Twitter Sues Texas AG Paxton, Claiming He "Retaliated" Over Trump Ban (axios.com) 383
Twitter on Monday filed a lawsuit against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R), saying that his office launched an investigation into the social media giant because it banned former President Trump from its platform. From a report: Twitter is seeking to halt an investigation launched by Paxton into moderation practices by Big Tech firms including Twitter for what he called "the seemingly coordinated de-platforming of the President," days after they banned him following the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection. In the suit, filed in a Northern California court, Twitter said "Paxton made clear that he will use the full weight of his office, including his expansive investigatory powers, to retaliate against Twitter for having made editorial decisions with which he disagrees." Twitter said it has rights under the First Amendment "to make decisions about what content to disseminate through its platform," including "the discretion to remove or otherwise restrict access to Tweets, profiles, or other content posted to Twitter." The company added in an emailed statement that in this case, "the Texas Attorney General is misusing the powers of his office to infringe on Twitter's First Amendment rights and attempt to silence free speech."
They will have to get in line (Score:5, Insightful)
Paxton has a longer list of people suing him and criminal indictments than anyone on Earth.
Twitter is going to have wait their turn.
Re: They will have to get in line (Score:2)
Nah, the government is a multi-core processor. ;)
Re: They will have to get in line (Score:4, Funny)
Was this the AG's job? To sue on behalf of the president? How does this benefit the state of Texas? Would the Texas AG have intervened to protect Obama if he had a similar dispute? Are you sure this isn't just the AG trying to rack up brownie points for future elections?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You asked for big government, you got big government.
Re:A real first amendment issue (Score:5, Interesting)
You asked for big government, you got big government.
Texas isn't big government. Texas famously isn't big government, with literally no building codes outside of cities. Texas is bad government, and it needs to be cleaned up, starting with jailing the Texas AG for his many crimes, but not stopping there. Texas government is corrupt government, regardless of how big it is, and that is its own problem. Big or small, corrupt government ruins society.
Re: (Score:2)
Those are legally protected classes, which makes it a legal issue, not a constitutional issue. Antidiscrimination laws do not violate protected speech, therefore are enforceable.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Thank you for confirming that their rules do not stand alone and that they are not the final arbiter.
Know what is another legal issue?
Fraud.
If it can be shown that they (or any other platform) do not apply their rules in an evenhanded way, possibly even in a discriminatory way (though even if not against a protected class), liability for fraud suddenly becomes a real possibility, both criminally and civilly.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You may want to return your law degree from Trump U. There is no "fraud" involved in being evenhanded or not, there is no requirement for them to be evenhanded. The only requirement is that they do not violate protected status laws, or any other constitutionally sound laws. I mean if I sell you something for $5 and turn around and sell it to someone else for $1, that is uneven, but unless I did so because you were a member of a protected status, and the $5 was a reasonable price, there is no fraud.
Yeah it is a constitutional issue (Score:3)
Those are legally protected classes, which makes it a legal issue, not a constitutional issue.
This is literally textbook question begging right here.
The constitution comes before law, including anti-discrimination law. It is therefore unconstitutional to limit the precedents on forced speech to not include the right to discriminate against speech from protected class members.
Re:A real first amendment issue (Score:5, Informative)
They get to write their own rules... right?
They get to write their own rules, and can enforce them as long as those rules do not violate any laws.
Acting against a protected class violates laws and the Constitutional amendments that enabled those laws.
Right-wing asshole is not a protected class. Even if a particular right-wing asshole happens to be a gay transgender black woman who's over 65. As long as you're acting against her because she's a right-wing asshole and not her laundry list of protected classes, it's legal.
Re: (Score:3)
That's kind of the point of the investigation into Twitter
The only protected class Trump is a member of is over-50. No one is claiming age discrimination, including the people launching the investigation.
So no, that is not the point of the investigation.
Also, the 15th amendment was not the result of "an investigation", and it's really fucking insulting to claim so.
