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

a reply to: Xcalibur254

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

Yes they do.
I pointed out the portion of the federalist article that referenced the ceo admitting mistakes were made.
So it seems the "mechanism" at times did not work.
That is why I pointed out the discovery in this case may be the whole point by nunes.

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

It seems so as their ceo is on record as admitting mistakes.

tech.co...

In the case of his own company’s terms though, Dorsey admitted it was failing its users. He pointed to the fact that when you initially check them out, the first information presented to you is around copyright law. The details of its harassment and violent acts policy pushed halfway down the document. “We are putting copyright protection above harassment,” admitted Dorsey.

Then this coming from Twitters Legal, Policy, and Trust & Safety Lead Vijaya Gadde
www.lifesitenews.com...

Gadde responded that “we have a rule that attempts to address what we perceive to be instances of abuse or harassment.”

If they do not follow their own "rule" it may be in violation of some states Consumer Fraud Acts.

It appears to me the nunes is just jumping on what twitter has already admitted to doing.

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?

He doesn't have to "argue" what Twitter has already admitted to.
They don't follow their own rules at their own peril.

When Nunez case gets thrown out. Twitter should counter sue for a frivolous lawsuit and slander. It works both ways....

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Is discrimination against customers or users based on their politics, opinions etc really that much different than discrimination against customers based on their sexual orientation?

We'll see. That's why this will be an interesting case to follow.

I still believe (though I hate it) that even giants like Twitter, Google, Facebook etc have the right to provide their services as they wish, and that includes controlling or censoring content.

If I was able, I'd fight to defend their right to, but ultimately it's up to the courts.

Bring popcorn!

a reply to: Xcalibur254

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?

I would like to point out who pioneered this field....good ole Richard Blumenthal in service as Connecticut Attorney General.
Irony indeed.
www.nj.com...

New Jersey Attorney General Anne Milgram's announcement last week that the state was investigating JuicyCampus for allegedly violating consumer fraud laws. Milgram subpoenaed the website's records and advertisers, saying it broke the state's consumer fraud rules by failing to live up to policies posted on the site promising to remove offensive content.

Three days after New Jersey announced its investigation, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said he had also launched a probe into JuicyCampus and its Nevada-based owner, Lime Blue LLC.

lol
seems Nunes is following a path started by Dick Blumenthal
that, to me, is ironic

a reply to: ausername

Is discrimination against customers or users based on their politics, opinions etc really that much different than discrimination against customers based on their sexual orientation?

According to the law? Yes.

Granted sexual orientation does fall in a bit of a grey area. During the Obama administration the AG believed that sexual orientation fell under the auspices of the civil rights laws. Meanwhile, Sessions followed the law to the letter and stated that sexual orientation is not a protected class.

In either case, political affiliation was never considered a protected class.

Awe, did the wittle conservative snowflake get made fun of by people. Poor baby.

a reply to: ausername

Is discrimination against customers or users based on their politics, opinions etc really that much different than discrimination against customers based on their sexual orientation?

Discrimination is bad except when saying things 'liberals' disagree with.

originally posted by: usernameconspiracy
Awe, did the wittle conservative snowflake get made fun of by people. Poor baby.

David and Goliath come to mind... We can all help David when the class-action lawsuits against Anti-America media platforms start to fly.

Just waiting to see if Nick Sandmann's $250 suit against CNN is successful. If it is...the lawsuit FLOOD GATES will be opened.

a reply to: carewemust

You're not wrong.

Sites like WND and Breitbart are going to owe a lot of money.

There's a lot of neo-Nazi sites out there. The first Jewish person to go to any of them and get banned will either be getting some dough or the white supremacist movement will just be expunged from the internet.

In the end it seems like I win. I hate sites like Twitter, Breitbart, and Stormfront.

originally posted by: carewemust
My personal view is that Twitter, Facebook, ATS, are PRIVATELY OWNED.

Publicly traded companies are definitely not privately owned.

As such, they can do whatever they want.

Publicly traded companies are highly regulated.

Also, even private corporations are subject to the regulatory power of the state and rightly so.

Corps (all legal fictions) are creatures of the State, and thereby do not enjoy the same Rights, Privileges and Immunities as private Citizens do.

'Corporate personhood' is at the heart of some of the biggest problems we have in this country, or in this world.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

Publicly traded companies are definitely not privately owned.

In the context of the First Amendment vis a vis an actual public entity (state university, government agency, etc) they are indeed considered private.

Whether you like this and corporate personhood or not is irrelevant, the legal precedent stretches back 230+ years.

For Twitter and the like to be 'banning conservatives', why hasn't someone thats conservative made an alternative?

I mean, if its happening on such a large scale then surely theres money to be made right?

Ridiculous lawsuit motivated by politics and im not surprised that there are people that are for it

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
In the context of the First Amendment vis a vis an actual public entity (state university, government agency, etc) they are indeed considered private.

I said 'privately owned - see the difference?

Whether you like this and corporate personhood or not is irrelevant, the legal precedent stretches back 230+ years.

Did I say it wasn't?

What did I say?

Here, let me help:

"'Corporate personhood' is at the heart of some of the biggest problems we have in this country, or in this world."

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied
For Twitter and the like to be 'banning conservatives', why hasn't someone thats conservative made an alternative?

I think 4 chan and ATS are it at the moment. But the pendulum swings....

And Twitter isn't banning conservatives...just ask the twitter in chief....trump, he's quite active as much as any tween.

a reply to: MALBOSIA
They are responsible for shadowbanning conservatives who have done nothing against Twitter TOC’s, while at the same time allowing liberal accounts to say and do whatever they want to whomever they want. It’s a double standard.

a reply to: olaru12

Does this really need to be explained to you? Banning Trump would make a giant stink and mess for Twitter. They know they can’t do that.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

A lot of little AOC's in this thread spouting the same Communist nonsense she does. Don't like something? Get the government to fix it. Hur-dur.

Either private companies can treat people differently based on religion, sex, *political alignment and race or they cannot.

Which way should it be in your opinion?

originally posted by: tanstaafl

I said 'privately owned - see the difference?

There's no difference under the Constitution if they are companies traded on an exchange or not, they are still private in regards the First Amendment.

"'Corporate personhood' is at the heart of some of the biggest problems we have in this country, or in this world."

Still irrelevant to this potential case.

originally posted by: Tempter
Either private companies can treat people differently based on religion, sex, *political alignment and race or they cannot.

Which way should it be in your opinion?

As a Libertarian I think they should sell/service whomever they want and conversely deal with the ramifications of their business decisions.

If Twitter wants to ban Devin Thin Skin I say let them, if some asshat religious tard doesn't want to sell gake then they can deal with the potential fallout.

a reply to: olaru12

What is weird about this complaint, well a few things
1 there is no case number. Why?
2 the articles 3, 4, 5, listed as "parties" reads like a resume and glowing review of Devin Nunes.
3 the complaint includes a hyperlink to a Devin Nunes biography and another to a New York Times acticle.
How can these links be included in any filing with the court?
4 This sounds more like they said bad things about me and I want it to stop. But isnt there some exception if you are a public figure?

Is this just a Fox exclusive fake legal document ? Its more like a commercial for Devin Nunes.