Tonight Twitter took down Trump's personal account permanently. Trump responded on the POTUS account.

[Roch + 537]

I'd post Trump's response but can't.  Twitter deleted his response almost immediately. 

IS FREE SPEECH (First Amendment) DEAD ?

Trump's response talked about Twitter's abuse of free speech, Twitter disenfranchising 75 million Trump voters,  amongst other items.  He asked at the end , " Let's start our own service ? Stay tuned"

In my opinion the Republican Party is dead without Trump's support.

Third Party ? 

Should Trump sue Twitter regard his First Amendment Rights ?  Lot of issues here Social Media, Constitutional Rights and Political Parties. 

This would likely go all the way to the Supreme Court.

What doesn't kill you , makes you stronger.  Nancy Pelosi attempt to Kill MAGA Movement is making Trump a martyr.

New

Subscribers are leaving Facebook and going to Parler. So now Google is going to delist Parker from their search. 

Isn't this a conflict of interest.  Trump's Justice Dept lead the filing of antitrust case against Google. Case filed October 20, 2020.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-monopolist-google-violating-antitrust-laws 

New York Post : Dangers of Twitter banning Free Speech

https://nypost.com/2021/01/08/why-ban-of-realdonaldtrump-proves-twitter-not-just-a-platform/

Edited January 14, 2021 by Roch

[PTakacs + 59]

3 hours ago, Roch said:

I'd post Trump's response but can't.  Twitter deleted his response almost immediately. 

IS FREE SPEECH (First Amendment) DEAD ?

Trump's response talked about Twitter's abuse of free speech, Twitter disenfranchising 75 million Trump voters,  amongst other items.  He asked at the end , " Let's start our own service ? Stay tuned"

In my opinion the Republic Party is dead without Trump's support.

Third Party ? 

Should Trump sue Twitter regard his First Amendment Rights ?  Lot of issues here Social Media, Constitutional Rights and Political Parties. 

This would likely go all the way to the Supreme Court.

What doesn't kill you , makes you stronger.  Nancy Pelosi attempt to Kill MAGA Movement is making Trump a martyr.

New

Subscribers are leaving Facebook and going to Parker. So now Google is going to delist Parker from their search. 

Isn't their a conflict of interest.  Trump's Justice Dept lead the filing of antitrust case against Google. Case filed October 20, 2020.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-monopolist-google-violating-antitrust-laws 

 

No. Twitter is a private company. Things posted there are commercial/corporate/entertainment speech. Trump can still say whatever he wants to say to people around him.  He only lost the "privilege" to use a certain private company's platform. So what! 

I don't even have a Twitter account. Have I lost my freedom? 

[0R0 + 6,251]

No Twitter is a common carrier in status, hence its section 230  liability shield. That shield does not apply if it practices an extra legal policy of favoring some posters over others, i.e. censorship and "fact checking" both remove section 230 protection. To get this protection they must practice equal policies.

They can announce that they are publishers and continue censoring and "fact checking", but that would remove their section 230 protection of their own accord.

[PTakacs + 59]

5 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

No Twitter is a common carrier in status, hence its section 230  liability shield. That shield does not apply if it practices an extra legal policy of favoring some posters over others, i.e. censorship and "fact checking" both remove section 230 protection. To get this protection they must practice equal policies.

They can announce that they are publishers and continue censoring and "fact checking", but that would remove their section 230 protection of their own accord.

That's a completely different issue, not relating to the freedom of speech provided under the Constitution (i.e., the mentioning of "First Amendment" in the original post). 

 

[Boat + 1,323]

I’m sure the New York Post, The Drudge Report and thousands of Republican media outlets would enjoy the ratings boost by Trump. Publishing on non right media outlets is a choice. 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

On 1/9/2021 at 4:05 PM, Boat said:

I’m sure the New York Post, The Drudge Report and thousands of Republican media outlets would enjoy the ratings boost by Trump. Publishing on non right media outlets is a choice. 

True, but as a number of the platforms are now reporting, including Fox News, they either are or soon may be shutdown, and in the cases of the internet-only platforms by the very companies that control their servers (Amazon/Bezos).

Some news will get out, of that there is no doubt, but the question of how widely the details can be broadcast to an effective degree.

