Trump Sues Facebook, YouTube And Twitter For Alleged Censorship

Homepage | Forums | Main Forums | Latest Breaking News | Trump Sues Facebook, YouTube And Twitter For Alleged Censorship

Viewing 10 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #433941
      Pam2
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 8,873
    • #433946
      David the Gnome
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 3,230

      He has nothing.  Yes, they do censor and ban people for political reasons.  I think it’s wrong and shitty – but the law permits it.  I think a good question to be asked here is whether or not those legal protections should apply to these big social media companies.

      It isn’t a simple thing.  While I unfortunately am forced to side with Trump – at least in principle – on this one… I don’t think the law favors him.

      I don’t like censorship – but there needs to be a line drawn somewhere.  In the case of Trump and many others I believe it was drawn in the wrong place, mostly as a result of political and media pressure.

      So… nothing alleged about it, but whatever their reasoning, they did have the legal right to ban him.

      • #433950
        Ohio Barbarian
        Moderator
        • Total Posts: 21,757

        But what I believe and what the corrupt, comfortable federal judges believe are two very different things.

        It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

        You can jail a revolutionary, but you can't jail the revolution.--Fred Hampton

        • #434111
          eridani
          Participant
          • Total Posts: 9,978

          The first amendment refers only to actions by the government.

          Jesus: Hey, Dad? God: Yes, Son? Jesus: Western civilization followed me home. Can I keep it? God: Certainly not! And put it down this minute--you don't know where it's been! Tom Robbins in Another Roadside Attraction

          • #434147
            Ohio Barbarian
            Moderator
            • Total Posts: 21,757

            They’re part of the actual ruling class.

            It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

            You can jail a revolutionary, but you can't jail the revolution.--Fred Hampton

            • #434311
              eridani
              Participant
              • Total Posts: 9,978

              The latter currently controls the former by virtue of Citizens United, but that IMO does not make them identical.

              Jesus: Hey, Dad? God: Yes, Son? Jesus: Western civilization followed me home. Can I keep it? God: Certainly not! And put it down this minute--you don't know where it's been! Tom Robbins in Another Roadside Attraction

    • #433958
      David the Gnome
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 3,230

      @ohiobarbarian

      That’s where we get into whether or not these companies have a legal right to determine content on their platforms.  Generally, legally at least, they do.

      Take a popular online forum, for example.  Generally they have terms of service of some sort.  How they are enforced is up to admin – but if they want to remove someone or hide or delete their opinions/links/whatever, they can and do.

      Facebook and such are a bit different due to having such massive numbers, but I imagine the right to alter or remove content or members is somewhere in the TOS along with how we “give them permission” to share or sell our data, heh.

      So, given conventional thinking and current practices… It is highly unlikely that Trump will win.

      Does the first amendment apply here?  I honestly don’t know.  It was written in a time long before we had such platforms.

      Trump could create his own social media platform and put whatever the heck he wants on it, too.  Hard and expensive to do, but it could be done.

      Idk… If we apply the first amendment to all social media… Could be we’d just make a bigger mess of things.  I was a member of a completely unmoderated forum for a few years in my 20s… The shit people say when safe behind the anonymity of their screens and free of any consequence… It can get really, really ugly.

      Have they got the right to say it?  Maybe – but maybe not on a forum that has defined terms of service.  It also tends to get ugly because such things give free reign to bullies and every kind of ugly thing you can think of.

       

      • #433959
        salemcourt
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 2,965

        Can they deny you a phone number since they do not agree with what you will say over the phone?

        • #433974
          game meat
          Participant
          • Total Posts: 1,525

          But we do not (typically) publish our phone calls, and “publish’ is the key word here.

          The problem with these social media companies is they get all the benefits of being a publisher (they can ban anyone they want on a whim), without any of the downsides (they’re not legally responsible for what people publish on their platforms).

          They have the best of both worlds and it’s ridiculous.

          Ideally, they’d be nationalized and the content would be protected under the first amendment. Either way, a weaselly little shit like Zuckerberg should not, under any circumstances, have the power to silence world leaders (or anyone, really). Even someone with a terminal case of stage 5 TDS should at least see something wrong with that in the long term, but maybe not.