Re:Twitter's First Amendment Rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is that interesting? When did Twitter become the government? and When the AG for Texas become a non public entity? That is how "free speech" works, from government action. You have no rights on private property, which is what Twitter's forums are. If corporations are people or not has no bearing on the case.
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty much the entire point of Citizen's United.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on what you mean about "powerless". I have no right to enter that property and say/do whatever I want. I do have the ability to contact the police and then let the police handle it, which is a form of power. And I am not even sure what this has to do with the topic.
Re:Twitter's First Amendment Rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
In the U.S., Twitter can allow on or kick off anyone it pleases. It's a private platform. No existing U.S. law defines private social media as an official free speech zone.
Therefore any attempt to litigate against them on a "free speech" basis is just plain silly.
POTUS has the largest microphone in the free world. He can walk into a room at will and have 30 members of the press to voice his thought. No U.S. citizen alive has greater sources of true freedom of speech than POTUS. But Twitter/Facebook/etc are just social media sites.
People keep misunderstanding what Free Speech is.
Free Speech means that you are free to say what you want, such as speak out against a politician, within certain legal limitations such as incitement. It does NOT mean that anyone is obligated to listen to you or are required to use their tools/services serve as your bullhorn to spread your words.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Provided those members of the press opt to relay what is said, unfiltered, which they may not.
Once again, the voice of the POTUS is limited by private parties who can choose to relay the message or not
False. I can think of quite a few currently alive citizens who have the ability to say... buy
Re:Twitter's First Amendment Rights? (Score:5, Informative)
Provided those members of the press opt to relay what is said, unfiltered, which they may not.
Which is, once again, their free speech in action. Of course, plenty of outlets publish white house press releases straight. Also, generally speaking, if the President says they need to address the nation, all the major networks will let them speak live. The only "editing" that happens there is that, sometimes, networks will now cut them off if they ramble too long about unrelated topics.
Also, let's not forget that there is a system set up where, in an emergency, the President can just take over the broadcast.
Re: Twitter's First Amendment Rights? (Score:2)
Re: Twitter's First Amendment Rights? (Score:3)
The closest we have is C-SPAN and that is exactly what they do, broadcast unedited Congressional sessions. They exist as a compliance requirement on the licenses issued to the cable industry.
We also have Stars and Stripes (military reporting) and Radio Free Europe (broadcast American Government propaganda to the Soviet Block) but technically thatâ(TM)s a private org funded by the government. We like establishing and funding private companies instead of direct federal government activity. See Sallie Mae
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Does the US even have a goverment run tv channel?
PBS, perhaps arguably CSPAN too.
Re: Twitter's First Amendment Rights? (Score:4, Informative)
PBS is not government run. At all. It does get a small percentage of budget from the government, which applies to a huge number of non-profits and even for-profit companies.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Since when was Trump ever filtered? His idiotic sayings all made for awesome press, they drove angry people to their sites (I was going to say "they sold copy" except that we don't have much in the way of physical copy anymore).
In any event, Texas doesn't really have standing in this case anyway. Filing a suit by the AG wasn't about redressing some wrong done to the citizens of Texas. It was done to look good to Trump and the far right when it comes time to run for re-election.
Re: (Score:3)
I heard exactly what Trump said about very fine people. The full text, unedited and in context. This was not hidden or kept secret. Yes, in the normal 30 minute news cycle on cable (for Fox and MSNBC and all those inbetween) it gets chopped up into smaller bites. The video of the press conference is still there. And Trump is very clearly and deliberately trying to make both sides look "equal". Violence on both sides, good guys on both sides. Not a hoax, he was indeed trying to make both sides be equi
Re: (Score:3)
Utterly false. There is no speech and debate clause in the constitution regarding the President. That is reserved for members of the House & Senate who are free to slander whoever they want, ask for people to go out and kill their opponents, and even read classified documents from the their respective floors, all without risking criminal or civil penalties.
Speech and debate clause is not relevant.
The executive is largely immune from civil and criminal consequences of his actions during his tenure. He answers only to a joint congressional impeachment and conviction.
