Donald Trump files lawsuit against Facebook, Twitter, and Google

[Thaiger]

Donald Trump, well-known for filing countless and often frivolous lawsuits, announced that he is leading a class-action lawsuit against Facebook, Google, and Twitter. He is claiming censorship as a violation of the United States Constitution’s right to free speech. Legal experts see no validity in the lawsuit as the constitutional right to free speech only applies to suppression by the government, not private companies like Facebook. Anyone who has ever been in “Facebook Jail”, when you are blocked from posting for a period of time, knows how frustrating it can be. Trump was banned from Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube (owned […]

The post Donald Trump files lawsuit against Facebook, Twitter, and Google appeared first on Thaiger News.

Read the full story

[ChristyS]

Ugh, make it go away..the psychotic narcissist the cringy, dried up  bird nest hair, the wattled vag-neck, the strange sprayed on colour, the Russina mob money laundering, the call- girl wife  with a fraudulent visa, the stupid sons and vapid daughter, the weirdo son- in- law.  America's  national embarrassment, a man- baby bent on controlling a news cycle to deflect from the NY criminal charges. No More Trump PLEASE.... 

[MattBurgess]

Unfortunately his clownish capering is still newsworthy.

[ThaiFoodGuy]

A major factor in this lawsuit is the fact that these tech companies, namely Facebook, Twitter, and Google, claim to simply be public forums in which users communicate and interact with each other, and that moderation only takes place when something illegal is said or posted.

The key to that is you can't both be a simple public forum AND engage in moderation that heavily leans only one direction. As the article states, section 230 protection identifies these companies as public forums and grants them immunity from content posted by users, but you can't both be a public forum and a private entity.

Trump may "lose" the lawsuit in terms of not receiving any financial compensation for damages or losses, but it may result in an amendment to section 230 and these companies may lose their protection from liability, in which case they will either crumble under thousands of further lawsuits, or they'll be forced to act in the open as they've been acting in behind the veil for a long time - like a private entity, able to censor content as they see fit.

[billybob]

A public square is a public square social media  companies are private companies. Trump is a toxic narcissistic idiot. If I never have to hear his nasal whiney little voice ever gain I shall consider myself blessed. 

[Soidog]

I liked some of his policies and messages. I hated his style and personality. One day, and hopefully one day soon, someone will come along with a similar message and more refined style and sweep the board. 

[ThaiFoodGuy]

2 hours ago, billybob said:

A public square is a public square social media  companies are private companies.

Unfortunately that's not true. A social media company can't BOTH claim to be a public square AND a private company, and enjoy the benefits of section 230 protection from civil liability as well as allowing only certain views or opinions to be heard. It's one or the other.

[bushav8r]

I just picked up some canoeists in the middle of nowhere...they had been paddling their canoe in a a remote region of of Canada for 27 days. They had no contact with the rest of the world.  Oddly enough Donald Trump came up in the conversation as I was strapping their canoe on the side of the plane.  He still captures the imagination of the entire planet even when he is banned from all social media.

Edited July 8, 2021 by bushav8r

[PapayaBokBok]

Otherwise known as distraction #374946093262397502375203472347623296

Just like clockwork when any news comes out that makes him look like the grifter he is aka(Trump Org Indictment)

 

[Soidog]

2 minutes ago, PapayaBokBok said:

Otherwise known as distraction #374946093262397502375203472347623296

Just like clockwork when any news comes out that makes him look like the grifter he is aka(Trump Org Indictment)

Is it the man, his policies, or both you don’t agree with? Maybe it’s not as simple to breakdown the polarised views of Trump. I personally found him a total embarrassment to look at and listen to. Not a particularly nice example of a human being. But I have to say, many of his polices I couldn’t disagree with. I’d love someone with the charisma of Obama to come forward with many of the same policies and attitudes. Especially when it comes to dealing with China and changing the erosion of free speech. 

[JamesE]

1 hour ago, Soidog said:

similar message

"Democracy sucks"?

[billybob]

47 minutes ago, ThaiFoodGuy said:

Unfortunately that's not true. A social media company can't BOTH claim to be a public square AND a private company, and enjoy the benefits of section 230 protection from civil liability as well as allowing only certain views or opinions to be heard. It's one or the other.

There are obvious limits to free speech (at least where I am from in the UK) and when Trump incited sedition and refused to accept the constitutionally verified democratic vote he crossed a line. That said they all have too much power and are virtually monopolistic which isn't good for democracy or capitalism in the longer run. 

[bushav8r]

1 hour ago, Soidog said:

Is it the man, his policies, or both you don’t agree with? Maybe it’s not as simple to breakdown the polarised views of Trump. I personally found him a total embarrassment to look at and listen to. Not a particularly nice example of a human being. But I have to say, many of his polices I couldn’t disagree with. I’d love someone with the charisma of Obama to come forward with many of the same policies and attitudes. Especially when it comes to dealing with China and changing the erosion of free speech. 

China can take care of itself. I assume Donald Trump can too. Might not hurt to learn Mandarin.

