Mike Lindell kicked off Twitter within two hours after rejoining.

Jack Posobiec on Twitter ^ | May 1, 2022 | Jack Posobiec

[Macho MAGA Man]

Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 @JackPosobiec

BREAKING: Twitter has suspended @MikeJLindell after just 2 hours!

Stand up to cancel culture ->

5:12 PM · May 1, 2022

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

I understand your point, but Twitter’s run by leftist ding-a-lings. They indefinitely suspended my last account for no stated reason shortly after 1/6/21, when I posted a number of articles talking about Big Tech engaging in censorship, kicking out Trump, etc.

So now that Musk bought it, I started a new account, while sending another appeal for them to reinstate my old one. So far, so good. The wokesters running the place quite frankly don’t deserve the respect you’re affording them. But if I get booted again, you’re free to say, “I told you so.”

[DiogenesLamp]

But it's OK for FR to make people give up that same right.

Clubs can regulate their membership. Communications companies must serve everyone equally. They are utilities.

This is arguably the nuttiest part of your proposal. You would have anyone who started a forum or social media service praying they weren't too popular or successful.

Yes, God forbid that they make more money by having more users. What kind of business is it anyways that wants to make money instead of regulating public speech?

You want Jim to keep from having too many likeminded people here because if too many of us congregate he'll lose control of his property.

There you go again... trying to compare Twitter and Free Republic.

Do a little math for me. Tell me what percentage of Twitter would Free Republic be?

[DiogenesLamp]

All Twitter has to do is say they're a club and what do we have to point to to say they're not?

Tell them they can't be a woman until they have their male attributes removed.

Not even then.

[Observator]

This was easy.

Lol, yes it was, since you resorted to a credentials fallacy rather than engaging the subject matter.

What the judge said is a simple fact - that companies like Twitter have not been required to police the 1st Amendment. If that statement is untrue, can you cite any cases at all to the contrary?

It's a separate argument that courts *should* interpret the law in the way you see it, and your opinion is perfectly valid there in the multiverse of opinions.

[AndyTheBear]

The problem is it can't just be a matter of your or my opinion.

Golly, you mean that I am not going to be in charge of trying every case? What a blow to my big plans to leave my current job and be ruler of the world.

Of course it is not going to be based on a personal opinion that is subjective to me, or to any particular individual. Requiring subjective opinions where people will split on when it applies are not is where the problems start.

However I assert this is obviously not one of those cases.

Twitter sure could say: Hey we are a club. And if they then changed to operate as a club in actual fact there would be a big hole that they abandoned in the micro-blog market and other companies would fight over the prize until one of them became a de facto public forum.

But the fact that Twitter a de facto public forum as it is now is just as objective an opinion as saying that Michael Jordon played basketball better than I ever could. I mean I could certainly *say* that I was a better at basketball than Jordan and claim that nobody could say otherwise and who is to judge and it is a matter of opinion and so forth. But in the real world I would be lying because by any objective standard he is way better. And if I had some agent that got me a contract with a pro basketball team with a guarantee in the contract that I was indeed a better player than Jordan ever was, obviously one would not need a crystal ball to figure out whether that clause was legally met.

We can add words to the text of laws to try to clarify common sense and deal with corner cases. But we always need common sense judgements in the end to apply the law. There is no escaping it.

[semimojo]

Do a little math for me. Tell me what percentage of Twitter would Free Republic be?

There's a concept that used to be popular in conservative circles called principle.

You say if FR gets to have over 1M conservative users Jim should lose the right to zot people.

The size relative to Twitter isn't relevant. Why should he lose that right if he gets to 1B users?

[DiogenesLamp]

Lol, yes it was, since you resorted to a credentials fallacy rather than engaging the subject matter.

If it renders an accurate result the vast majority of the time, how much of a fallacy can it be?

Seriously, it is uncanny how accurate you can predict the decisions of judges based on who appointed them. I've been doing this since the 1980s and it is extremely accurate.

What the judge said is a simple fact - that companies like Twitter have not been required to police the 1st Amendment. If that statement is untrue, can you cite any cases at all to the contrary?

You refer to fallacies, and then you cite a "argumentum ad antiquitatem" fallacy?

First Principles. "Precedent" is not proof of accuracy. Whoever made the precedent may have gotten it wrong, as in the case of Plessy v Ferguson.

It's a separate argument that courts *should* interpret the law in the way you see it, and your opinion is perfectly valid there in the multiverse of opinions.

Yes, and most of them are wrong. Factually wrong. Objectively wrong. Reasonable man standard wrong. Silly made up bullsh*t level of wrong.

The observation of the purveyors of law would be a comedy if it weren't a tragedy.

[DiogenesLamp]

There's a concept that used to be popular in conservative circles called principle.

Oh, I fully believe in principles, and primary among them is to do whatever I think is best to protect my family, myself and my friends.

I think that should be everyone's primary principle, but you may think protecting evil nasty people who hate us and want to hurt us should be a more important principle.

There used to be a principle that you should always follow the law, and then people said slavery was such an egregious evil that we should drop the principle of following the law in an effort to eliminate slavery. They saw freedom for other men as a higher principle than the need to adhere to the law.

I say that if "the law" violates natural law, it is our duty to denounce it and oppose it until it is vanquished.

So yeah, principles are important, but getting them into the correct priority works best.

[Observator]

You are combining two discussions. I'm not arguing about whether judges *should* interpret 1st Amendment law the way that you're suggesting. I'm simply stating the obvious fact that they haven't, no matter who appointed them.

