Laura Loomer chained herself to the Twitter building *Live*

[Dartz1979]

Either way you see it twitter is gonna be sued and will lose because they violated the united states Constitution.. besides twitter is NOT and ill emphasize this quite well a private company when they make it open to the public where anyone in the world or universe i say universe cause soon we will have humans on mars yes you can have guidelines and a policy but you can't violate a persons FREE Speech.

[Malaky]

Framing the story to exclude important context really isn't a way to go if you want others to think you're here to participate in good faith.

It was a feminist who has been aggressively hostile to transgender rights and freedoms, and the tweet in question was an attack on their gender identity based on the feminist's transphobia. It was hate speech, definitively.

No, she literally just said "men aren't women" and twitter used that post as basis to ban her. That's what happened.
Everything else you said? Projections, assumptions, judgements and opinions. You can't ban people for those.

[JohnBrown1917]

Either way you see it twitter is gonna be sued and will lose because they violated the united states Constitution.. besides twitter is NOT and ill emphasize this quite well a private company when they make it open to the public where anyone in the world or universe i say universe cause soon we will have humans on mars yes you can have guidelines and a policy but you can't violate a persons FREE Speech.

Not how the US constitution works, sorry.

[-aiko-]

Either way you see it twitter is gonna be sued and will lose because they violated the united states Constitution.. besides twitter is NOT and ill emphasize this quite well a private company when they make it open to the public where anyone in the world or universe i say universe cause soon we will have humans on mars yes you can have guidelines and a policy but you can't violate a persons FREE Speech.

Not at all how this works, actually.

[Orbitus]

Either way you see it twitter is gonna be sued and will lose because they violated the united states Constitution.. besides twitter is NOT and ill emphasize this quite well a private company when they make it open to the public where anyone in the world or universe i say universe cause soon we will have humans on mars yes you can have guidelines and a policy but you can't violate a persons FREE Speech.

Someone doesn't understand the US constitution. They aren't part of the government, this isn't a free speech issue. You signed a ToS just like you did when you signed up for this website saying they can and will ban you for anything they want. They ABSOLUTELY are a private company, if they shut down the Twitter platform tomorrow, you couldn't do anything to stop it.

If you aren't a US citizen, I can understand being ignorant enough of the 1st amendment, but if you are, you need to go back to fucking high school and take a basic fucking civics class. I am sure the 1st amendment and the rest of the bill of rights will be taught, basically the first fucking week.

[ohwell]

Watch Live here -------

A few days ago conservative commentator Laura Loomer got banned from twitter.

She now chained herself to the Twitter head quarters building to protest bias against conservatives on social media.

Do you think she is right? Do you think conservatives' freedom of speech is under attack on social media?

Do you think conservatives are being censored?

What is your take on this?

You can't have it both ways. People have won suits saying that politicians blocking them on Twitter blocked their access to them and suppressed their freedom of speech. It should work the same for the platform banning someone for their views.

- - - Updated - - -

Someone doesn't understand the US constitution. They aren't part of the government, this isn't a free speech issue. You signed a ToS just like you did when you signed up for this website saying they can and will ban you for anything they want. They ABSOLUTELY are a private company, if they shut down the Twitter platform tomorrow, you couldn't do anything to stop it.

If you aren't a US citizen, I can understand being ignorant enough of the 1st amendment, but if you are, you need to go back to fucking high school and take a basic fucking civics class. I am sure the 1st amendment and the rest of the bill of rights will be taught, basically the first fucking week.

Eventually the SC is going to have to rule on this. They've declared MANY things that were private to be public forums. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruney...nter_v._Robins declared that citizens have a right to freedom of speech on privately owned shopping centers and malls. The same will eventually apply to social media and it should if it applies to private land like that in the real world.

- - - Updated - - -

Not at all how this works, actually.

Not yet. All we need is a case to reach a court of a certain level and precedent is already set that social media should be declared a public forum.

[Orbitus]

Eventually the SC is going to have to rule on this. They've declared MANY things that were private to be public forums. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruney...nter_v._Robins declared that citizens have a right to freedom of speech on privately owned shopping centers and malls. The same will eventually apply to social media and it should if it applies to private land like that in the real world.

- - - Updated - - -



Not yet. All we need is a case to reach a court of a certain level and precedent is already set that social media should be declared a public forum.

Yeah, that isn't going to happen. Because the internet isn't the same as a shopping center. And their case hinged on getting signatures to address the government. Something that isn't happening here.

YOU DON'T HAVE FREE SPEECH ON ANY INTERNET WEBSITE, except a government website. And I don't know where you can go that has an open forum like say, MMO-Champion or Twitter to just talk shit to and about the government. Hell, even Infowars, has a ToS that says they can ban you for any reason they want.

