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

[DiogenesLamp]

Interesting. So if the government prohibits censorship, and a corporation decides to censor free speech, what do you envision the government doing about it?

Fining and/or imprisoning them for civil rights violations.

Also, forcing them to uncensor speech that isn't illegal by known and long standing standards.

[Observator]

And why do people always want to try a "gotcha" by resorting to Free Republic?

I wouldn't call it a gotcha to celebrate bannings on one day, and bemoan them the next, depending on the website.

I get your point though - if a communication platform is "big", then it must support "free speech". If "small", no requirement.

I think your intentions are good, but the words in quotes above will be defined by the administration in power. Consider that before giving the Feds the right to tell private businesses how to moderate their content.

[DiogenesLamp]

I wouldn't call it a gotcha to celebrate bannings on one day, and bemoan them the next, depending on the website.

That was AndytheBear, that wasn't me.

I respect the right of free association and if a club doesn't want some people, it has the right to get rid of them.

The picture changes when you are part of the general public's communication infrastructure. You are no longer a "club", you are the public square. The "Digital Commons."

[Observator]

I get your argument, but the devil is in the details. How do you define when a website has become large enough to be considered part of the Digital Commons?

1M registered users? 10M posts??

This is also a reverse incentive for web companies to be successful- knowing that reaching that point you define means accepting government oversight of content moderation policies.

As you said- this approach is something we see in Communist China.

[DiogenesLamp]

How do you define when a website has become large enough to be considered part of the Digital Commons?

Let us first agree on the principle, and then we can reason out the details.

This is also a reverse incentive for web companies to be successful- knowing that reaching that point you define means accepting government oversight of content moderation policies.

Your argument allows for people to refuse to serve black people at lunch counters.

Protecting people's civil rights is not "government oversight." It's "We will punish you if you violate other people's civil rights."

[semimojo]

I make what I think a very reasonable distinction between websites that operate as a club of likeminded people and websites that operate as a conduit of general communication

But isn't it up to the owner of the forum to decide how it operates?

Twitter could easily say they operate as a club of likeminded people who think the Twitter TOS is a good way to manage things and want Twitter to moderate the forum.

After all, it's more of a "club" than FR in that the entry requirements are stricter. All I need here is an email address.

And have you read the Twitter TOS that everyone who joins agrees to? Why shouldn't they be able to define the terms for using their product?

I appreciate the sentiment but this club thing is totally arbitrary and completely unworkable. How do you define a "club" in a way that's at all enforceable?

[Observator]

Your argument allows for people to refuse to serve black people at lunch counters.

No - I'm not suggesting existing carveouts to protect civil rights should be removed.

Those carveouts don't apply to content moderation of political speech on websites.

[DiogenesLamp]

But isn't it up to the owner of the forum to decide how it operates?

Is this like asking how a trans identifies?

It seems clear to me that you can pretend you are one thing, but the reality is that you are what you are, and if you are handling millions of communications, you are a communications system, not a "club."

Twitter could easily say they operate as a club of likeminded people who think the Twitter TOS is a good way to manage things and want Twitter to moderate the forum.

And Mr. Levine can tell us he is a woman. So can Bruce Jenner.

After all, it's more of a "club" than FR in that the entry requirements are stricter. All I need here is an email address.

You are let in the door by your email address. If you start posting liberal crap, you will be shown the door.

I dare say Free Republic continuously evaluates its membership with an eye on keeping this a conservative forum, which is exactly what it is advertised to be.

And have you read the Twitter TOS that everyone who joins agrees to? Why shouldn't they be able to define the terms for using their product?

Contracts which violate the law are null and void. Twitter's TOS would appear to me to violate the law because they require people to give up a civil right.

I appreciate the sentiment but this club thing is totally arbitrary and completely unworkable. How do you define a "club" in a way that's at all enforceable?

Well having less than a billion users is clearly one way to do it.

[Observator]

ut the reality is that you are what you are, and if you are handling millions of communications, you are a communications system, not a "club."