A congressman can be ejected by only their particular chamber.
The President is the ultimate classifying authority, so they they can pick & choose, but as we learned during both Clinton & Trump, the person sitting in the chair can still be personally held responsible for libel or slander while in office. What about calls to violence? Funny that...
Oh? Did you see something I didn't? I don't recall either of those 2 being convicted.
That 'protection' is in the form of an opinion memo from the DoJ, which applies only to a sitting President. If a President did incite a riot, they could be held criminally liable once out of office. Strange how no changes have been brought. It's as if there isn't a case based on the very words of said President.
That DOJ memo comes from case law and legal opinions stemming back to the fucking Philadelphia convention.
One can certainly argue that the President i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps it should.
Re: Twitter's First Amendment Rights? (Score:2)
And perhaps it should not.
Re:Twitter's First Amendment Rights? (Score:5, Interesting)
There is an argument to be made that because social media operates on publicly subsidized infrastructure, there may be a basis to extend First Amendment protections to users thereof. There is another argument to be made that if that's the case, those sites would not bear any legal responsibility for what users say, either. And there's a third argument to be made that *the government* providing an alternate, publicly run and funded social media site where FA rights are definitely protected would be in the spirit of what the Founders intended when they gave government the job of maintaining the post roads.
I don't know exactly how I personally would come down on any of those, and I'm not especially interested in arguing them here. But I do know I'd like the opportunity to see professionals educated in the matter make their arguments in courts so that I could determine how I DO feel about it.
Re: (Score:3)
When did being stupid become a protected class?
Re: (Score:3)
I AM being consistent, YOU are not. having a meth lab is literally illegal. Twitter blocking people is not, and cannot be illegal because of their consitutionally protected freedoms. therefore this investigation is an illegal attempt at stifling Twitters constitutional rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you do that, I have many things I can potentially do about it, few of which involve speech (I'd start with local zoning regulations or vice laws, probably). But if I go into your brothel or meth lab and start ranting about stolen elections, you are allowed to kick me out; I don't have free-speech protections from you in your business or in your home.
Is this confusing to you?
Re: (Score:2)
Check with the local zoning laws first.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Companies can sue without being people (Score:4, Informative)
And the left has never said Twitter doesn't have the rights they claim in the suit. What we've said is that they don't have the right to spend unlimited amounts of Dark Money and buy off politicians. That's were the "corporations are people too" thing came from.
Re: (Score:3)
Governments have a responsibility to regulate business. In our system a legislature establishes laws that an executive branch forces and a judicial branch interprets.
If the government skips over steps, like if there is no law that enables them to stop some private business from enforcing censorship-like policies against users, who by the way are using the platform for free without any contract or agreement, then that's (probably) a violation of free speech of the business.
If we make a law that says consumer
Re:Twitter's First Amendment Rights? (Score:4, Interesting)
If the government skips over steps, like if there is no law that enables them to stop some private business from enforcing censorship-like policies against users, who by the way are using the platform for free without any contract or agreement, then that's (probably) a violation of free speech of the business.
If we make a law that says consumers are protected from businesses trying to boot them off their platform for arbitrary reasons; then when that law is enforced, it's (probably) not a violation of free speech.
I don't think you'll have much luck with that. If we passed a law that says a bookstore is not allowed to arbitrarily choose which books it will and will not stock for sale to customers, the regulation itself will be held unconstitutional, putting you back in the position of having no law to enforce.
You'll have a similar problem with Twitter. With few, narrow exceptions, they can arbitrarily choose who is and isn't allowed to use their service on free speech and free association grounds. Attempting to regulate that will likely run afoul of the Constitution.
Re: Twitter's First Amendment Rights? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So even leftist leaning platforms now agree that corporations are people too?
No, twitter is agreeing that corporations are people too.
Re:Twitter's First Amendment Rights? (Score:4, Insightful)
The difference between a leftist and a rightist:
Leftist: We think this SCOTUS decision is awful. But until we can change it, this decision is the law of the land.
