go for it Donald

Here is a better explanation of the lawsuit than just a link.



Former President Donald Trump sued Facebook Inc., Twitter Inc., Alphabet Inc.’s Google and their chief executives.

During his presidency, Trump used Twitter for everything from insulting rivals to major policy announcements, and he relied on Facebook especially to raise money from small-dollar donors.

Easy to see you only included about a third of the story!

Especially the part of suppression of speech

This might be fun. Should a privately owned newspaper (yeah,old school) be required to publish every letter to the editor?

What kinda question is that? No point can be made!

This might be fun. Should a privately owned newspaper (yeah,old school) be required to publish every letter to the editor? Originally Posted by reddog1951

That’s kinda crazy, obviously a newspaper has only so much space. It’s apples to oranges too, since Facebook and Twitter present themselves as neutral platforms, not publishers, which gives them certain legal protections.

The quashing of the Hunter laptop story was them finally admitting their blatant bias IMO. Everything about it was legitimate and they censored it anyways.

Not sure it's crazy, since a lot of law (and I'm not a lawyer) is based on precedent and new platforms are sometimes not a good fit. We all know that certain newspapers and other media have certain "leanings". Hence the "equal time" ruling by the FCC. I'll admit to being a "shit-stirrer", so expand this argument out...should Fox then be required to give equal time to Kamala Harris?

Freedom of the press is a double edged sword. I think the original intent was freedom from a government press and licensure for contradictory views....if you have a press.

President Trump, your rent free room is ready!

He has a good choice of rentals as far as numbers go, although some of the vacancies have been over used and are rather shabby for lack of repair.

Fox best be careful. They will not be able to exclude advertisements they don’t like, which they have done a couple of times because it was “agitating” to their watchers for an ad to talk about trump lying or seeing capital police beaten.

Fox best be careful. They will not be able to exclude advertisements they don’t like, which they have done a couple of times because it was “agitating” to their watchers for an ad to talk about trump lying or seeing capital police beaten. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

is that your expert legal opinion? FOX can accept or decline any advertiser they want. so can CNN or MSNBC.

1b1- What should Fox news 'be careful of" - DPST fascist government shut down? - as Your party has repeatedly advocated for One america News and fox - yet lets the russia lies and other misbehavior of the LSM go without criticism - because it fits your and DPST narrative????


easy - the left loves to shut down any different opinion from the marxit DPST fascist narrative POV!


or - is that now from the Xinn and LSM - that 'cancel culture' is just as 'Defund the Police" - a creation and advocacy of teh conservatives????
that would be typical of the LSM and fascist DPST party.

Just saying, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Be careful what you wish for lest you get goosed.

Not sure it's crazy, since a lot of law (and I'm not a lawyer) is based on precedent and new platforms are sometimes not a good fit. We all know that certain newspapers and other media have certain "leanings". Hence the "equal time" ruling by the FCC. I'll admit to being a "shit-stirrer", so expand this argument out...should Fox then be required to give equal time to Kamala Harris? Originally Posted by reddog1951

I don’t quite get that section 230 stuff either, or how it applies to social media. I guess we’re gonna find out.

I don’t think Fox should be required, but it’d be a good idea if they did.

Not sure it's crazy, since a lot of law (and I'm not a lawyer) is based on precedent and new platforms are sometimes not a good fit. We all know that certain newspapers and other media have certain "leanings". Hence the "equal time" ruling by the FCC. I'll admit to being a "shit-stirrer", so expand this argument out...should Fox then be required to give equal time to Kamala Harris?

Freedom of the press is a double edged sword. I think the original intent was freedom from a government press and licensure for contradictory views....if you have a press. Originally Posted by reddog1951

Equal time to Kamala harris - what has she even spoken or written since becoming VP - other than as 'Lady Haw Haw"!

Good to see people championing censorship, because private business.


Of course, a media business should be allowed to silence whoever they want at any time. They should be able to control what kind of information people get by censoring what they don't want them to see. That sounds like a completely normal thing to do.

I totally agree. More power to them.

O yea and TRUMPF FARTED LOL