Separately, I've never heard someone argue that considering precedent is a fallacy in legal reasoning.

[StAnDeliver]

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act "generally provides immunity for website platforms with respect to third-party content", one of those rare moments where wiki gets a one-line summary correct.

There is specifically, precisely, not a single word in Sec. 230 of the CDA as pertains to the 'size' of the website, its userbase, or its "Millions of communications" LOFL.

FR receives "Millions of communications" every month: scrapes, ddos attempts, pings, bounce-backs, and actual user activity -- if you could call this thread "actual user activity" -- if you don't believe me, ask John right here, if you think just maybe one of you could compose the question intelligently enough.

You know, on second thought, don't bother John.

[semimojo]

Oh, I fully believe in principles, and primary among them is to do whatever I think is best to protect my family, myself and my friends.

Which too often translates into taking away others' property rights.

[DiogenesLamp]

I'm not arguing about whether judges *should* interpret 1st Amendment law the way that you're suggesting. I'm simply stating the obvious fact that they haven't, no matter who appointed them.

You don't have to argue that. It is self evident.

Separately, I've never heard someone argue that considering precedent is a fallacy in legal reasoning.

All my life i've studied the history of science. What I saw over and over again is how wrong theories were supported by all the prominent men of the time, and then later overturned by "heretics" who turned out to be right.

Max Planck quipped "Science advances one funeral at a time"

In an effort to combat this subjectively derived "science", there came to be this idea of presenting theories by arguing "first principles." You must show how your theory stands based on fundamental ideas, and not arguing it is correct simply because so and so (famous scientist) thinks so.

.

It was much later in my life that I took an interest in law, and I realized immediately much of their process is silly kabuki dance ritual and their reasoning methods are full of fallacies.

Arguing "precedent" is leaving the hard work of figuring out the right answer to some other fellow years or centuries earlier, but no effort is made to demonstrate that the initial reasoning is correct.

The other thing the legal system does by arguing "precedent" is an appeal to the fallacy of "tu quoque." Which is another way of saying "one bad deed justifies another bad deed."

"Equality."

That's what they are trying to argue with an appeal to "precedent."

Some person long ago was treated this way, so we should treat subsequent people the same way.

If you want to get into a discussion about various things I see wrong with how the legal system operates, I would find it quite entertaining.

We can start with how the Judge is a proxy for the King.

[DiogenesLamp]

FR receives "Millions of communications" every month: scrapes, ddos attempts, pings, bounce-backs, and actual user activity

Can you parse that down to just "user activity" meaning someone trying to communicate something to other people?

Also, if you are of a mind to do so, can you put up the same stats for Twitter, so we can compare apples to apples?

[DiogenesLamp]

Which too often translates into taking away others' property rights.

If they are trying to hurt me with it, so far as i'm concerned, they forfeit any right to have it.

You also keep ignoring the role of the "public" in their "property."

They are welcome to their property, but if they don't respect the rights of the public, they should be barred from access to the public.

[semimojo]

If they are trying to hurt me with it, so far as i'm concerned, they forfeit any right to have it.

I prefer the rule of law to the rule of your fears and opinions.

[DiogenesLamp]

I prefer the rule of law to the rule of your fears and opinions.

Did you see my comment above about slavery? The "rule of law" is only right when it is just. When it is wrong, it must be opposed.

Allowing massive communications companies to censor political speech with which they disagree is simply wrong.

[StAnDeliver]

"Can you parse that down to just "user activity" meaning someone trying to communicate something to other people?"

Do you actually understand what you mean?

Do you understand that 'communications' have been consistently interpreted in the law as everything from AI, to automated replies, to SMNP traffic, to IM traffic, to SMS traffic, to user activity 'communication', all of which consitute the average infrastructure of the average website that directly benefits from Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, including both Twitter.com and FreeRepublic.com.

You cannot see, nor should you see, 98% of the 'communication' of a Section 230 website.

There is a necessary and useful debate over the needed changes to Section 230.

This thread isn't it.

[semimojo]

Did you see my comment above about slavery? The "rule of law" is only right when it is just.

How convenient.

You find a ruling that in hindsight we can all agree was flawed, and was remedied over 150 years ago, and use that as justification to substitute your judgment for any law that you don't feel is just.

[DiogenesLamp]

Do you actually understand what you mean?

Yes I do.

Do you understand that 'communications' have been consistently interpreted in the law as everything from AI, to automated replies, to SMNP traffic, to IM traffic, to SMS traffic, to user activity 'communication',...

While that may be true, it is not how the term is understood by the public. In venacular, "communications" is one person talking to another or many others.

Now i've ruffled your feathers because the numbers i've asked for don't look so large compared to the numbers you've offered, but the numbers i've asked for represent what the public understands regarding "users" communicating.

This thread isn't it.

Utility is in the eye of the beholder. I believe my position rests on strong and fundamental natural law grounds.

I believe others need to be persuaded to it for reasons I have gone over with others on the numerous occasions when this topic was discussed in the past.

This thing is a serious threat and if we don't stop it and reverse it, we are further down the road to fascism.

[DiogenesLamp]

How convenient.

It's not about convenience, it is about what is not only moral and right, but what serves the best interests of the nation.

You find a ruling that in hindsight we can all agree was flawed, and was remedied over 150 years ago, and use that as justification to substitute your judgment for any law that you don't feel is just.

The principle has always applied and it has applied on more issues than just slavery. Abortion is another example.

When the law is wrong and immoral, it should be opposed. Always.