Laura Loomer banned from Twitter

#53
#53
C-south said:
So why do they have rules for using their product? Would it be cool if they banned blacks, gays, and Muslims just because?
Click to expand...

Cool? It'd be there prerogative. Just like it's your to not use there product.

Just like baking gay cakes.
 
#54
#54
Septic said:
Cool? It'd be there prerogative. Just like it's your to not use there product.

Just like baking gay cakes.
Click to expand...

Except they’re not related. The homosexuals were asking someone to do something against their religious beliefs. Twitter is simply denying free speech.
 
#55
#55
C-south said:
Except they’re not related. The homosexuals were asking someone to do something against their religious beliefs. Twitter is simply denying free speech.
Click to expand...

Freedom of association is freedom of association. And it's not a free speech issue. It's a private company deciding what it will and will not publish. The gov't isn't involved in suppressing expression here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Septic
#57
#57
Orange_Crush said:
Freedom of association is freedom of association. And it's not a free speech issue. It's a private company deciding what it will and will not publish. The gov't isn't involved in suppressing expression here.
Click to expand...

I’m sure a Christian baking business would have zero problem identifying as such. Why won’t twitter identify as a libtard selective suppressive social media platform?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Vol1321
#60
#60
Race, religion, and nationality are protected classes. Age, gender, and sexual orientation are as well, but subject to less protection.

Political affiliation is not a protected class.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Velo Vol
#61
#61
Businesses can't discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin . I'm sure this has been debated plenty of times before.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Septic
#64
#64
Orange_Vol1321 said:
All we here from your side is equality and this isn't it. Hopefully a right wing Federal judge steps in and makes Twitter reinstate her account. You know, like when the left wing Judges step in and turn things around they don't like.
Click to expand...

That's inconsistent. Justifying the government stepping in solely because the other side made the government step in isn't an argument. That is as far from conservative as it gets.
People who think like you are dangerous because there are a great many who do.
 
#66
#66
C-south said:
Except they’re not related. The homosexuals were asking someone to do something against their religious beliefs. Twitter is simply denying free speech.
Click to expand...

Denying free speech and not allowing some to use their platform in violation of the agreed on end user license agreement are so wholly different it's mind boggling it could even be conflated.

Twitter isn't denying 'speech' at all, this crazy broad can spew her idiotic venom all she wishes. The 1A applies to the .gov, not private business.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol
#67
#67
DinkinFlicka said:
That's inconsistent. Justifying the government stepping in solely because the other side made the government step in isn't an argument. That is as far from conservative as it gets.
People who think like you are dangerous because there are a great many who do.
Click to expand...
It's not how I think, this is the way it works. Don't act like it doesn't.
 
#68
#68
Septic said:
Denying free speech and not allowing some to use their platform in violation of the agreed on end user license agreement are so wholly different it's mind boggling it could even be conflated.

Twitter isn't denying 'speech' at all, this crazy broad can spew her idiotic venom all she wishes. The 1A applies to the .gov, not private business.
Click to expand...
She didn't violate any user agreement. She was banned for listing facts of a religion.
 
#70
#70
Did Twitter violate the first Amendment? No.

Did Twitter selectively ban someone based on their political affiliation? Yes.

People can be outraged at Twitter themself without using the 1st Amendment argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol and Orange_Crush
#71
#71
Matt2496 said:
Did Twitter violate the first Amendment? No.

Did Twitter selectively ban someone based on their political affiliation? Yes.

People can be outraged at Twitter themself without using the 1st Amendment argument.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's exactly right. First amendment only applies to government actors. So WH bans Acosta, First Amendment is potentially in play. Twitter bans a loony tune, no First Amendment concerns.
 
#72
#72
lawgator1 said:
Careful. There are those who call themselves Christian who oppress homosexuals, force people to wear certain items, and subjugate women. There are people in all religions, it seems, that do that to various degrees.
Click to expand...
Can we now ban this hack for violating VN terms and hate speech?
No that would make VN as stupid as the ****tards at twitter
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol, Carl Pickens and Obsessed
#73
#73
evillawyer said:
Yes, that's exactly right. First amendment only applies to government actors. So WH bans Acosta, First Amendment is potentially in play. Twitter bans a loony tune, no First Amendment concerns.
Click to expand...

The judge did not rule in Acosta's favor based on the first amendment. He ruled in Acosta's favor based on due process.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol
#74
#74
ajvol01 said:
The judge did not rule in Acosta's favor based on the first amendment. He ruled in Acosta's favor based on due process.
Click to expand...

Methinks you didn't read the words "potentially in play," which I chose because of that point. The parties briefed the issue, but the court did not rule on it.
 
#75
#75
Velo Vol said:
Businesses can't discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin . I'm sure this has been debated plenty of times before.
Click to expand...

I think this only applies to employment. Not services rendered.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top