Rightist: We don't like that we lost this election, so it's time to storm the capitol building and try to murder the people counting the votes. Ok, well we didn't manage to murder anyone, so you have no right to be upset.
Re:Twitter's First Amendment Rights? (Score:4, Insightful)
since the Left has their own SCOTUS decisions they try to ignore. Also, approx. 200 people stormed the Capital building, painting everyone on the right as these wackjobs
So, do you just not notice irony?
Re:Twitter's First Amendment Rights? (Score:4, Informative)
So we agree then that painting a large group with the failings of a small part of it is wrong
Nope. Especially with the efforts to pretend the actions of that small group weren't supported by a much larger group. Ted Cruz wouldn't still be backing the insurrection if there weren't a whole lot of people in Texas that want him to.
Also, the false equivalency between "try to ignore" and actual insurrection is really insulting.
Re: (Score:3)
So what about all the people supporting the protests with a billion dollars of looting where something like 40 people died?
Tip: When your question literally contains "what about", you are engaging in whataboutism.
Also, please point to the SCOTUS decision that those protests were "trying to ignore", since that was the claim here.
And lastly, have you bothered looking up the information about the folks arrested for those deaths? Not exactly leftists. Turns out riots don't have someone checking for tickets before you can enter.
but the cop wasn't murdered, he had a brain clot
The "brain clot" was caused by beating him in the head. It turns out when you smash someone in the skul
Re:Twitter's First Amendment Rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, the vast majority of the RNC spoke out against the riot you call an insurrection
And then immediately continued to insist the election was stolen, and that the insurrection was really not that bad. The only people who got hurt in the riot had medical conditions. I mean, yeah, there was the cop beaten to death, but it was only one at our protest. And I have not personally seen the supposed fire extinguisher, so was that cop really hurt at our cordial get-together of tourists?
Did the DNC speak out against the riots of ANTIFA or BLM?
Yep, but you'd have to watch something other than Fox to see it.
Even Trump spoke out against the riot, the same day
No, he asked the rioters to go home. After he asked the rioters to attack the Capitol.
To say that the right wing somehow supported it is to be willfully ignorant of the facts.
So, what color is the sky in your world? I've always wondered if they've worked you so far from reality that you no longer recognize blue, and call it 'socialism' instead.
Re: Twitter's First Amendment Rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
It was a protest and when people made it inside they wandered around like lost tourists
I can't count the number of times I was a tourist walking around a city chanting "Hang Mike Pence!!!" while carrying a bunch of flex cuffs.
Re: Twitter's First Amendment Rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
It was a protest and when people made it inside they wandered around like lost tourists. They shouldnt have gone that far, but quit acting like that mob would have any impact on the government.
No, it was a bloodthirsty mob that killed a police officer as well as one of their own. Their general level of incompetence doesn't excuse them. If you try to rob a bank with a note that says "I have a gub" don't be surprised when you still do hard time. Attempted crimes don't hinge on whether they were likely to succeed.
As an example, put one round in a revolver, spin the cylinder randomly, and fire at someone. Only a 1 in 6 chance you'll kill them, so probably they're safe. But you'll get put away for attempted homicide even if nothing happens.
Frankly they should consider themselves lucky that the Capitol Police were also incompetent. They really should've held the building and fired on the mob.
Re: (Score:3)
And yet when black people marched non-violently tehre were people demanding they be arrested and/or hit with batons. When one person looted, the entire group was accuseed of being violent. Some think it's perfectly fair to label all of BLM as marxist just because one leader leans that way, but then become aghast that the far right might be labeled as insurrectionists merely because some drunken yahoos vandalized the capitol and beat on police.