[JamesE]

5 minutes ago, bushav8r said:

China can take care of itself. I assume Donald Trump can too. Might not hurt to learn Mandarin.

I'm having a hard enough time with Thai. What am I gonna do with eight tones???

[ThaiFoodGuy]

1 hour ago, billybob said:

There are obvious limits to free speech (at least where I am from in the UK) and when Trump incited sedition and refused to accept the constitutionally verified democratic vote he crossed a line. That said they all have too much power and are virtually monopolistic which isn't good for democracy or capitalism in the longer run. 

The limits to free speech in America generally relate to inciting violence, which the alt-left and the alt-right, and their political representatives, are certainly all guilty of. Nancy Pelosi was praising the Hong Kong protesters for being "heroes of democracy" not long before the capital riots.

Trump did not incide sedition as well, he gave a speech saying the rally should peacefully march to the capital and "show their strength", which has been interpreted (by media outlets, mostly) to be a call for the riot that occurred. However, speaking exclusively to facts, the riot on the capital began 30 minutes before Trump had even uttered those words, so unless the rioters knew what he was GOING to say and acted on their premonition, my opinion is that Trump did not incide any violence or sedition. There is mounting evidence (not proof) that the FBI may have been involved in provoking the riot, as well.

Trump's big mistake that day, again in my opinion, was that he didn't immediately denounce the riot.

Also, his issue with FB, Twitter and Google isn't that they banned him after the riot, it's that they had already banned him and content regarding him during his Presidential campaign. They just confirmed that he was banned indefinitely following the riot. So again the issue at hand is that they prevented important information about him from reaching Americans who may have voted for him if they had the information.

[uanmak]

Such an imbecile...

[thai3]

5 minutes ago, uanmak said:

Such an imbecile...

But still a far better President than the one that replaced him, at least Trump could string sentences together and remember where he was, hope he wins the law suites as these platforms were against him from day one. Yahoo is still knocking him everyday, not Biden though.

[uanmak]

It will be comical to see him at the bar justifying why he was banned from those media. There are essentially zero hopes he may win such lawsuits. At least here is something funny to follow in the next months

[Objectivance]

Haha, I still love watching the soft white males act out when in the Orange man's presence.

[Objectivance]

14 minutes ago, thai3 said:

But still a far better President than the one that replaced him, at least Trump could string sentences together and remember where he was, hope he wins the law suites as these platforms were against him from day one. Yahoo is still knocking him everyday, not Biden though.

Come on, man. 

[Craig]

Stooge alert.  

[9S_]

If a baker can refuse to bake a gay mans cake, a tech company can censor anyone they want. 
 

if you don’t like it build your own social media. 

[bushav8r]

1 hour ago, JamesE said:

I'm having a hard enough time with Thai. What am I gonna do with eight tones???

No shortage of tones and vowels and consonants  in Thai.  Not to mention gender differentiations...good luck indeed. I know you will never learn the Thai language.

Edited July 9, 2021 by bushav8r

[AussieBob]

7 hours ago, ThaiFoodGuy said:

A major factor in this lawsuit is the fact that these tech companies, namely Facebook, Twitter, and Google, claim to simply be public forums in which users communicate and interact with each other, and that moderation only takes place when something illegal is said or posted.

The key to that is you can't both be a simple public forum AND engage in moderation that heavily leans only one direction. As the article states, section 230 protection identifies these companies as public forums and grants them immunity from content posted by users, but you can't both be a public forum and a private entity.

Trump may "lose" the lawsuit in terms of not receiving any financial compensation for damages or losses, but it may result in an amendment to section 230 and these companies may lose their protection from liability, in which case they will either crumble under thousands of further lawsuits, or they'll be forced to act in the open as they've been acting in behind the veil for a long time - like a private entity, able to censor content as they see fit.

Very true mate - this is all about getting the legal framework in place to stop tech companies deciding what they can delete or ban, based on their own 'internal decisions'.  Like or hate Trump, that is not the issue. Imagine the telephone company being able to monitor all your calls and deciding to disconnect your account because of something you said - even though you have not been charged or convicted of any legal offence. Likewise, you cannot sue the telephone company because of what someone said about or to you using their service.  But you can sue a book/website who publishes a story that defames or insults you - and that is why publishers have legal rights to control what you say using their services. Tech companies who control social media outlets are acting like publishers, they are deciding what their customers can and cannot say - without recourse to legal complaints. They have the same legal rights as telephone companies and cannot be sued under Section 230 - they have it both ways (currently). They are not legally responsible for what is said on their services, but they are acting like a publisher that is legally responsible for what is said using their services. They are having their cake and eating it too - it was bound to be stopped one day.

[bushav8r]

55 minutes ago, thai3 said:

But still a far better President than the one that replaced him, at least Trump could string sentences together and remember where he was, hope he wins the law suites as these platforms were against him from day one. Yahoo is still knocking him everyday, not Biden though.

Fight amongst each other each other and you both look stupid.  You can't even spell.