      • #433966
        Ohio Barbarian
        Moderator
        • Total Posts: 21,757

        Just like @salemcourt said, the phone company can’t deny you a phone because you have political opinions with which they disagree. Plus, it’s one thing to ban someone from a forum because they are a troll or use disgusting language all the time but political speech should be a different matter, and more protected than other kinds of speech.

        For someone like Zuckerberg to have totalitarian authority over what people post on a worldwide social media site is as authoritarian as it gets. And what’s with all this private property shit anyway? Why should anyone have the right to own so much, and to have that much power? I don’t think that should be legal.

        There’s a big difference between Zuckerberg and JPR’s Fearless Leader. Zuckerberg’s rules impact billions. The sheer scale puts him in a different category as far as I am concerned.

        It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

        You can jail a revolutionary, but you can't jail the revolution.--Fred Hampton

    • #433970
      David the Gnome
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 3,230

      It’s also congrees and most major media, probably a majority of democrats – and it would be a majority of Republicans if the shoe were on the other foot.

      I agree with you.  Make them public utilities – and no, I don’t think anyone should have that kind of power.  It is what it is, in this age of oligarchy disguised as insane capitalism.  Hell, dude, the government now defines socialists as terrorists.

      In principle, i agree with you.  By law though?  We need different laws.

    • #433971
      kelly
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 345

      brainwashed by the maggots who believe (or simply recite that) there is no free speech that cant be bought off by information monopolists.

      Please understand the notion of “the commons” that can turn a privately owned shopping mall into a bastion of protest, a source of cash settlements for protestors who had their rights violated.

      now tell me how some overwhelming platform of internet interaction is less protected?

      or at least, quit repeating defeatist self harming bullshit rhetoric.

      thats just doing the dirty work for free yet at the ultimate price.

      for these scumbag trillionaires we kowtow and wave goodbye to the very notions, even the memories-

      of privacy, information/honesty, “truth” and freedom.

      not deserving any of it by our actions,

      but being born into it, guaranteed to us, and handed over without a fight.

      for no reason at all.

      right before my eyes.

      • #434000
        Jim Lane
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 865

        @kelly

        You write:

        Please understand the notion of “the commons” that can turn a privately owned shopping mall into a bastion of protest, a source of cash settlements for protestors who had their rights violated.

        In general, a privately owned shopping mall is not subject to the First Amendment, which restricts only government action. The case arose in 1968 when some people went to a mall to distribute handbills about opposition to the draft. The mall’s security guards forced them to leave. They sued, alleging violation of their First Amendment rights. In Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner (link to Wikipedia summary), the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the owners of the mall were entitled to restrict speech on their premises.

        There can be an exception to this general rule for a mall in a company town, where the line between public and private is blurred. Furthermore, a state has the power to grant free-speech rights that are broader than the federal protections of the First Amendment, and some states (notably California and New Jersey) have done so.

        I haven’t looked into Trump’s suit in detail. One comment that I read said that Facebook and Twitter had provisions in their terms of service requiring that any suit be brought in specific jurisdictions in California. Trump sued in Florida. One threshold argument he will face is that, by joining these social media, he agreed to their ToS, and must therefore sue in California. As a tactical matter, he might have been better off doing that anyway. He would have a stronger case if he relied on the California constitution instead of the federal one.

        • #434008
          kelly
          Participant
          • Total Posts: 345

          not offering up my constitutionally guaranteed freedoms just because word has it, or because a whole string of sell outs ran the FCC into the ground with some bots and some shrugs.

          Locally, an extended  Gap protest that was met with undercover college cops and heavy handed arrests at the local large indoor mall ended up with a payout and what appears to have been unabridged access to the store itself where they leafletted customers. I was not there for any of it.

          and sadly, a lot of archival information seems to have passed on. theres this bit here

          https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2002/06/03/1313791.php?show_comments=1

          if I had a point it is that you dont shut up because somebody said you should.

          plenty of that being passed around.

          fuck the supreme court and their corporate stooges.

