GLORIOUS

Thoughts?

informationliberation.com/?id=58562

Attached: 5C7B2CDC-A5B6-46A8-8E56-B111B1193F46.jpg (640x783, 197K)

Other urls found in this thread:

nytimes.com/2018/05/23/business/media/trump-twitter-block.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

This is huge
Bump this shit

I CAN TWEET AGAIN

Attached: 1529175466759.jpg (520x245, 34K)

its about time...

This is exactly what we need to do since the US supreme court ruling. Flood twitter with redpills, then when banned for spreading the truth, sue them and make them explain how spreading the truth is against their TOS in court while a jury awards those brave heros millions in comp.

Attached: 1528568798581.jpg (750x816, 128K)

Good.
But is twitter so i dont care

twatter was fun before they went ban happy

BUMP

Not good.

So does this mean Milo and Sargon are coming back?

Does this mean I can get my account back when I was banned for telling some anti-white kike to gas himself?

>But is twitter
>Not "It's" Twitter

Attached: 550.png (207x243, 6K)

Can somebody clear this up for me? How can you sue twitter for banning you? Don’t they have the right to ban anybody they’d like, even with absolutely no reason?

Misleading, my impression was they rejected the dismissal and will proceed with a trial.

Taylor hasn't won yet, he's just getting his right to a trial which the fact that it's contested is pretty fucking sad commentary.

VINDICATED

Attached: 1520268791357.png (640x480, 141K)

>Don’t they have the right to ban anybody they’d like, even with absolutely no reason?
A court ruled that Trump couldn't block users because it's a public forum. Therefore Twitter cannot ban users from said public forum or they are violating the first amend.

I think they have to follow their own TOS, because that's a contract they've made with their users.
There's also some sort of specific law in California that Taylor thought could help him, but in the end I think the judge simply said something like "Because Twitter has portrayed itself as being a free speech space, this lawsuit can go forward for now."

hmmm some of the (((characters))) in that list...

Don't be a bitch.Don't bear that name.Do not procreate.
Thank you.

OMG OMG OMG MILO AND SARGON THEYRE SO EPIC I CANT WAIT TILL THEY ARE ALLOWED TO COME BACK! SHADILAY AND MAGA FELLOW MAGAPEDE!

Attached: B0BF78BA-C2FE-4887-BE6A-A69DC55B5EED.jpg (556x561, 53K)

well usually i'd say this shouldnt be done since its a private corporation
but twitter gets gibs money from the government for calling itself a '''''''''public forum''''' so this is nothing less than such a corporatist entity deserves

Quick question. Since it was ruled that Trump can't block people because his feed counts as a public forum how come no one has argued Twitter banning people prevents them access from said public forum?

is there a more irritating """leftist""" argument than "they are a private corporation they can do what they want!"

JARED

BOMAYE

>Since it was ruled that Trump can't block people because his feed counts as a public forum how come no one has argued Twitter banning people prevents them access from said public forum?
People are starting to realize this. You have to realize normies operate like 2 years behind Jow Forums

This is a terrible precedent. It means the government controls who you allow on your private platform.

>Can somebody clear this up for me? How can you sue twitter for banning you? Don’t they have the right to ban anybody they’d like, even with absolutely no reason?

No, supreme court held its a public forum which means open the flood gates for lawsuits until the supreme court rules against that which wont happen for a long... long... time if ever at all.

Either way strike now!

Attached: 1528519905135.jpg (600x444, 57K)

The flood gates are open Internet in America will be cited as a public domain and has the rights of the 1st amendment. The left trapped itself with taking the President to court over twitter. Good game Mr. President

I'd be fine with this argument if they didn't receive gov money. Legally any group which receives gov money must remain politically neutral to prevent what we see in the media (Trump announced he would cut fed funding for media groups while he was campaigning and of course these groups immediately took every opportunity to bash him)

The right to bare memes SHALL

Him losing that case in the Supreme Court is the best result we could ever hope for. I honestly hope his lawyers throw the case on purpose

dangit bobbeh youre right

>private platform.

>open to entire public
>President couldn't block people

Try again. If they allowed everyone they wouldn't have a problem.

There's always a problem when monopolies gatekeep. Esp. in this due to our first amendment.

If a company owns the entire public square they are fucked trying to control the politics of that public square.

Roseanne tweeted a case supporting this earlier.

The best policy for public content providers is no policy other than stopping actual illegal content. Steam is ahead of the game here as usual.

Free speech SHALL NOT be abrogated in the United States.

>I honestly hope his lawyers throw the case on purpose
its already settled user...

Not in the Supreme Court, which is the only one that matters in these kinds of cases. They're currently appealing the district court ruling I think

Everyone that was involved or ever retweeted that shitty XKCD comic are the ignorant enemies of a free republic.

