Laura Loomer banned from Twitter

#101
#101
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...
So, this is NOT a violation of 1A, and President Trump kicking an obnoxious POS antagonist out of his presser, IS.


God bless America
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol and NorthDallas40
#104
#104
ClearwaterVol said:
The law makes the situations not analogous.

Also, Baker said making cake violated his free exercise rights. Customer was refused on those grounds. Customer said that it was discrimination based upon sexual orientation which was protected under state law. In that case, the lesbian couple had been granted rights above and beyond what the federal laws granted them. In the case of Twitter, they are refusing provide a platform to this woman to express her views because they say she violated the community rules. Best case it is as you say... they don't want different opinions. I don't believe that it is so, but if it is... What is the argument against Twitter being able to censor their community? This isn't a clash of the rights of twitter vs. this woman's rights. Political ideology is not a protected class and thus this woman is left without arguments.

Twitter is free to discriminate against anyone for any reason not protected by law. (religion, race, color, sex, age, disability and vet status) Twitter could decide to ban all people that had an A in the last name if they so desired. Likewise, the baker could, as well had their state not enacted a law giving protected status based upon sexual orientation.
Click to expand...
And all that is a big load of bull ****. What it is is selective discrimination whether legal or not. One company can discriminate based on ideals and another can't. If the shoe was on the other foot you liberals would be crying foul. If Twitter said no to homosexual ideals because of it is offensive to some, y'all be burning it down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol and Orange_Vol1321
#105
#105
SpaceCoastVol said:
So, this is NOT a violation of 1A, and President Trump kicking an obnoxious POS antagonist out of his presser, IS.


God bless America
Click to expand...

Yeah, because government. Twitter isn't, trump is. 1A only applies to government.
 
#107
#107
Orange_Vol1321 said:
She didn't violate any user agreement. She was banned for listing facts of a religion.
Click to expand...

I don't really g.a.s. one way or the other. Truthfully, I'd never heard of her before and her being banned doesn't affect me.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
#108
#108
SpaceCoastVol said:
So how is him kicking Acosta out of the WH suppression of his free speech? I'm not invited, can i sue too for suppression of my rights?
Click to expand...

Go crazy. Sue away.

Acosta is apart of the press. 1A permits information, ideas and opinions without interference, constraint or prosecution by the government.
 
#109
#109
InVOLuntary said:
And all that is a big load of bull ****. What it is is selective discrimination whether legal or not. One company can discriminate based on ideals and another can't. If the shoe was on the other foot you liberals would be crying foul. If Twitter said no to homosexual ideals because of it is offensive to some, y'all be burning it down.
Click to expand...

No, I wouldn't. Whether you like it or not, certain types of discrimination have been deemed more undesirable than others.
 
#110
#110
Septic said:
I don't really g.a.s. one way or the other. Truthfully, I'd never heard of her before and her being banned doesn't affect me.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Click to expand...
I have no idea who she is neither and still don't. My point is if your going to ban one for saying something you need to do it to others.
 
#113
#113
ClearwaterVol said:
No, I wouldn't. Whether you like it or not, certain types of discrimination have been deemed more undesirable than others.
Click to expand...
And that's what I call foul on. You should not favor one person's ideals over another. And you would lose your mind if Twitter came out and said homosexual related post were no longer permitted.
 
#115
#115
InVOLuntary said:
And that's what I call foul on. You should not favor one person's ideals over another. And you would lose your mind if Twitter came out and said homosexual related post were no longer permitted.
Click to expand...

I would say that I find it disgusting and bigoted, but unless there was a law on point - then legal.
 
#118
#118
DinkinFlicka said:
Yes. Any private entity should be able to refuse anyone service for any reason. If the refusal is so inherently bad, the consumer base will give consequence.

Why do you hate the free market so much?
Click to expand...

So you would be ok with all private utility companies deciding to not give service such as water or electric to someone based on anything such as race or religion?

Grocery store not selling to certain races?
 
#119
#119
NEOCON said:
So you would be ok with all private utility companies deciding to not give service such as water or electric to someone based on anything such as race or religion?

Grocery store not selling to certain races?
Click to expand...

Theoretically, yes.
 
#122
#122
I'm not sure if Loomer should have been booted or not, but this is her greatest hit.

DskoYxjU0AA-Nix.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: BartW
#125
#125
Septic said:
Yeah, because government. Twitter isn't, trump is. 1A only applies to government.
Click to expand...
1A applies to the government persecution of the press and prevents the establishment of laws to silence them.

Trump just threw a loud mouthed entitled piece of trash acting like a three year old out of his meeting.

Not near the same.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top