PhDeac
PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 155,506
- Reaction score
- 22,541
No two are identical
I laughed.
No two are identical
You misunderstand me. I'm saying that if a court were to interpret Twitter's terms of service--as a court would be called upon to do if the Daily Citizen sued--it would conclude that the Daily Citizen did not violate them.
Courts have no position in general rules of a private company that don't state or federal law. Thus, this would never get to court. Your position has no merit.
Depending on the state law at issue, there are several theories the Daily Citizen could sue under, including but not limited to:
(1) defamation (on the theory that Twitter's act of excluding them constitutes an implied publication of the communication that they are harassers),
(2) breach of contract (TOS),
(3) unfair trade practices,
(4) violation of section 1983 (on the theory that Twitter is a state actor for reasons I've discussed and they violated the (a) First Amendment (speech and religion), (b) the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable seizure of the Twitter account), (c) the Equal Protection Clause (religious classification or class of one), and (d) the Due Process Clause (depending on the procedures Twitter gave them before suspending the account)), and
(5) violation of section 2000a (on the theory that Twitter is a place of public accommodation and they discriminated against the Daily Citizen on the basis of religion).
Some of those are stronger than others, but those are the first few that come to mind. There are probably more.
the people getting banned on Twitter aren't getting banned for saying they love Trump. they're getting banned for saying assholish, potentially evil shit. don't do that and we don't have a problem. you can disagree with Biden or whatever, just, you know, don't do it in a way where you're talking about Sidney Powell leading military tribunals where Biden will be executed.
Depending on the state law at issue, there are several theories the Daily Citizen could sue under, including but not limited to:
(1) defamation (on the theory that Twitter's act of excluding them constitutes an implied publication of the communication that they are harassers),
(2) breach of contract (TOS),
(3) unfair trade practices,
(4) violation of section 1983 (on the theory that Twitter is a state actor for reasons I've discussed and they violated the (a) First Amendment (speech and religion), (b) the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable seizure of the Twitter account), (c) the Equal Protection Clause (religious classification or class of one), and (d) the Due Process Clause (depending on the procedures Twitter gave them before suspending the account)), and
(5) violation of section 2000a (on the theory that Twitter is a place of public accommodation and they discriminated against the Daily Citizen on the basis of religion).
Some of those are stronger than others, but those are the first few that come to mind. There are probably more.
This is embarrassing for you. You should stop now.
And I thought the WAR! on Christmas was devastating.
the people getting banned on Twitter aren't getting banned for saying they love Trump. they're getting banned for saying assholish, potentially evil shit. don't do that and we don't have a problem. you can disagree with Biden or whatever, just, you know, don't do it in a way where you're talking about Sidney Powell leading military tribunals where Biden will be executed.