Trump files class action lawsuit against Big Tech!

Donald Trump Jr. is asking for donations for the Trumpeter new lawsuits.

The donation request is linked to a webpage asking users to donate to the Save America Joint Fundraising Committee, the fundraising arm of two Trump political action committees. It also advertises his plans to sell his new book.

Many Trump supporters responded to the post by suggesting that the former president should have restrained tech companies while in office.

Experts advise it was within the companies' legal power to remove Trump from their platforms since "the First Amendment is a "constraint on the power of government," not on the private sector.



This is not the first time the Trump family has solicited donations from supporters.

Last month, supporters of Donald Trump were asked for "surprise donations" for the former president's birthday.

The Save America PAC has raised more than $31 million since its inception in November. There are few restrictions on how PAC donations can be spent, and the raised funds could be used to finance the president's day-to-day life or even a future run for office.

All the Trumptards on here should donate money...lots of money to Trump.


BWAHAHAAAA

mm - after you - good Sir!!!!!!!!
BTW - trump is no longer POTUS - and will not be elected POTUS again.

Yet that Trump fear lives inside fascist DPST heads - and gives nightmares every night.



LOL

"BTW - trump is no longer POTUS - and will not be elected POTUS again."

Good to know, I'll sleep better tonight.

"BTW - trump is no longer POTUS - and will not be elected POTUS again."

Good to know, I'll sleep better tonight. Originally Posted by reddog1951

Does anybody really lose sleep over any of this stuff? Easy for me to say, I don't need a job, have no friends to ostracize me for my political beliefs, have no children and plenty enough, though not rich, to get me to my end.


Plus I take a pill.

It's odd to see supposedly liberals support internet censorship. Though, I don't think they are liberals. Whoever is supporting internet censorship is just doing it because they don't like the material that's being censored. Otherwise, I can't understand why anyone would be supporting it.

It's odd to see supposedly liberals support internet censorship. Though, I don't think they are liberals. Whoever is supporting internet censorship is just doing it because they don't like the material that's being censored. Otherwise, I can't understand why anyone would be supporting it. Originally Posted by Strokey_McDingDong

If someone, whether it's trump, biden, or joeblo, is advocating violence, hatred, or lying, they should be censored. That's my opinion.

such a shame - the LSM and Teacher's Unions have indoctrinated/brainwashed their minions into believing that fascist DPST censorship is 'Freedom of speech."

Big Tech wins!!!!
Minions who have no clue as to their ultimate fate rejoice.

Is that DPST "display power saving technology ?"

Is that DPST "display power saving technology ?" Originally Posted by VitaMan

How long you work on that???

If someone, whether it's trump, biden, or joeblo, is advocating violence, hatred, or lying, they should be censored. That's my opinion. Originally Posted by pfunkdenver

This isn't only about T R U M P. T R U M P is filing a lawsuit, but it's not only about H I M.

There was some controversy when Alex Jones was banned from YouTube for conspiracy theories, or something like that. What they are doing now is similar to that, except they are calling things conspiracy theories that are not, like the lab leak hypothesis and Ivermectin.

Regardless, conspiracy theories shouldn't be censored, either. You could say anything is a conspiracy that doesn't agree with the mainstream narrative. You could label anyone who criticizes the government as a conspiracy theorist.

What seemed to have happened was Google and Facebook censored material that was associated with T R U M P, most likely because the owners don't like H I M, but that doesn't only affect T R U M P.

Even non-T R U M P supporters may want to have a conversation about the origins of COVID-19 without being censored. Some scientists who are not involved in politics may want to discuss COVID treatment plans without getting banned.

T R U M P got banned for essentially promoting conspiracy theories, which I think is kind of bullshit, but the banning of T R U M P is not the main cause of concern. It's whether social media platforms should have the right to censor and discriminate against information according to their whim.

The examples I gave above of some information that has been censored were not promoting violence, hate or lies. I personally think one should be able to lie, though. Since lying is not a crime, unless under oath. It's also sometimes difficult to tell whether someone is lying or not. I don't think social media should become an arbiter of truth. Whether social media should be arbiters of truth is also part of this controversy.

But TDS will ultimately win in the end and the owners of social media will most likely be allowed to do whatever they want.

How long you work on that??? Originally Posted by winn dixie

Could be Dewing Park Swim Team

This isn't only about T R U M P. T R U M P is filing a lawsuit, but it's not only about H I M.

There was some controversy when Alex Jones was banned from YouTube for conspiracy theories, or something like that. What they are doing now is similar to that, except they are calling things conspiracy theories that are not, like the lab leak hypothesis and Ivermectin.

Regardless, conspiracy theories shouldn't be censored, either. You could say anything is a conspiracy that doesn't agree with the mainstream narrative. You could label anyone who criticizes the government as a conspiracy theorist.

What seemed to have happened was Google and Facebook censored material that was associated with T R U M P, most likely because the owners don't like H I M, but that doesn't only affect T R U M P.

Even non-T R U M P supporters may want to have a conversation about the origins of COVID-19 without being censored. Some scientists who are not involved in politics may want to discuss COVID treatment plans without getting banned.

T R U M P got banned for essentially promoting conspiracy theories, which I think is kind of bullshit, but the banning of T R U M P is not the main cause of concern. It's whether social media platforms should have the right to censor and discriminate against information according to their whim.

The examples I gave above of some information that has been censored were not promoting violence, hate or lies. I personally think one should be able to lie, though. Since lying is not a crime, unless under oath. It's also sometimes difficult to tell whether someone is lying or not. I don't think social media should become an arbiter of truth. Whether social media should be arbiters of truth is also part of this controversy.

But TDS will ultimately win in the end and the owners of social media will most likely be allowed to do whatever they want. Originally Posted by Strokey_McDingDong

Bug Tech is likely doing that at the behest of some politician, political party or other govt. entity to effect censorship of certain individuals.

Bug Tech is likely doing that at the behest of some politician, political party or other govt. entity to effect censorship of certain individuals. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

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.