For Defaming Conservatives - Congressman Devin Nunes Sues Twitter for 250 Million Dollars.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Bullcrap.

The US government has been sued countless times.

a reply to: Dfairlite

I'm not sure that twitter can be covered by free speech laws when they censor, ban, and suspend people for content which doesn't violate their terms

Do they? Isn't it their call? I have criticized trump on twitter and nothing happened. I've seen criticism of Obama and many dems and nothing happened to them either.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I say let him fly....
Let him crow...
then let him eat it.

a reply to: neo96

What are you talking about?

I literally said the 1st Amendment only limits the actions of the government. So of course the government has been sued.

Newsflash: Twitter is not the government!

a reply to: Xcalibur254

hmmmmmm.

No no just kidding..


just kidding...

thefederalist.com...

Typically, social media sites would be exempt from defamation liability, but Nunes’ lawyers are arguing that Twitter monetized and knowingly allowed the offensive content to remain on the site, and is therefore complicit in Nunes’ defamation. The complaint also accuses Twitter of “shadow-banning” Nunes and other conservatives on the platform.

What do you call that.......collusion?

“Twitter is not a neutral platform such as an Internet bulletin board. To the contrary: as part and parcel of its Twitter’s role as an Internet content provider, Twitter and its CEO, Jack Dorsey, actively endorse and promote the many of agendas of the Democratic party,” wrote Nunes’ legal team.

Oh it seems there is so much more to this than a simple defamation.
for example....

The anonymous account Devin Nunes’ Mom (@DevinNunesMom) is accused of violating Twitter’s rules by falsely impersonating Nunes’ mother and tweeting a series of lies for more than a year, claiming Nunes was involved in “obstruction of justice, perjury, misuse of classified information, and other federal crimes.” Twitter did not review the account until this year. They finally suspended the account after Nunes’ mother, Toni Dian Nunes, filed a complaint herself.

Over a year?
That seems excessive.

A few weeks ago, Dorsey and Twitter’s legal chief Vijaya Gadde addressed accusations of shadow-banning on Joe Rogan’s podcast. Dorsey said Twitter “would fully admit we were probably way too aggressive” when dealing with conservative accounts.

Well it is easy to ask the questions when you already have the answers.

I bet Twitter settles, and quickly.

a reply to: shooterbrody

I bet you they don't. Twitter has no legal obligation to present an impartial position.

There are certain viewpoints that ATS does not allow on their site. Do you think that now makes them fair game for a lawsuit.

If I go on Breitbart and start posting horrific things about Trump, Bannon, and the GOP in general and get banned, should I expect a hefty payday?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

And your point was?

Corporations like Twitter can be sued.

What's your problem?

Other than defending their BIGOTRY that only some people get to drink from their water fountain.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Guess its what ever information suits their agenda. Anything else is just ignored.
Or is called fake news.
This case will be thrown out.
I am betting Twitter never shadow banned anyone.
And members have more freedom there than a lot of public venues.

Heres a question since he claims that twitter effected his election result.

Why does he believe this but does not believe that what Russia did effected that election?

Isnt it the same exact thing?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

He comes across as someone who just awoke from a deep sleep.

Wha.... who....whats going on?

a reply to: neo96

I never said they can't be sued. I'm simply pointing out that Nunes' lawsuit has no legal basis and he's just flushing his money down the toilet.

Hopefully those on the Right will vote him out since he has shown his is extremely fiscally irresponsible.

Why would the so called Conservative party want someone like that representing them?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Well I guess we will see who predicted correctly.
Does ATS "shadow ban"?
When given a legitimate complaint does ATS not respond for over a year?
Does Breitbart "shadow ban"?
Did Dorsey already admit mistakes?

It will be interesting.

a reply to: shooterbrody

What law does "shadow banning" violate?

What crime does Dorsey's comments implicate him in?

I'm sure if we asked SO and Springer if the ATS mods have ever gone a little ban happy they would admit it. Does that mean I can get millions of dollars from ATS if they ban me?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

What law does "shadow banning" violate?

Why would I know that?
Would you expect someone to know that to site a report from the federalist?
I understand you disagree with the lawsuit, seems Nunes attorneys see the issue differently.
from the sited federalist article:

Typically, social media sites would be exempt from defamation liability, but Nunes’ lawyers are arguing that Twitter monetized and knowingly allowed the offensive content to remain on the site, and is therefore complicit in Nunes’ defamation.

as to this

Does that mean I can get millions of dollars from ATS if they ban me?

I have no idea. Perhaps you could consult Nunes attorneys?

I wonder how people on the left would feel if conservatives were running Twitter and were shadow banning and censoring liberals and leftist content.

It's a huge platform with broad reach, and can be used to influence or shape public opinion. But it's privately owned.

a reply to: ausername

I wonder how those on the Right would respond if a private business, say a bakery, decided to not provide their service to homosexuals.

Oh wait! We already know how that turns out. They believe that private businesses should be free to deny service to homosexuals despite the fact that they're a protected class.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

When a site promises to block offensive content, but does not have a mechanism for reporting such content, it may be in violation of some states Consumer Fraud Acts.
Attorneys General of New Jersey and Connecticut have initiated legal actions premised on the legal theory that sites violated consumer fraud statutes by not enforcing its own publicized rules about postings previously so it is not outrageous to think Nunes attourneys would follow a similar course.

a reply to: shooterbrody

But Twitter does have a mechanism to report offensive material and they can easily show that mechanism works.

Is there anything in their TOS that specifies how quickly that offensive material must be removed?

Can we point out the irony that Nunes is arguing that Conservatives are being censored on Twitter and yet a large part of his case is pointing out that Twitter wouldn't censor other users fast enough?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

There was a fight to force the baker to provide gay cakes. Ultimately I believe in one case the baker chose to close his business (bakery) rather than to be forced to provide a service that was against his beliefs.

I've said it before, I believe that privately owned companies have a right to provide their services as they wish. But that doesn't mean that people can't sue the hell out of them if they believe they have a good case against a company.

It may not be perfect, but that's how it works.

It's going to be interesting to see how it plays out in the courts.

a reply to: ausername

I never said that Nunes doesn't have the right to sue them. I just said that he doesn't have a case.

In the case of the bakery, sexual orientation is a protected class. So the plaintiffs had a solid case.

In the case of Twitter, political affiliation is not a protected class. So Nunes has no real case.