Edited January 13, 2021 by Dan Warnick

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

More perspective:

 

[Roch + 537]

Rasmussen Poll : Trump approval rating goes up to 51% after Wednesday's Capital attack.

Maybe Trump isn't done ?

https://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/1004872/18 

 

Edited January 14, 2021 by Roch

[Geoff Guenther + 317]

Think of Twitter as a Christian bakery and Trump as a gay couple. 

[0R0 + 6,251]

10 hours ago, PTakacs said:

That's a completely different issue, not relating to the freedom of speech provided under the Constitution (i.e., the mentioning of "First Amendment" in the original post). 

 

It is not a different issue. There are equal protection laws and anti trust laws in order to protect the public from corporate malfeasance in their practices prejudiced against one or another group by race, origin, religious and political association and even against competitive commercial interests. The common carrier status requires equal treatment of all customers and users, and prohibits participation in political alignments of the corporation itself (as opposed to its officers or employees) - otherwise it would lose its corporate shield of limited liability. Thus exposing its officers owners and employees to personal liability for their collective actions as a corporation.

The social media are in the business of providing the public square where the public associates. Thus they can not employ any discriminatory practice that they are not allowed as employers against their employees or sellers against their vendors or customers. Just reason this from the other side, if they were to practice what they are doing against conservatives and religious groups against people of certain races, sexual orientations or national origins then you would rail against them for being bigots and that anti discrimination laws and anti trust laws protect people from these actions and allow for redress through the courts.

[0R0 + 6,251]

7 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

True, but as a number of the platforms are now reporting, including Fox News, they either are or soon may be shutdown, in the cases of the internet only platforms by the very companies that control their servers (Amazon/Bezos).

Some news will get out, of that there is no doubt, but the question of how widely the details can be broadcast to an effective degree.

They are already buried on the social media and journalistic side. They are already on record as colluding with the Chinese to propagandize for their Chosen Manchurian candidates. Their employees rotate between CCP front companies, DNC, and their corporate jobs and are on record communicating with Chinese intelligence operatives in China proper and in the various consulates. There is every reason for those companies to be seized by the military in prosecution of the treason of this election.

The Amazons and communications pipeline companies have not explicitly put their oar in. If they do, then they are subject to the same retribution by martial law. In addition to anti trust and anti discrimination laws.

[0R0 + 6,251]

2 hours ago, Roch said:

Rasmussen Poll : Trump approval rating goes up to 51% after Wednesday's Capital speech.

Maybe Trump isn't done ?

https://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/1004872/18 

 

Trump was never thought by his supporters to be done. They are largely disappointed that he did not yet manage to take action to stop the coup against him and take down the junta installed by election officials in Dem controlled counties throughout the country. Half of them thought it would have been nice if the storming of the Capitol were a real event rather than a staged show.

[Roch + 537]

On 1/9/2021 at 12:32 AM, PTakacs said:

No. Twitter is a private company. Things posted there are commercial/corporate/entertainment speech. Trump can still say whatever he wants to say to people around him.  He only lost the "privilege" to use a certain private company's platform. So what! 

I don't even have a Twitter account. Have I lost my freedom? 

AT&T is a private company

The Railroads are private companies

Antitrust laws can regulate Private companies.  Right ? That's what they are there for. 

Twitter, Facebook, Google/YouTube are private companies and will not be regulated while the Democrat Party stays in power.

Trump took on Twitter, Facebook and Google.  

Modern day , "Profile in Courage"

Trump proposed regulations to control Twitter, Amazon, Facebook and Google/YouTube..  These companies destroy Trump to eliminate government regulation and future competitors (aka Parler) .  They are in violation of several discriminatory and ant-competitive laws. 

Edited January 10, 2021 by Roch

[Symmetry + 109]

Use Parler instead.

Twitter's terms of service gives them full right to end his account. 

https://twitter.com/en/tos

"We may suspend or terminate your account or cease providing you with all or part of the Services at any time for any or no reason."

[Roch + 537]

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell makes it impossible for the Senate to "receive" Articles of Impeachment until Schumer takes over after Biden inauguration .

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/01/09/mitch-mcconnell-circulates-impeachment-procedures-wouldnt-begin-trumps-term-ends/ 

Edited January 9, 2021 by Roch

[Roch + 537]

4 minutes ago, Symmetry said:

Use Parler instead.