FR handles millions of communications, btw.

Twitter's TOS would appear to me to violate the law because they require people to give up a civil right.

This is your personal opinion, which is just fine. However, I hope you understand that legal interpretation is not shared by corporations large or small, or the judiciary. You may be advocating for repealing Section 230 or other changes, but your personal take is not currently reality.

Anyway, we'll see it played out this year: https://www.courthousenews.com/trumps-first-amendment-lawsuit-against-twitter-on-thin-ice/ .

U.S. District Judge James Donato told a lawyer representing the former president that while technology and law might change and evolve, “one thing that’s been more or less a constant going back 20 years is that private companies like Twitter are not subject to the First Amendment.”

[Leep]

Not to mention their willingness to boldly share their lack of knowledge.

[Leep]

What I predict will happen is leftist,in droves, will claim to be right wingers..IOW neo Nazis and otherwise white supremacists and all around racist.

[kiryandil]

Not to mention their willingness to boldly share their lack of knowledge.

Some of the tweets make you want to call the local constabulary for a wellness check on the tweeter - to make sure they haven't forgot to breathe...

[semimojo]

Twitter's TOS would appear to me to violate the law because they require people to give up a civil right.

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

Well having less than a billion users is clearly one way to do it.

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.

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.

[DiogenesLamp]

FR handles millions of communications, btw.

Per year perhaps. Twitter handles millions per day.

This is your personal opinion, which is just fine. However, I hope you understand that legal interpretation is not shared by corporations large or small, or the judiciary.

If it were, we would not now be having this problem. Those people are wrong and we need to disabuse them of their wrong notions.

You may be advocating for repealing Section 230 or other changes, but your personal take is not currently reality.

I am well aware that the world, more especially the government and most especially the judiciary, has lost their d@mn minds and that it is causing damage to the country and the fabric of society.

U.S. District Judge James Donato

All we need to know is who appointed him.

And *THAT* is one of the major things wrong with the legal system nowadays. The decisions will be rendered entirely based on who appointed a given judge.

That's not how the rule of law is supposed to work.

[x]

So it wasn't that they let him back on and kicked him off again?

That was the impression the reports gave me.

It took a while to find out what actually happened.

[AndyTheBear]

I appreciate the sentiment but this club thing is totally arbitrary and completely unworkable. How do you define a "club" in a way that's at all enforceable?

There are likely to be borderline cases depending on exactly how one defines it that could go either way. But common sense I think will get us 99.9% of the cases clearly identified with little controversy.

1) Facebook: Open forum

2) FreeRepublic: Club

3) Democrat Underground: Club

4) Reddit: Open Forum containnig sub-reddits which are each clubs.

5) Twitter: Open forum

6) YouTube: Open forum

7) Church Website: Club or religiously minded people interested in the church.

8) Internal Twitter discussion board: Club for employees only (if there is such a thing).

9) Rumble: Open forum

10) Fox Nation: Club for selected individuals to broadcast content.

11) CNN+: Defunct Club for selected individuals to broadcast content.

I am not seeing very many hard or borderline ones. Do you know of any?

[DiogenesLamp]

Okay, he's in Northern California, (Pawn of the big tech companies.)

He went to Harvard. (Clearly a special class of stupid.)

And he was appointed by Barack Obama. (Which means he's got to be upside down and backwards.)

So clearly he will rule on behalf of Twitter.

This was easy.

[DiogenesLamp]

No - I'm not suggesting existing carveouts to protect civil rights should be removed.

Those carveouts don't apply to content moderation of political speech on websites.

So you are in favor of protecting civil rights on the one hand, but against it on the other hand?

I have the advantage of being consistent in principle in both cases.

Also, have you ever heard of the "incorporation doctrine"?

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

He should register as Pillow Biter. The wokesters will think he’s gay and get him 10,000 followers from the get.

[semimojo]

I am not seeing very many hard or borderline ones. Do you know of any?

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

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