government action taken within government-controlled fora.

Sorry, but that's a fact.

 

Only government action, antiduopolist, not private action.

Get with it.

 

That you perceive my gentle assertion of your lack of understanding regarding our Constitution as an attack speaks volumes in your disfavor, as does your bizarre assertion that the NPS does not exist.

Nonsense; utter fantasy.

But deeply chilling.

Liberal = Conservative

 

There is law that Twitter violated; feel free to seek deeper understanding when you're in a receptive frame of mind.

Correct. Okay...

Straw man.

 

Indeed there is; indeed they do.

 

Of course you can; but you must be willing to do so - there's the rub. Logical...? A - No. B - No. C - Who can say?

When/if you're ready, I hope you seek out deeper understanding.

 

I do not offer specifics that I am sitting in a chair, therefore the chair does not exist?

 

Feel free to seek this information out when/if you're ready. <- This. <- Over here.

 

Er, yes.

Which I thought you understood better in application. (But you do have greater knowledge than most.)

Incorrect.

Incorrect.

But I appreciate that you brought some breadth (ignored by nearly all of course) to the thread earlier.

 

^Confirmation bias.

You embrace claims not because they are factual, but because they reinforce your false beliefs and incomplete understanding.

I hope you get with it, but only when/if you are ready to do so.

 

Knowing the constitution, old pal, is not confirmation bias.

 

I'd like to add to my comments above that US courts not only strongly support free speech in these situations, but are surprisingly (to me at any rate) friendly to association and commerce as well, sometimes in ways that seem to defy common sense.

 

Real time with Jake!

Unfortunately, you ARE steeped in bias (true of most; no shame), and you do not understand (nor do you appear to seek understanding of) the manner in which the law has proceeded in these constitutional areas.

 

You don't understand the Constitution or the law on speech, Antiduopolist.

Anti's bias is so deeply rooted that he cannot learn.