Twitter's terms of service gives them full right to end his account. 

https://twitter.com/en/tos

"We may suspend or terminate your account or cease providing you with all or part of the Services at any time for any or no reason."

Symmetry joined 12 minutes ago.  Where did u come from.

As Trump's recent Twitter stated ,"this isn't the end.  This is just the beginning"

 

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,554]

Actually Parlor is now being shutdown, one man is easy to silence. It would have been as simple as auditing the voter registration roles assuring compliance with each states legislated election laws. And these voting machines, tech has matured to the point a quick look into the OS and drive would have exposed any irregularities..

Instead they chose to ignore and diminish, rather than expose what really happened...That just leaves to much doubt for many. One cannot deny something is terribly wrong shutting down social media and it is being shut down across the nation...Over voter registration validity?

https://techcrunch.com/2021/01/09/parler-jumps-to-no-1-on-app-store-after-facebook-and-twitter-bans/

[El Nikko + 2,145]

19 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Actually Parlor is now being shutdown, one man is easy to silence. It would have been as simple as auditing the voter registration roles assuring compliance with each states legislated election laws. And these voting machines, tech has matured to the point a quick look into the OS and drive would have exposed any irregularities..

Instead they chose to ignore and diminish, rather than expose what really happened...That just leaves to much doubt for many. One cannot deny something is terribly wrong shutting down social media and it is being shut down across the nation...Over voter registration validity?

https://techcrunch.com/2021/01/09/parler-jumps-to-no-1-on-app-store-after-facebook-and-twitter-bans/

and all they had to do was a transparent audit

Instead they're trying to turn the US in to a communist authoritarian hell hole 

Slow clap

[LiamP + 168]

22 hours ago, Symmetry said:

Use Parler instead.

Twitter's terms of service gives them full right to end his account. 

https://twitter.com/en/tos

"We may suspend or terminate your account or cease providing you with all or part of the Services at any time for any or no reason."

Terms of service can say what they want. But they won't hold water if they are unlawful.

This goes back to section 230. What some seem to be missing is there are essentially two parts to it. One is the part that gives a service provider immunity for what is published on their service by others. The second part specifically gives immunity for any potential litigation over what they remove or censor. They are free to remove anything they consider objectionable as long as they are acting in good faith.

It would be an easy day in court to argue Trump's incitement to action was objectionable and that they were acting in good faith by deleting his account. Hence this won't go near a court. Trump needs a new soap box.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

TECH NEWS - Amazon to Remove Parler From Its Web Hosting Service

Let's see, a company, Amazon in this case, provides a purely mechanical machine that processes signals for further transmission to/from the World Wide Web.  They (Amazon) have made their machines dominant the world over such that almost everything on the WWW passes through their machines.  And now they want to start regulating the WWW and think they have a right to?  Because that is what Monopolies CAN do, and therefore need to be reigned in by government regulators or broken up so they are not a monopoly by other government regulators.  I don't like government regulations any more than anyone else, or the "regulators" that make the decisions for that matter.  But cases like this, which affect everyone on Earth that uses the WWW, and therefor is a prime case for them to be forced to back down or be broken up.  IMHO.

(Excerpts)

Parler is fending off another attempt to shut down the social media network after Amazon said it is suspending the company from its web hosting service.

Parler founder and CEO John Matze said in a statement that the multinational technology company will be shutting Parler’s servers at midnight Sunday, Jan. 10.

Matze has characterized the decision as “an attempt to completely remove free speech off the internet.”

-

“We will try our best to move to a new provider right now as we have many competing for our business, however Amazon, Google and Apple purposefully did this as a coordinated effort knowing our options would be limited and knowing this would inflict the most damage right as President Trump was banned from the tech companies.”

-

 

Matze said he believes the big tech companies’ decision is a “coordinated attack” to “kill competition in the market place.”

“We were too successful too fast. You can expect the war on competition and free speech to continue, but don’t count us out,” he added.

-

Unbalanced policing of user content and certain political views has raised concerns over free speech rights and the lack of checks and balances on big tech companies. Discussions over limiting or eliminating liability protections under Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act for tech companies that have engaged in censoring or political conduct have been heavily discussed in the past year.