    • #433979
      Gryneos
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 1,635

      with Trump doing such a suit is that the “liberals” for whom Trump broke their brains, will react by pushing for even more censorship from social media. If this had been a suit from someone they didn’t know and hate, it would likely have a better chance of winning. Plus, Trump isn’t known for winning many suits. Mostly he does it to intimidate, not start a movement.

      Who are you? | What do you want? | Why are you here? | Where are you going? | Do you have anything worth living for? | Who do you serve and who do you trust?

    • #433986
      David the Gnome
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 3,230

      @kelly

      There are limits to what we can say in many different types of situations.  For example – a Hitler worshiping neo Nazi would be banned from most forums if they made their views clear.  That is particularly so as in most forums such a person would inevitably start a flame war if allowed to post as they pleased.

      As regards facebook, twitter, YouTube and so on – no one forces any of us to use their platforms.  If we dislike their policies, we are welcome to choose or create another.

      Facebook and other companies that operate in many Nations actually have to restrict content to some extent in all of them – or they will be held liable in some manner.

      I may not like it or agree with it – but so long as they operate within the law, I can’t successfully sue them for it either.

       

      • #433990
        Ohio Barbarian
        Moderator
        • Total Posts: 21,757

        Saying we don’t have to use Facebook, YouTube or Twitter is like saying I don’t have to use AT&T or Spectrum for my internet service provider. In my area, there is only AT&T or Spectrum, so no, I don’t have to use them, but I do if I want to have home internet access.

        Similarly, the three communications companies you mention are monopolies for all intents and purposes. This is the strongest legal argument there is that they are part of the old English Common Law concept of the commons and are therefore subject to both regulation and, if need be, nationalization or mandatory dismemberment into smaller companies by the state.


        @kelly
        Good point about the commons.

        It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

        You can jail a revolutionary, but you can't jail the revolution.--Fred Hampton

    • #434006
      gordyfl
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 1,789

      “Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one.”

      The press can print what they want, and not print what they don’t want.

      I you send a Letter to the Editor, they might or might not print it. That’s their choice. Same applies to Twitter — a private company.

      CNN, MSNBC, FOX, or any other news shows decide who they don’t want as guests. They control the narrative.

      I guess even Comcast can do the same. Or Google. I thought they were going too far when they were pushing Prop-or-Not — a clear attempt at censorship against ordinary Americans — preventing groups from getting together to share opinions and ideas.

       

    • #434341
      MizzGrizz
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 3,526

      I’m not a Trump fan,but I am a civil liberties adherent,so I hope he wins.

    • #434355
      David the Gnome
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 3,230

      Trump isn’t doing any of this because he gives a shit about the first amendment.  He’s doing it because they had the nerve to ban him.  Changing policy to encourage or enforce free speech could be a good thing.  Filing suit for monetary gain and because they stung your massive ego?  Not so much.

      Case in point – Trump attempted to sue Bill Maher (another narcissist prick) for calling him an orangutan.  Now, far as I know, we are allowed to mock public figures as long as we don’t cross the line into harassment.

      There are numerous cases in point like this.  Trump sending his goon squads after protesters – all that law and order bull shit.

      Now that the shoe is on the other foot – he is mad.  Not because he supports the first amendment, but because they banned him.

      Frankly, I hope some of the many allegations against him stick and he rots in prison.  Would set a good precedent for dealing with Presidents who over reach – which in my life time has been all of them.

      He’s got the right to say what he wants – and those social media companies have the right to moderate their own content.  The dude is just barely shy of being an obvious neo Nazi – and the reason they banned him is liability concern.

      If a court determined that he was using those platforms to promote violence – and those platforms did nothing to stop it…

      Then they would have a lot more than an angry orange toddler to worry about.

      Words can have consequences.  And creating a new website or social media platform isn’t that complicated – or even that expensive if you have the right skills for it.  Web design, marketing, advertising, etc.

      This isn’t about the first amendment.  Not for him.  His civil liberties are no more assaulted than some dude who posts violent words or images on Facebook and gets the ban stick for it.  There are limits.

    • #434360
      Pam2
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 8,873

      The problem is the censorship issue isn’t just affecting Trump and his followers.

Viewing 10 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.