Easy enough to avoid all that - just denounce QAnon as a bunch
Re: (Score:3)
SCOTUS has never made laws, despite all the anxious hand wringing about this which is used to drive conservative voters to the polls. The courts adjudicate when there is a conflict between parties, and nothing more. The laws made by congress are very often intentionally and willfully vague, and two separate parties can interpret the laws very differently. Different laws also disagree with each other, whoopsie. New laws do not automatically override older laws. Generally the obvious stuff gets handled at
Re: (Score:2)
1. While distracting, inflammatory rhetoric doesn't alter the validity of a statement. It would be a fallacy to reject (disqualify) the whole argument purely on the basis of it being inflammatory. It is valid to question what is even meant my "leftist leaning platforms". It's probably not a real think, and it's reasonable for you to demand a clearer definition or to assume it's some kind of strawman troll designed to send us down the rabbit hole of semantics and definition.
2. The corporations are people thi
Re:Twitter's First Amendment Rights? (Score:4, Insightful)
it is literally a telecom provider by any sane definition.
Not at all. Twitter does not do anything involving transmitting voice or data between two (or more) entities.
Your "sane definition" would make your bank a telecom because they have a customer service phone line.
Re:Twitter's First Amendment Rights? (Score:5, Informative)
that is LITERALLY ALL THE DO... *transmit voice and data between two or more entities* GOOOD GRIEF.
Remember when Slashdot had people who actually understood how technology works? Those were the days. Apparently those days were before yours.
Ok, let's walk through this. A packet leaves one of Twitter's servers. It travels to one of their routers over their LAN. It arrives a the WAN port on their router. What happens next, and who owns that equipment? How about all the hops between that equipment and your computer?
Hint: Twitter isn't the owner.
Also, your computer isn't the glowy box. It's the noisy box next to the glowy box. That's why the type-y thing and clicky-thing are plugged into the noisy box.
Re: (Score:3)
Soooo. . .when my niece types something into her phone's Twitter app, hits the button and it appears on my phone's Twitter app, Twitter isn't transmitting data between two entities?
Nope. Verizion or AT&T are transmitting the data from her phone to some other Tier-1 ISP, which may transmit it to another Tier-1 ISP, which transmits it to Twitter's ISP, which then sends it to Twitter's server.
Twitter does not directly transmit any information to anyone outside their LAN.
Re: (Score:3)
Ok, show the flow of the packets from Twitter's servers to a web browser or phone, including how Twitter owns all the equipment.
Re: Twitter's First Amendment Rights? (Score:2)
The First Amendment specifically states that it applies to the press, which would have been businesses even when it was written. It also states only that congress shall make no law violating the rights detailed, but that was extended by the 14th amendment and court precedent.
If you want to strip all nuance from the complicated topic of free speech in America and reduce it to a quick zinger, Twitter might actually be the ideal platform for you.
As for the personhood status of corporations, it would be good if
Re: (Score:3)
it does?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, OR of the press
I mean that looks like an OR between "abridging the freedom of the speech" and "of the press" So it is
Congress shall make no law
1) respecting an establishment of religion OR
2) prohibiting the free exercise there of OR
3) abridging the freedom of speech OR
4) of the press.
Re: (Score:3)
> Twitter has no first amendment rights...
False [upcounsel.com]. Initially The Supreme Court had ruled that commercial speech had no First Amendment protection but they later reversed this ruling.
Unfortunately companies are legal persons [wikipedia.org] and have (some) 1st amendment rights. [mtsu.edu]
> it is literally a telecom provider by any sane definition.
While I agree with that unfortunately some of these corporations want to have their cake and eat it too. They don't want to be held accountable for content yet they feel they have the
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've decided that our man platform for political discourse is your living room. We will be staffing it 24/7 with people who will be shouting "Fuck you" through a bullhorn. I'm sure your commitment to free speech means you will be pleased with their presence, and your lack of sleep is just a small price to pay.
Alternatively, you could realize private property is a thing. Even when you really, really want to be on someone else's private propery.
Re: (Score:2)
You missed what I said:
Our need for a functioning democracy, which requires free speech, outweighs Twitters desire to censor people or opinions they don't like as they have become the channel for political dialog in this country. This is more critical than your desire to quiet him.