Twitter’s move to remove Trump’s account has received widespread scrutiny. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson, State Secretary Mike Pompeo, and former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley likened Twitter’s move to conduct by the communist party ruling China.

“Silencing people, not to mention the President of the U.S., is what happens in China not our country,” Haley wrote.

“You want to ban @realDonaldTrump, fine you’re a private company, but @Twitter deleting the President’s account which highlights this admin & its history is wrong. @Facebook &  @instagram banning all images from the Capitol riot is a dangerous precedent to set. We aren’t in China,” Carson wrote.

On Jan. 1, the deputy spokesperson for the State Department Cale Brown captured a Twitter post by the new leader of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps who was threatening U.S. officials. The Iranian official’s account is still active on Twitter.

 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

Although Lindsey is now in the Minority, at least he is promising further pursuit against the power of Big Tech, after President Trump's near total ban from all of their services.

Graham Says He Is ‘More Determined’ to Roll Back Protections for Big Tech After Twitter Bans Trump

(Excerpts)

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said on Saturday that he was “more determined” to rollback liability protections for big tech companies after Twitter permanently removed President Donald Trump’s account from its platform.

“Twitter may ban me for this but I willingly accept that fate: Your decision to permanently ban President Trump is a serious mistake,” Graham said in a series of posts on Twitter. “The Ayatollah can tweet, but Trump can’t. Says a lot about the people who run Twitter.”

“I’m more determined than ever to strip Section 230 protections from Big Tech (Twitter) that let them be immune from lawsuits,” he added.

Big tech companies such as Twitter, Facebook, and other Silicon Valley companies have repeatedly been criticized for their unbalanced policing of user content on social media platforms. Critics claim that the companies are engaging in conduct that limits conservative viewpoints and stifles free speech.

Trump and the Justice Department have urged Congress to roll back legal protections under Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act for companies that have engaged in censoring or political conduct. The president last month vetoed a defense-spending bill when lawmakers failed to limit the protections in the bill as requested by the administration.

Section 230 largely exempts online platforms from liability for content posted by their users, although they can be held liable for content that violates anti-sex trafficking or intellectual property laws.

-

“Big Tech are the only companies in America that virtually have absolute immunity from being sued for their actions, and it’s only because Congress gave them that protection,” Graham said.

“It is now time for Congress to repeal Section 230 and put Big Tech on the same legal footing as every other company in America. Legal accountability.”

 

[Boat + 1,323]

On 1/9/2021 at 11:05 AM, 0R0 said:

They are already buried on the social media and journalistic side. They are already on record as colluding with the Chinese to propagandize for their Chosen Manchurian candidates. Their employees rotate between CCP front companies, DNC, and their corporate jobs and are on record communicating with Chinese intelligence operatives in China proper and in the various consulates. There is every reason for those companies to be seized by the military in prosecution of the treason of this election.

The Amazons and communications pipeline companies have not explicitly put their oar in. If they do, then they are subject to the same retribution by martial law. In addition to anti trust and anti discrimination laws.

Oh good grief, don’t you know American cities and Chinese cities form partnerships to promote trade? I think that was a GW initiative. Not for sure. 
It’s just recently/6 years, because of Taiwan, Hong Cong and the South China Sea did China grow in disfavor. Before that pursuing China was welcomed by Government and corporations/business.

You act like that didn’t happen. It was Obama that complained about China and started this downhill slide in relations.

[specinho + 467]

On 1/10/2021 at 2:35 AM, Roch said:

AT&T is a private company

The Railroads are private companies

Antitrust laws can regulate Private companies.  Right ? That's what they are there for. 

Twitter, Facebook, Google/YouTube are private companies and will not be regulated while the Democrat Party stays in power.

Trump took on Twitter, Facebook and Google.  

Modern day , "Profile in Courage"

with military power, financial and administrative power, it is a little lamb to take in this kind of unjust treatment.......... no??

Unlike some people who might be given no right, including the right to live, to work, to make friends, to earn money etc who often feel helpless to change anything on their own, Trump has all the resources to response differently in hope for different outcomes, no?.......From fraudulence of election procedures and results, to gang up bully or show skewed acts, and such.......... Too much.........