[Shadowferal]

Either way you see it twitter is gonna be sued and will lose because they violated the united states Constitution..

It seems you're merely expressing an opinion on something you know little of.

What next, a demand to have the internet to be provided for free, since not having it would be a gross breach of the US Constitutional right of Free Speech? /sarcasm

[-aiko-]

Not yet. All we need is a case to reach a court of a certain level and precedent is already set that social media should be declared a public forum.

It's not as simple as that. The courts would have to define "social media", for starters. What makes Twitter different from a private forum, like this one? Do they force every US-based website to become a 'platform' where speech is protected? Unlikely. Is it any website owned by a US corporation? Is it based off of the amount of users a website has? Do the courts get to pick and choose which websites need to adhere to the new precedent?

The sheer size of the internet makes this much more difficult than you're implying. There's also the fact that these websites have no physical space and allow full access to users from different countries. I just don't see how they could legally enforce this, but, well, I'm not a lawyer, /shrug It just doesn't make any sense to me and I doubt it could be easily resolved by SCOTUS.

Your comparisons don't work because of how the internet works.

[Lollis]

You can't have it both ways. People have won suits saying that politicians blocking them on Twitter blocked their access to them and suppressed their freedom of speech. It should work the same for the platform banning someone for their views.

Pretty certain that this is because the government is answerable to the people who have the right to assembly and petition, both of which would be countermanded if politicians could simply block at will.

[Mormolyce]

And you clearly wouldn't recognise the attack on freedom of speech even if it hit you in the head. It's a waste of time convincing the blind man about the existence of red.

She was banned from Twitter for repeatedly violating their TOS.

This website has a TOS, which you can be banned for violating. Assault on free speech?

WoW has a TOS, you can be banned for violating that too. Another assault on free speech?

- - - Updated - - -

Not yet. All we need is a case to reach a court of a certain level and precedent is already set that social media should be declared a public forum.

You're literally talking about nationalising private enterprise.

So much for the right wing lol.

[Machismo]

Either way you see it twitter is gonna be sued and will lose because they violated the united states Constitution.. besides twitter is NOT and ill emphasize this quite well a private company when they make it open to the public where anyone in the world or universe i say universe cause soon we will have humans on mars yes you can have guidelines and a policy but you can't violate a persons FREE Speech.

You don't seem to know how the United States Constitution works, not by a long shot.

- - - Updated - - -

You can't have it both ways. People have won suits saying that politicians blocking them on Twitter blocked their access to them and suppressed their freedom of speech. It should work the same for the platform banning someone for their views.

- - - Updated - - -



Eventually the SC is going to have to rule on this. They've declared MANY things that were private to be public forums. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruney...nter_v._Robins declared that citizens have a right to freedom of speech on privately owned shopping centers and malls. The same will eventually apply to social media and it should if it applies to private land like that in the real world.

- - - Updated - - -



Not yet. All we need is a case to reach a court of a certain level and precedent is already set that social media should be declared a public forum.

Man, you guys are really determined to limit the First Amendment.

[jackofwind]

Eventually the SC is going to have to rule on this. They've declared MANY things that were private to be public forums. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruney...nter_v._Robins declared that citizens have a right to freedom of speech on privately owned shopping centers and malls. The same will eventually apply to social media and it should if it applies to private land like that in the real world.

Yeah and do you make an account and sign/agree to a TOS when you enter a shopping mall? Because that's what you do when you make a social media account.

[Oneirophobia]

how many people actually have twitter anyway.

like i keep hearing about all these tweets but i dont know any one who actually has twitter, and i noticed this and started asking my friends and co workers so far only 2 out of about 30 ish people ive asked, actually has a twitter account.

who are these people on twitter, what is there demographic because they certainly arnt the averedge northern England joe at least.

From the outside looking in, it seems Republicans are trying to cultivate the "we're so oppressed" mindset among their followers after seeing how well it's playing out for Democrats. Being able to play the downtrodden, oppressed victim has turned out to be quite the potent political tool. The irony being it's mostly western political parties, who have the least oppressed or victimized followers.

[Deleted]

From the outside looking in, it seems Republicans are trying to cultivate the "we're so oppressed" mindset among their followers after seeing how well it's playing out for Democrats. Being able to play the downtrodden, oppressed victim has turned out to be quite the potent political tool. The irony being it's mostly western political parties, who have the least oppressed or victimized followers.

Did you reply to the right post?
Because I'm not sure what that has to do with the fact I'm 99% sure twitter is being over inflated in both its assumed user numbers. And it's importance.