Re: (Score:2)
Our need for a functioning democracy, which requires free speech, outweighs Twitters desire to censor people or opinions they don't like as they have become the channel for political dialog in this country. This is more critical than your desire to quiet him.
This so you want the means of communication to be held in a public trust to be enjoyed by all citizens. Man, you really felt the Bern!
Re: (Score:2)
The first amendment is specifically meant to stop the GOVERNMENT from silencing people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fixing my typo:
I missed nothing, but you clearly did.
Re: (Score:2)
You have no 1st amendment rights on private property, therefore twitter is no preventing you from exercising any such rights. just like if I kick you off my property because you say something I dont like isnt preventing you from exercising any rights, because that is not how rights work.
Private Grocery stores cannot ban panhandlers (Score:2, Interesting)
Private property that is routinely used as a public space (like in front of grocery stores) are defacto public spaces and the property owner's right to limit people and actions is limited.
When do private spaces that are used as public squares for speech become defacto public spaces for 1st amendment and other purposes?
Re: (Score:2)
Private property that is routinely used as a public space (like in front of grocery stores) are defacto public spaces and the property owner's right to limit people and actions is limited.
When do private spaces that are used as public squares for speech become defacto public spaces for 1st amendment and other purposes?
Sure, they're semi-public, doesn't mean they can't kick people out for disruptive behavior, I think you'd find even the Post Office can kick you out if you do disruptive speech in their public space, things like screaming at the clerk isn't covered by the 1st amendment.
For real fun, try speaking your mind in a court room and you'll find that parts of the government can throw you in jail for speech related disruptions.
Re: (Score:2)
When do private spaces that are used as public squares for speech become defacto public spaces for 1st amendment and other purposes?
Never.
If you'd like an example, go down to the front of your local grocery store, and start insulting the customers walking in and out of the store and see what happens. When the manager asks you to leave, tell him "No, this is a de-facto public square and I have first amendment rights!". Be sure to say the same thing to the police and judge.
Re:Wait, What? (Score:5, Informative)
You may want to learn the difference in terminology before you make such a silly assertion. "publicly traded" talks about ownership of the company. It does not speak to if the property ownership is private or not. If it is not a government entity then the property is privately held. If it is a government entity it is publicly held. In this case the property is privately owned by the shareholders of the company. I mean this is really basic stuff, it makes no sense that you could get this so wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Companies forfeit certain rights when they go public. Twitter also enjoys tax breaks and legal protections that you and I do not.
Re: (Score:2)
A company going public looses freedoms associated with private ownership, not really any rights.. It is more the size of the ownership that can cost you some rights, but the 1st amendment freedom of association is not one of them. Also you get those legal protections and tax breaks too, if only you had the money to take advantage of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you a slow adult? I really have to ask at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wait, What? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's possible, if not likely, that more people would have died if they'd done that. Once you start using Twitter to organize attacks on the United States, I think it's OK for them to ban you no matter who you are. Twitter isn't under any obligation to help Russian agents coordinate their disinformation campaigns, or help China steal state secrets. Or to help Donald Trump try to overthrow democracy.
There was no perfect choice here for Twitter here, only lots of different bad ones. They tried to choose the one that was the least bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you please cite the section in the act that says anything remotely like that? Section 230 affirms the companies rights, it does not place any limitations on editing content.
Re: Wait, What? (Score:2)
No, they admitted to moderating (not editorializing) which is precisely why Section 230 protections exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you post your logic on how you reach this conclusion?
Re: (Score:2)
That takes away all their protections under Section 230
You don't get to add things to laws because you really, really want them to be there. They have to actually be present in the law.
Re:Wasn't retaliation the whole point of banning h (Score:4, Interesting)
It does not matter if they did it in retaliation or not. A company, just like a person, as a 1st amendment right to freedom of association. It is not OK when a government entity, the AG of Texas is a government entity, attempts to limit that right. This is nothing like your friend, in that case both actions are illegal and immoral. In this case only one action is both, the actions of the AG.