 

read an article in a newsletter today ..... realize one thing - businessmen, regardless how rich, rarely care much outside of their routine and pre-conditioned mindsets....... Hence, they largely could not resolute well outside of what was told, taught, informed etc...........

 

Read it in a forum also that most of them do not care what kind of questions they are asking nor they care what kind of answers are given, they simply do not care. Just go through the motion of doing it  .........

 

The extension of this indifferent attitude could be they do not care about the consequences of their actions nor do they feel responsible to any unwanted side effects besides the targeted gains from their agenda............

Dear Commies (friends of OilPrice Community), we should clear our heads, take deep breaths, count sheeps........... and say What The Hxxx.......

Is this a test of leadership?? who is suitable to lead the country kind of thing?? where are they heading??

where is our farmer......??

Edited January 10, 2021 by specinho

[0R0 + 6,251]

1 hour ago, LiamP said:

Terms of service can say what they want. But they won't hold water if they are unlawful.

This goes back to section 230. What some seem to be missing is there are essentially two parts to it. One is the part that gives a service provider immunity for what is published on their service by others. The second part specifically gives immunity for any potential litigation over what they remove or censor. They are free to remove anything they consider objectionable as long as they are acting in good faith.

It would be an easy day in court to argue Trump's incitement to action was objectionable and that they were acting in good faith by deleting his account. Hence this won't go near a court. Trump needs a new soap box.

It was not an incitement. I saw the tweets and viewed his speech. The tech oligarchs and the Dems are clutching at straws. They are acting in bad faith and have been doing so at an increasing pace for years. They are essentially unified into the Dem party and must be regulated as political organizations. 

[Symmetry + 109]

3 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

TECH NEWS - Amazon to Remove Parler From Its Web Hosting Service

Let's see, a company, Amazon in this case, provides a purely mechanical machine that processes signals for further transmission to/from the World Wide Web.  They (Amazon) have made their machines dominant the world over such that almost everything on the WWW passes through their machines.  And now they want to start regulating the WWW and think they have a right to?  Because that is what Monopolies CAN do, and therefore need to be reigned in by government regulators or broken up so they are not a monopoly by other government regulators.  I don't like government regulations any more than anyone else, or the "regulators" that make the decisions for that matter.  But cases like this, which affect everyone on Earth that uses the WWW, and therefor is a prime case for them to be forced to back down or be broken up.  IMHO.

(Excerpts)

Parler is fending off another attempt to shut down the social media network after Amazon said it is suspending the company from its web hosting service.

Parler founder and CEO John Matze said in a statement that the multinational technology company will be shutting Parler’s servers at midnight Sunday, Jan. 10.

Matze has characterized the decision as “an attempt to completely remove free speech off the internet.”

-

“We will try our best to move to a new provider right now as we have many competing for our business, however Amazon, Google and Apple purposefully did this as a coordinated effort knowing our options would be limited and knowing this would inflict the most damage right as President Trump was banned from the tech companies.”

-

 

Matze said he believes the big tech companies’ decision is a “coordinated attack” to “kill competition in the market place.”

“We were too successful too fast. You can expect the war on competition and free speech to continue, but don’t count us out,” he added.

-

Unbalanced policing of user content and certain political views has raised concerns over free speech rights and the lack of checks and balances on big tech companies. Discussions over limiting or eliminating liability protections under Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act for tech companies that have engaged in censoring or political conduct have been heavily discussed in the past year.

Twitter’s move to remove Trump’s account has received widespread scrutiny. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson, State Secretary Mike Pompeo, and former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley likened Twitter’s move to conduct by the communist party ruling China.

“Silencing people, not to mention the President of the U.S., is what happens in China not our country,” Haley wrote.

“You want to ban @realDonaldTrump, fine you’re a private company, but @Twitter deleting the President’s account which highlights this admin & its history is wrong. @Facebook &  @instagram banning all images from the Capitol riot is a dangerous precedent to set. We aren’t in China,” Carson wrote.

On Jan. 1, the deputy spokesperson for the State Department Cale Brown captured a Twitter post by the new leader of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps who was threatening U.S. officials. The Iranian official’s account is still active on Twitter.

 

I'm pretty sure internet service providers are already regulated as essential utilities.

Correct me if I'm wrong.