It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Court decision against trump means Twitter can no longer kick off conservatives

page: 4
49
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 06:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

No they lose that right when it is deemed their product is a public utility

It can’t be against the law for trump to make it so someone can not see and discuss governmental business for ideological reasons , but it’s ok for Twitter to do so




posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 07:11 AM
link   
Just a point of order, unfortunately, political speechis NOT protected speech.

you CAN discriminate for being Democrat or Republican, and for no other reason than that.

You can not prevent speech that is Governmental. this is the rub, if President Trump used twitter to talk about his reelection only, he Could ban others, however because he uses speech that covers running the government it self, he cannot block Government information.

this is why diners can ban republicans or democrats from dining, unless it's self expressed, one does not know.

Online is a bit different because you have a history of speech, so it's really gray, what you speak in a dinner goes away, whereas what you say online can be looked at after the fact.



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 07:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Wouldn't these rules only apply to official accounts used by government?

There's a huge difference between an official Twitter account that represents a governmental department or gov as a whole and an individual's opinions.

There's a huge difference between censorship and breaching a company's terms and conditions.

You seem to be stretching, don't pull a muscle.



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 07:51 AM
link   
a reply to: RAY1990

This seems to be difficult for people and I don’t know why

The court ruled that twitter is a public forum where governmental business is discussed

Therefore it is unlawful to keep people from participating for ideological reasons (in other words reasons other than illegal behavior)

This means trump can’t block people from participating

Therefore it means twitter can’t as well

Here another example

In my small town there is a private business that operates as the pick up spot for government assisted food aid (wic, and such)

The government may not block people from that aid for ideological reasons

The private business that is holding the governmental program also can’t block people for ideological reasons, because they people have the right to the government program



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: JHumm

Yes, that is the solution. But that would be following the guidelines as currently written. They don't want to do that. They wan to shut you up if you disagree.



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Twitter users, including Trump, sign a contract with Twitter that allows them to use the service.

If your ridiculous scenario were true then it must also mean that Fox News has to provide me their network even if I don't pay for it since politicians also use it as a platform for discussing policy.

But I think we both know that is not the case. Trump is not able to prevent people from watching his Fox News segments because they disagree with him. Access to Fox News can however be canceled to people that violate the contract that allows them access to that service in the first place.



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Remember how you guys wanted to argue that twitter is a publisher, not a platform? That was incorrect. Fox news is a publisher. Twitter is a platform. Therefore your entire premise in this post is false.
edit on 10-7-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


The private business that is holding the governmental program also can’t block people for ideological reasons, because they people have the right to the government program


And there's your issue. Even if Twitter were banning people for ideological differences you would have to prove it. The Twitter T&Cs are so long and vague that they could come up with a legit justification for banning pretty much anyone and the courts wouldn't be able to do anything about it.



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Project veritas has provided plenty of evidence against both youtube and twitter. But one needn't state that they're engaging in this kind of ideological purity test (even though, in this case, they have). The numbers tell the story very clearly.



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 08:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Grambler


The private business that is holding the governmental program also can’t block people for ideological reasons, because they people have the right to the government program


And there's your issue. Even if Twitter were banning people for ideological differences you would have to prove it. The Twitter T&Cs are so long and vague that they could come up with a legit justification for banning pretty much anyone and the courts wouldn't be able to do anything about it.


It’s not just ideological reasons

Trump can’t block people according to this ruling unless it’s for legal reasons (someone threatening him)

Same would hold of twitter

But even so, I can easily prove twitter bans people for ideological reasons

Such as saying there are only two genders, or men can’t be women



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

the courts could also say the T&C are too vague and make twitter rewrite them.

So both could be true, However, because of this ruling, Public Figures in Government can no longer be banned from twitter.

providing that the said Official has discussed Government beyond the political parties.

ETA: although, it could also be argued that they cannot refuse to allow the public access to Government information therefore cannot ban anyone in the United State, because that would stifle access to official government information.

so yeah there will be more lawsuits in the future.
edit on 10-7-2019 by thedigirati because: I started thinking like a lawyer, I need a shower now.



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Once again, even if true, how would you go about proving that you were actually banned for ideological reasons and not the provided reason?

Without going through every post by every person, and knowing their political position, how would you ever prove that one side is banned in larger numbers and that the reason for those bans are ideological?



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

It's really quite simple. Twitter bans people based on posts and content. If none of your posts violate the T&C and you're of the persuasion that twitter tends to ban (anti-sjw BS), then you were banned for ideological reasons. Look at james woods for an example.

But according to the ruling T&C violations aren't enough to ban people commenting on public business. It has to actually be illegal behavior (stalking, harassment, etc).
edit on 10-7-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Prove that's the reason people are banned. Like I said, as a Twitter user you enter in to a contract with Twitter. You leave it up to their discretion to whether or not you violate that contract. They even have avenues to dispute any actions taken against you by mods.

It's pretty much impossible to prove that they are violating the contract you agreed to.



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: thedigirati

Why would the courts rule the T&Cs are too vague? No one is forcing you to use Twitter. It is a business agreement that you are voluntarily entering in to. If it's a less than ideal contract, that's your fault for signing.



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

The court ruled that a political figure cannot block a person unless they engage in illegal behavior. Your contract is with Twitter, thus they can ban you for not adhering to that contract.

Your contract is not with Trump or any other politician. Thus, if the courts rule that they can't block access to their content then they have to go along with that ruling.



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

vague contracts are illegal, that's why.



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Prove the people have been kicked off for saying there are only two genders and men can’t be women?


Men aren’t women.” “How are transwomen not men? What is the difference between a man and a transwoman?” These were the tweets by Meghan Murphy, a Canadian feminist and journalist, in November of last year that prompted Twitter to lock her out of her account. These statements, Murphy found out, violated Twitter’s “hateful conduct policy.” Since when?

Since October 2018 when, without the 30 days’ notice the company had promised to give, nor indeed any public notice at all, Twitter made sweeping and retroactive policy changes that included a ban on two activist invented offences: “deadnaming” (referring to a transgender person’s birth name) and “misgendering” (referring a transgender person’s birth sex).


www.nationalreview.com...

This is stated policy from Twitter

That’s just one issue

The point is they will not be able to ban people from accessing government services unless they prove the people warranted such removal

Much like the hardware store in my town would have to prove for a darn good reason why they would stop someone from coming to get their government food there,

The burden will be in Twitter to price they had good reasons that weren’t just ideological to kick people off and keeping them from a government service



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

You're arguing two sides of the same coin. Basically saying, AOC can't block people who point out her ridiculousness anymore, but twitter can ban them for her. That completely flies in the face of the purpose of this ruling, which is why the protection will extend to twitter/facebook/youtube.

Now, if you never comment on a public officials content then there is probably a loophole that could be exploited by twitter as you were never taking part in the public discourse on public business. However, once you've used their platform to take part in that you reach a new status of protection.



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

you yourself said Vauge, so it's discriminatory, you would be able to prove it being vague.

the James Woods thing would be a perfect example of being vague.

if you right the T&C to say "republicans cannot post" you would be ok

but if you say "no hate speech" that is not a defined statement, that is subjective and cannot be used as a "standard".



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join