Re:Wasn't retaliation the whole point of banning h (Score:4, Insightful)
1) twitter is not the government, and any laws and regulation would be unconstitutional in the USA.
2) I will, I have always lived in a right to work state where that has always been a thing. If you dont want it to be a thing join a union.
Re: (Score:2)
How does a private company violate someone's rights, private as in not a government entity?
Re: (Score:2)
They are, for the content THEY post, they are not for the content YOU post.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
the argument becomes should they have 230 protections if they are not being neutral which they are clearly not
230 does not require neutrality, and never has.
The ToS every PoS "signs" gives permission (Score:3)
The ToS every PoS "signs" gives permission for them Ban you for your violation at their discretion. They can overlook your bad behavior if they like but for any reason, which they do not have to disclose in detail they can decide to not contribute to your incitement of sedition.
Re:Twitter should ban President Biden (Score:5, Interesting)
AOC is a great example of put up or shut up. Ted Cruz took a vacation and then blamed his children, and then claimed he was going to work remotely, then claimed he was only dropping them off. Finally it was yeah I fucked up.
I think AOC is a loudmouth but look at what she did for Texas.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/21... [cnn.com]
She raised close to $5 million in relief funds and volunteered time and Texas isn’t even her state. Meanwhile Cruz staged a photo op loading water into a car trunk. Say what you will about AOC but you can’t argue her actions.
Re:Twitter should ban President Biden (Score:5, Informative)
Might want to check your fake news sources on that one
https://www.reuters.com/articl... [reuters.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I love how commenters 100% contradict the known versions of stories, which usually are aligned with a radical-right narrative, without feeling the need to substantiate their claim with any source.
Re: (Score:2)
To show banning a President and specifically President Trump was not unique
Your desperate struggle to make it a "both sides" issue doesn't erase Trump's actions.
who are touting untruths
Not why Trump was banned. Trump was banned for instigating violence and hate speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not let a cop sit there and watch everything you do every day, I mean it is unconstitutional, but hey, you got nothing to worry about right? you are doing nothing wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
We'll be staffing your house with a police officer. He will be performing body cavity searches every hour. If you did nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about, right?
Re: (Score:2)
How are they a common carrier? Are they responsible for any losses of goods for any one? Are they required by law to accept anyone, or are they able to refuse to allow people services?
Re: (Score:2)
No and they don’t claim to be. If they were a common carrier then they would fall under a regulating body.
Re:Why is launching an investigation illegal? (Score:5, Informative)
How is it illegal for the Governor to launch an investigation?
Governors have no legal power to launch investigations of this nature, so already you're out of your depth not knowing who is doing what.
The Texas Attorney General can legally launch such investigations where warranted, but in the United States there are laws limiting use of government power, especially laws preventing abuse of government power for personal gain (which he's also being sued for), or in this case, illegal retaliation for actions the AG personally doesn't like, despite them being legal actions. Abuse of power is a crime, and abuse of government power to attempt to limit someone's First Amendment rights is very specifically recognized by the US Supreme Court as illegal. It's called a "chilling effect" and the Supreme Court, even the Trump Supreme Court, takes a very dim view of it.
In your obviously vast ignorance, you seem to have no idea that the current Texas Attorney General is scum of the earth, in the tradition of Boss Hogg. He's going to end up in jail before all is said and done, and Texas needs to stop pretending that government doesn't exist and clean up their own house before complaining about anyone else's. Texas state and local governments are some of the most corrupt in the country, and I'm not just talking about their federal circuits who have been entertaining illegal patent claims for the past couple of decades. Members of the Texas government are banana Republic-style corrupt, using government power for personal gain, at all levels. It's bad, and it needs to be stopped, by Texans, whose mistrust of government is their own fault. Elect better people and government works a lot better.
Re: (Score:3)
The argument is that the motivation for opening an investigation was for political reasons instead of actual suspicious behavior. Investigations are supposed to be opened based on merit (or lack of), not for political retaliation or badgering.
May I introduce you to the SDNY, where politically motivated investigations and indictments are standard practice.