I mean yea I've only got an anecdotal small sample size but I just got this feeling it one of those things most people might have an account on but rarely actually use, Probly they mostly use there work one.
And if the media simply stopped covering shit on twitter it would basicly collapse.

[Dartz1979]

oh man you're a special kind of idiot aren't you?
It's a private company and she agreed to their terms of service when she created her account.

It is LITERALLY, her own fault for being banned from there since she did NOT abide by the rules she consented to. I honestly can't understand how hard it is to fathom such a basic, simple fact......But then again dealing with facts and reality has never been the strong suit of republicans.

I reported your post cause you shouldn't be harassing me next time select your words better.

[Edge-]

This was one of the most hilariously pathetic things I've seen in quite some time. I appreciate her elaborate performance art.

[Mormolyce]

You can't have it both ways. People have won suits saying that politicians blocking them on Twitter blocked their access to them and suppressed their freedom of speech. It should work the same for the platform banning someone for their views.

Actually, that's entirely Trump's fault for conducting state business on his personal twitter. If he didn't want that kind of thing he just needed to separate the two like previous Presidents did. If a President is making and promoting policy on a platform, it's now a public platform. That does not apply to a private business like Twitter, which isn't an arm of the US government.

[ohwell]

Actually, that's entirely Trump's fault for conducting state business on his personal twitter. If he didn't want that kind of thing he just needed to separate the two like previous Presidents did. If a President is making and promoting policy on a platform, it's now a public platform. That does not apply to a private business like Twitter, which isn't an arm of the US government.

That was LONG before Trump, but keep up with your agenda. Those cases were from about 10 years ago.

Supreme Court has already ruled that private businesses cannot stop people from expressing freedom of speech if said place has become a traditional forum for the public. The only difference in that case was that the place was a privately owned shopping mall. There's already precedent to stop Twitter and Facebook from banning people under freedom of speech regardless of whether or not they're a private entity. It's only a matter of a case reaching the SC because the internet and freedom of speech is relatively new.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, that isn't going to happen. Because the internet isn't the same as a shopping center. And their case hinged on getting signatures to address the government. Something that isn't happening here.

YOU DON'T HAVE FREE SPEECH ON ANY INTERNET WEBSITE, except a government website. And I don't know where you can go that has an open forum like say, MMO-Champion or Twitter to just talk shit to and about the government. Hell, even Infowars, has a ToS that says they can ban you for any reason they want.

It's 100% the same thing. The idea is that Twitter and Facebook have become traditional forums in the modern age the same as how a street corner, park, or mall was considered to be. You will have free speech on Twitter or Facebook if a case ever gets to the SC because there is precedent.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not as simple as that. The courts would have to define "social media", for starters. What makes Twitter different from a private forum, like this one? Do they force every US-based website to become a 'platform' where speech is protected? Unlikely. Is it any website owned by a US corporation? Is it based off of the amount of users a website has? Do the courts get to pick and choose which websites need to adhere to the new precedent?

The sheer size of the internet makes this much more difficult than you're implying. There's also the fact that these websites have no physical space and allow full access to users from different countries. I just don't see how they could legally enforce this, but, well, I'm not a lawyer, /shrug It just doesn't make any sense to me and I doubt it could be easily resolved by SCOTUS.

Your comparisons don't work because of how the internet works.

Twitter is easily different from this one in that Twitter is simply an expression to whoever wherever where this is geared SPECIFICALLY to MMOs.

- - - Updated - - -

Pretty certain that this is because the government is answerable to the people who have the right to assembly and petition, both of which would be countermanded if politicians could simply block at will.

Just like people claim you can go to a different website other than Twitter, there are and have been avenues for politicians to be reached other than Twitter and Facebook and yet here we are. Your point is a non point.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah and do you make an account and sign/agree to a TOS when you enter a shopping mall? Because that's what you do when you make a social media account.

Yes. Entering a mall means you're abiding by their rules or you will be removed. Your account is you. So yes it is the same. Just like driving on a state's road you don't sign saying you agree to anything but simply driving you do agree to their rules. There are damn well ToS in EVERYTHING you do, you just don't have to sign for it.

[Shadowferal]

There's already precedent to stop Twitter and Facebook from banning people under freedom of speech regardless of whether or not they're a private entity. It's only a matter of a case reaching the SC because the internet and freedom of speech is relatively new.

No. It won't happen. And there certainly isn't any precedent for it.
The only way it could is if the internet were a public utility.
And the only way to get there is if EVERY single telcom provider stopped doling out large contributions to prevent that from ever happening.

Good luck with that.