Trump files class action lawsuit against Big Tech!

https://www.constitutionallitigationpartnership.com/ Originally Posted by bambino

This will be thrown out of court as soon as the doors close to the courtroom.

I think the word "censorship" is being misused here in terms of first Amendment rights. It specifically says (edited to pertain to speech only):

"Congress shall make no law ..... abridging the freedom of speech,or of the press..."

I think it is an interesting constitutional law question. One can expand the term Congress to include most "government" in general, but not sure the Amendment encompasses non-governmental entities. Seems that historically the private press has been allowed to publish whatever content they wish, and likewise not publish what they wish not to.

So is Twitter, Facebook, et al "press" or "private". Is Eccie? Is Tumbler, Parler, etc.? Should all the above be required to "publish" anything submitted (in eccie's case, even things that might get owners in "trouble"), or, are the above "publishers" at all?

Interesting questions that I doubt any of us here have the background to authoritatively make a ruling. But my general caution applies: Be careful what you wish for. Originally Posted by reddog1951

'r' - is your point tht the press and speech are protected , but not citizens to make statements on Third party platforms - under penalty of 'hate speech penalties?
ie - up against the marxist wall if you dare advocate free enterprise or a political POV not DPSY fascist?.
Be caeful waht U wish for.

"O". Reread my post, not what I said at all.

'r' - what you and your party "Mean" is best exemplified by the cartoon.

"o". I'm not a "party" and haven't read the funnies since I was 10 years old. Well, maybe I read Gahan Wilson in my teens before I got any myself.

thank you 'r' - perhaps you should read teh 'funnies' - can be educational.

try the news in Political cartoons thread.

The fascist DPST party has absolutely no common sense or sense of humor.



gahan wilson was brilliant at dark humor.

and we all know from which publication. ( subject to DPST ban).

Tanks "o" for the appreciation of GW. Still interested in logical discussion on topic of right of publishers, or if websites are publishers, in regard to mandate to disseminate content.

I think the word "censorship" is being misused here in terms of first Amendment rights. It specifically says (edited to pertain to speech only):

"Congress shall make no law ..... abridging the freedom of speech,or of the press..."

I think it is an interesting constitutional law question. One can expand the term Congress to include most "government" in general, but not sure the Amendment encompasses non-governmental entities. Seems that historically the private press has been allowed to publish whatever content they wish, and likewise not publish what they wish not to.

So is Twitter, Facebook, et al "press" or "private". Is Eccie? Is Tumbler, Parler, etc.? Should all the above be required to "publish" anything submitted (in eccie's case, even things that might get owners in "trouble"), or, are the above "publishers" at all?

Interesting questions that I doubt any of us here have the background to authoritatively make a ruling. But my general caution applies: Be careful what you wish for. Originally Posted by reddog1951

Social media isn't the private press. Why do you keep pretending like social media is like a news paper or a news network? It's neither of those things. Social media is social media. It's something relatively new that was invented and changed how people use data and the internet. People post their own content on social media instantaneously. It's nothing like the press.

It doesn't make any sense to make news papers or books an analogy for social media platforms. They are not similar. I'm actually fairly certain that you do not know what social media is.

Eccie is a forum, not social media. Social media is supposed to be about you. Forums are about discussing particular things. Eccie isn't about you, it's about escorts. I good example of social media is YouTube, because it's supposed to be about you. You create the content. You decide what content to see. YouTube doesn't create any of the content. It's all created by you. You are the main subject matter on social media. Social media is supposed to be about expressing yourself.

He was POTUS and had both the FTC and FCC under his control. Why didn't he do anything then? This lawsuit is "too little, too late". No one in the "ruling class" wants to see him ever get power again, including the SCOTUS Justices he appointed.

He was POTUS and had both the FTC and FCC under his control. Why didn't he do anything then? This lawsuit is "too little, too late". No one in the "ruling class" wants to see him ever get power again, including the SCOTUS Justices he appointed. Originally Posted by SecretE

the problem with your argument is that both the FCC and FTC are part of the entrenched federal deep state that actively undermined anything Trump tried to do. doesn't matter if Trump appoints a new director. it's the massive ranks of fed bureaucrats that are the problem

He was POTUS and had both the FTC and FCC under his control. Why didn't he do anything then? This lawsuit is "too little, too late". No one in the "ruling class" wants to see him ever get power again, including the SCOTUS Justices he appointed. Originally Posted by SecretE

amazing how sheeples are indoctrinated to the LSM beliefs that they speak for each and every SC justice opinions.

Telepathy is not yet developed by the marxist nomenjklatura - Please take a note.

Tanks "o" for the appreciation of GW. Still interested in logical discussion on topic of right of publishers, or if websites are publishers, in regard to mandate to disseminate content. Originally Posted by reddog1951

The big Tech LSM - are organs of the fascist DPST party - and Lie, cheat, manipulate in every way they can to present only One opinion - the fascist DPST opinion.



answer - Screw 'em - I closed facebook account, do not do twitter, and do not use google.

alternatives exist - to heck with the big tech marxists.

"Social media isn't the private press. Why do you keep pretending like social media is like a news paper or a news network? It's neither of those things. Social media is social media. It's something relatively new that was invented and changed how people use data and the internet. People post their own content on social media instantaneously. It's nothing like the press."

Stokely, this is the crux of the whole debate if you step back and think a minute. First is "social media" private press? I think we agree it's certainly not gov't press, so then what is it?

Eccie is a poor example for you to use for many reasons. First, it shut down a while back in response to certain federal statutes as you may recall and as a result filters certain content...ads, pics, etc. Secondly, the hosts, or publishers of eccie, contribute little if any content of their own, much like the sites you cite. (I'm a poet and don't know it.) This very forum is moderated. I have received "points", and am subject to banning as are you for what is deemed inappropriate by the moderator.

Again, I am not the constitutional law expert, but based on precedent (seems to be sacrosanct in law) it wouldn't surprise me if your "social media" will ultimately be judged to not be subject to 1st Amendment censorship prohibitions, except in certain circumstances that are essentially banned topics on this board.

Again, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. So, if twitter should be required to post any content from ex-president Trump, then Parler, Tumbler likewise be required to post any content provided by Harris, Sanders, etc.

here we go

'r' fascist DPST minions do love their censorship - and the restriction of any opposing viewpoints of teh Bernie/AOC communist POV