Imagine: The phone company starts disallowing certain people because they don't like their politics or phone manners. This is what Twitter is allowed to do while also not being regulated as the public service that it is.

> the judge simply said something like "Because Twitter has portrayed itself as being a free speech space, this lawsuit can go forward for now."

So, it really is contingent on that Trump blocking thing and the left played itself again? Glorious.

>that shitty XKCD comic
The one where he says “you are free to be an asshole but not free from criticism for being an asshole?”

>Not in the Supreme Court, which is the only one that matters in these kinds of cases.
if I recall that was the supreme court user. I didnt read the opinion so I might be off though. I do know some of the legal points I would use from skimming it since it was part of our civil litigation for personal injury from a non physical entity.

>The one where he says “you are free to be an asshole but not free from criticism for being an asshole?”

The one with the big picture of "companies showing you the door" at the end yes.

Meaning they pick and choose who they like based on their politics and it's ok because it's somehow "private" yet they own all the available forum space in the world over a singular digital "frequency" for lack of better analogy.

Typical lefty "rules for thee and not for me" bullshit. I will enjoy watching them burn over it as I've been saying this for years.

XKCD readers should just he given the Katyn treatment.

What will really start the fireworks is the implications this will have for Reddit.

the great part is is that they ruled it as a public forum because they wanted to make it so Trump couldn't block people

Grown up Jared Taylor uses limited resources and funding to utilize judicial activism for a huge win in the front for spreading the message, while spergs react to Twitter censorship by screaming about the holocaust in front of Twitter HQ. Reminder these same spergs attack Jared for not being a sperg himself. Really makes me think.

>Right wingers hate the government and think it doesn't work
>Right wingers believe that corporations should have freedom and less regulation
>Corporation does what it feels is in there best interest
>Right wingers run to the government

Attached: 1418372506251.png (500x478, 114K)

>the great part is is that they ruled it as a public forum because they wanted to make it so Trump couldn't block people
exactly, rev up them red pills and start dumping and start getting banned to sue.

Be sure not to use ANY that promote violence. Use ones like this that show truth, that can be argued in court if they take it that far since the burden isnt on a defendant to prove its true but twitter who would have to say why the truth is against their TOS.

Attached: 1528560106418.jpg (602x430, 134K)

That is what happens when liberals think so small. Didn't they see what the overall consequence (to them) would be?

>nytimes.com/2018/05/23/business/media/trump-twitter-block.html
>If the principle undergirding Wednesday’s ruling in Federal District Court stands, it is likely to have implications far beyond Mr. Trump’s feed and its 52 million followers, said Jameel Jaffer, the Knight First Amendment Institute’s executive director and the counsel for the plaintiffs. Public officials throughout the country, from local politicians to governors and members of Congress, regularly use social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook to interact with the public about government business.
It was a district court and they ruled that HIS FEED is a public forum which could then be applied to all public officials which then leads to everyone's feed being a public forum.

kys

well that's a little good news, but the judge isn't raking them over the coals about it either.

>California Superior Court Judge Harold Kahn in San Francisco rejected Jared Taylor’s claims that Twitter violated his free speech rights and discriminated against him when it permanently suspended his accounts in December.

>But he said Taylor properly supported his allegations that Twitter’s policy of suspending accounts, in the judge’s words, “at any time, for any reason or for no reason” may be unconscionable and that the company calling itself a platform devoted to free speech may be misleading and therefore fraudulent.

Attached: 1441247198719.jpg (960x540, 75K)

Well what are the right wingers supposed to do? Shoot people?

Oh wait, the left wingers want to take away the guns.

>Gov subsidized website
>Gov official (Trump) whose feed is now considered a public forum
>Gov court rules that gov officials can't block users
>Right wing users getting banned from said public forums
Turnabout is fair play

I got banned for saying GTKRWN. Seriously nuts.

Literally who was a bitch though

Attached: trusted moot.jpg (359x398, 35K)

>When your website becomes so big, you lose your right to manage it as any other private business can
Will Twitter be nationalised?

ah I see sorry I get cases confused I read about since im not involved.

It was another case the SC ruled on making them a public forum, but if they rule again they would use the same basis as that case.

This is bad you guys dont understand. This was about business rights. You commie fucks dont even know youre commies. Why dont you just abolish private property while youre at it. You guys dont understand. This might seem irrelivant. You might think one way to piss liberals off. I understand that. But we should have sided with twitter. Now every christian bakery is gonna have to serve faggots. Nonono this is bad. Stop laughing idiots and realize what youve done. One step closer to a totalitarian commie faggot dictatorship.

Attached: 3B60D9B6-4053-4D7A-851D-5C0450B3C105.gif (498x373, 3.16M)

precedent is a is a two sided sword

Attached: Karma.jpg (550x391, 46K)

you sound like a schizophrenic kike

Youre the schizophrenic kike.

kvetching intensifies
bu-but if we cant ban free speech then how will we keep our holohoax going...

