Twitter banning people for criticizing " so called journalists"

Nov 2005
9,360
3,870
California
DTT is not a state actor. State actors taking on a role that usually belongs to the governent being held to the same standard as the government is nothing new.
Twitter and Facebook are not "state actors" either... :rolleyes:
Using your own words, how do Twitter and/or Facebook "take on a role that usually belongs to the government"???
The simple answer is they don't.

State actor - Wikipedia
In United States law, a state actor is a person who is acting on behalf of a governmental body, and is therefore subject to regulation under the United States Bill of Rights, including the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which prohibit the federal and state governments from violating certain rights and freedoms.​

The court case you referenced involved public access televisions systems, which is easily recognizable as a "state actor".

Public-access television - Wikipedia
Public-access television was created in the United States between 1969 and 1971 by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), under Chairman Dean Burch, based on pioneering work and advocacy of George Stoney, Red Burns (Alternate Media Center),[1] and Sidney Dean (City Club of NY).​

Your judicial activism is amusing, but will not be implemented.


This guy has filled an anti trust suit against PayPal and patron
At some stage you need to be able to tell the difference between monopoly issues and free speech issues.
If PayPal is a monopoly, subsequent action upon it will have nothing to do with whether or not it is a monopoly.
You have repeatedly whined that numerous organizations have rejected your favored bigot groups. Are they all monopolies?
:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: imaginethat
Jun 2012
41,958
15,181
Barsoom
I guess the Supreme Court needs to be alerted regarding Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck as it will detemine if Facebook and Twitter are state actors since they have taken over the pubic square.
 
Dec 2013
33,811
19,362
Beware of watermelons
Twitter and Facebook are not "state actors" either... :rolleyes:
Using your own words, how do Twitter and/or Facebook "take on a role that usually belongs to the government"???
The simple answer is they don't.

State actor - Wikipedia
In United States law, a state actor is a person who is acting on behalf of a governmental body, and is therefore subject to regulation under the United States Bill of Rights, including the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which prohibit the federal and state governments from violating certain rights and freedoms.​

The court case you referenced involved public access televisions systems, which is easily recognizable as a "state actor".

Public-access television - Wikipedia
Public-access television was created in the United States between 1969 and 1971 by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), under Chairman Dean Burch, based on pioneering work and advocacy of George Stoney, Red Burns (Alternate Media Center),[1] and Sidney Dean (City Club of NY).​

Your judicial activism is amusing, but will not be implemented.



At some stage you need to be able to tell the difference between monopoly issues and free speech issues.
If PayPal is a monopoly, subsequent action upon it will have nothing to do with whether or not it is a monopoly.
You have repeatedly whined that numerous organizations have rejected your favored bigot groups. Are they all monopolies?
:rolleyes:

It is you that consistently conflates those things. It is most likely why you are so hopelessly confused on the issue.

...and of course because you dissagree w/ some people politically they must be bigots. You leftists. Always hiding behind name calling and slander. One would have thought last weekend and the repercussions from it would have curbed that. Apparently not.
 
Nov 2005
9,360
3,870
California
I guess the Supreme Court needs to be alerted regarding Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck as it will detemine if Facebook and Twitter are state actors since they have taken over the pubic square.
I covered that fully in post #11.
The ruling you cite is easily recognized as valid for a public access television group. They were created under the FCC, ergo they should not allow first amendment violations.

Maybe if you repeat yourself a few more times people will believe you... :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: imaginethat
Nov 2005
9,360
3,870
California
It is you that consistently conflates those things. It is most likely why you are so hopelessly confused on the issue.
No.
YOU conflated those two things.
On this thread about private company censorship, you suddenly start whining about monpolies as well.
You did that.


...and of course because you dissagree w/ some people politically they must be bigots.
I did not say that. Nor have I said anything that justifies that claim.
But of course, you see yourself as a victim of name-calling because you have no logic to utilize. It's all about victim-claiming with you...

Most people who disagree with me are not bigots.
On the flip side, you whine an awful lot about bigots who get kicked off of youtube and other groups. There are other non-bigot groups as well, but you sure love to whine about the bigots getting touched...
 
  • Like
Reactions: imaginethat
Dec 2013
33,811
19,362
Beware of watermelons
No.
YOU conflated those two things.
On this thread about private company censorship, you suddenly start whining about monpolies as well.
You did that.



I did not say that. Nor have I said anything that justifies that claim.
But of course, you see yourself as a victim of name-calling because you have no logic to utilize. It's all about victim-claiming with you...

Most people who disagree with me are not bigots.
On the flip side, you whine an awful lot about bigots who get kicked off of youtube and other groups. There are other non-bigot groups as well, but you sure love to whine about the bigots getting touched...
I love our little talks. You are always so dishonest.

Here is what you said

"You have repeatedly whined that numerous organizations have rejected your favored bigot groups"


Name my "favored bigot groups"

I'll wait.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jimmyb
Sep 2018
6,740
1,148
cleveland ohio
twitter can ban anyone it wants its private and makes it rules.. you violate them tough beans.. criticism is fine and good and everyone is entitled.. but threats and abuse/ thats not part of free speech and never was google fighting words doctrine ? you cant say offensive things with impunity there were always limits
 
Jun 2012
41,958
15,181
Barsoom
I guess the Supreme Court needs to be alerted regarding Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck as it will detemine if Facebook and Twitter are state actors since they have taken over the pubic square.

The case will have a direct affect on Facebook, Twitter, etc.
 
Sep 2018
6,740
1,148
cleveland ohio
good, if you own a private company you can censor anyone you want for any reason.. dont like it? dont use twitter then