Posted on 04/27/2022 5:19:34 AM PDT by Kaslin
“Twitter is a PUBLIC company until Musk takes it PRIVATE.”
Besides that, private businesses do have a line they cannot cross with “private business rights”. They do not have complete Carte blanche immunity.
If you pull into a tire shop to have one tire fixed, they cannot stab the other three to force you to buy four new tires. And this is the new concept we are now entering with claimed “private business rights”.
Despite what the radical business rights extremists claim, there is indeed a limit to these rights.
Don’t be fooled by this guy:
Musk said, “I also want to make Twitter better than ever by … authenticating all humans.”
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-wants-authenticate-every-200308848.html
What law? Twitter is clearly an "information service provider" and Section 230 explicitly says they can moderate their content.
“So you think Jim needs to report to the FEC if he zots a pro-Biden poster during the election cycle?”
FR is a privately owned forum. Twitter was not at the time. There’s also the little matter of scale. FR has maybe 100,000 users. Twitter has hundred of millions.
L
What law?
Try Section 230 is part of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. Go ahead, actually read it instead of ignorantly spouting off about it.
Once a provider censors in any way by deciding the content allowed, they become a publisher, not a provider. Go ahead, read the law instead of mouthing off about it.
Except, they don't.
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
Section 230 also says:
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—(A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1)."
So show me the text of 230 that supports your position.
So if Jim were to do an IPO he could no longer zot people?
Surely you realize that Twitter is a private entity. Other private entities, like you and me, may buy stock in it but that doesn't make it owned by all of us taxpayers, which is what a public company would would be.
There's a difference between 'public' and 'publicly traded'.
“So if Jim were to do an IPO he could no longer zot people?”
Sure he could. What he couldn’t do is conspire with a political party to squelch their constitutionally protected political activity without reporting it to the FEC.
Do try to keep up.
L
Someone now has a Constitutional right to post on Twitter?
Do tell.
“Someone now has a Constitutional right to post on Twitter.”
Wow. You are dense. Of course they don’t. That’s not the issue.
L
You said:
"...conspire with a political party to squelch their constitutionally protected political activity without reporting it to the FEC."
The activity we're talking about is posting to Twitter.
What other constitutionally protected activity were you referring to?
“The activity we’re talking about is posting to Twitter.”
No, it isn’t. The activity wasn’t done by the posters. It was done by Twitter to influence an election you bloody simpleton.
L
You're not making any sense.
You're saying the constitutionally protected activity that can't be squelched is Twitter's censorship?
I thought you meant the political speech that was censored by Twitter.
So Twitter's censorship is constitutionally protected? (Actually, you stumbled into the right answer)
“You’re not making any sense.”
You’re just not smart enough to see the difference.
“So Twitter’s censorship is constitutionally protected?”
Not when it’s done to further one political party over another during an election. Then it becomes an “in kind” political contribution that must by law be reported to the FEC.
Here’s the law, Scooter. Go read it for yourself.
https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/filing-reports/in-kind-contributions/
Take your time. Feel free to move your lips if you need to.
Then go hump someone else’s leg.
L
So we've come full circle.
Your interpretation is a forum can't favor one party's speech over another's.
Your FEC link has no exemption for entities with fewer than 100K users so why doesn't it apply to FR?
And if you're going to say public vs. private do you mean all Twitter has to do is get bought by Bezos and the FEC has to leave them alone?
Didn’t I tell you to go hump someone else’s leg?
Why yes, I did.
L
You told me lots of things that didn't make any sense. I just put that one in the same category.
No. Really? You could do all that? I actually laughed out loud reading this. Yeah, Melber, you could. What was the name of that Republican guy, Donald something or other?
I’m not sure he meant what you think by that.
There’s a difference between collecting identifying information about a person, and determining that a person isn’t a ‘bot’. And as the article suggests, for most people it probably WILL boil down to something as simple as fulfilling a ‘captcha’.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.