See The christian bakery case got overturned I believe. It's not an issue of private property, it's an issue of government funds going to organizations which work against one political party or another

Nah. It’s different. Twitter is the modern equivalent of the town square.

the bakery never said it was a place of equal service and protection
twitter advertises that it is

>It's not an issue of private property, it's an issue of government funds going to organizations which work against one political party or another
no user, its due american laws apply to entities in the digital environment that private companies can use to silence individuals for their opinions.

Same as applying civil law to the same spectrum so expect this outcome to remain consistent at the level of higher courts where Free Speech or US law over rides companies private rights, same thing with NDA's for example those can be shredded.

You are right of course, but the precedent was not allowing Trump to block people. Now this comes back to bite them on the ass big time.

k this is big

This is why i never got involved in this shit. I see what the fuck theyre trying to do. Trying to trick you guys into defeating yourselves. Youre idiots. I hope the lolz were worth it. Some things are better left igored.

Also is this going to apply to gay cakes?

Attached: bb9583bca92973e576390e8f498a2866d54c7c0fe1806bf7e851b4513a5ef93d.jpg (533x383, 49K)

Attached: boingboing.jpg (400x300, 38K)

>This is a terrible precedent. It means the government controls who you allow on your private platform.
its not a private forum if public access is allowed which is what is being used when viewing what other related entities exist within the same scope.

just ask them if bakers have the right to not make cakes and watch their heads explode

>Trying to trick you guys into defeating yourselves. Youre idiots. I hope the lolz were worth it.

oh look, shill variations on a theme.

oh noes, the left can't censor whoever it wants soon...what will we do now?

Attached: 1520219156880.jpg (1024x692, 74K)

it's not a private platform, it's a network that was guaranteed to materialize and these guys are just squatting on it

Not to mention it's less control being discussed, not more. Terrible shill attempt by the prior poster.

Now if they want to register leftism as a religion they might have something. I've been saying it's a religion in everything but name for years. Twitter could run itself as a religious charity etc. then and we'd all have quite the laugh.

some people here actually understand wtf is going on.

what the fuck? I love the idea of neo liberal mega corps banning people from the internet now

>precedent
you're next, jewtube. bet pewds is goldfacing so hard right now

Attached: 1522913643586.jpg (509x389, 23K)

yeah I've gone through like 6 accounts already and if they ban my new one I'll have to pay for google voice numbers or something.

I disagree with forcing companies to serve everyone equally. As a business owner I should be able to do business with who I want, when I want. Freedom of association is important and should be protected as well. I'd agree with your argument if an ISP (or someone with a monopoly) was banning people but individual media companies should be able to associate with whoever they want

>it's not a private platform, it's a network that was guaranteed to materialize and these guys are just squatting on it
This is correct, all content on twitter is user generated which in turn is hosted by Twitter. This speaks to the nature of the platform being a public platform since without the public the platform would not exist or need to exist. Weights like this are often used as general standards.

There was another SC case last year I think that ruled on FB being a public platform I think, definitely FB maybe others were mentioned but I do recall FB specifically.

A company that exists with content created by the public not the company exists as a public platform or forum, this same type of standard is applied in the US in many public venues that are privately owned.

but don't these media companies not matter what service they provide are all on the same platform "The Internet"?

>neo liberal mega corps banning people from the internet now

IDK it sounds kinda sexy when you put it that way if I could ancap-ily cyber up and take the fight to them directly.

I'll take that Remington logo on my abdomen if it means I get to pulp leftists.

Attached: cyberpunk-2077-9.jpg (1690x791, 322K)

Thats a nice picture of cucks and liberals you got there.

>individual media companies

>owns the singular world public square at the moment

>Public interest is too high!
>user uses weasel wording!
>It's not very effective.

Is not the same they sell social interaction, is not only a product

>A company that exists with content created by the public not the company exists as a public platform or forum
The problem as I see it is that you cannot have both freedom of association while also considering a company's website a public forum. Arguing who 'owns' the content on the website is a different matter which I'd rather not get into
The platform shouldn't matter as long as everyone has access to it. As long as everyone can access the internet it's much the same as everyone being able to walk down the street. Doesn't mean I'd want to allow everyone on the street into my private property.

>owns the singular world public square at the moment
I'd argue this is a result of government interference which shouldn't have been allowed. Reinstate freedom of association and this fixes itself

twitter repeatedly locked out my accounts without cause, but I didn't sue I left their shitty service, let them fucking die off to be disrupted easily

>let them fucking die off
how can you be so naive?

>twitter repeatedly locked out my accounts without cause, but I didn't sue I left their shitty service, let them fucking die off to be disrupted easily
With Trump's feed now considered a public space you could sue them to reinstate your account by saying they violated your first amendment rights

>how can you be so naive?
they're 15