Laura Loomer banned from Twitter after criticizing Ilhan Omar

You go tell Trump that who gave it a try to ban a journalist.

 

A lawsuit of that nature once more have nothing to do with the criminal justice system and you need to show finance damages to collect a dime and there are all manner of protection if the person in question is consider a public figure.

 

Some of you are fighting the wrong battle here.

The truthful answer is that Twitter as a private company has the right to insist users sign the TOS if they wish to use the service.

If you don't like it, people, don't go there.

 

I already said that I do not care about this nitpicking. You still can lose the lawsuit. That will do for me.
And Loomer made up false claims against a specific other person,
while Farrakhan had an opinion about himself being an anti-termite.
That's a massive difference.

Being a public figure doesn't mean a public figure can not file for defamation.
https://www.minclaw.com/legal-resou...defamation-public-official-vs-private-person/

 

Believe as you will, partner.

 

I use the forum software as I wish to make my points. Anyone can read my responses.

 

Trump is not an owner of Twitter an he did declare that the account in question was a federal government account not a private account of his own.

Sorry ............

 

Its not as if Twitter falls under Public Accommodation laws like food stores and bakeries!

 

I agree but you want to "get" people, apparently because you disagree with their point or view.

Both Twitter and Google have to be recognized for what they are and it's likely Congress will act.

 

Sure, but this doesn't mean that a double standard doesn't exist does it?

 

As long as whoever is tweeting, if they are being factual to facts and events, I could care less who is tweeting. Congress can certainly try, but I don't think social media falls under public utility laws.

 

Specifically what sentence was she banned for?

 

How did she harass OMAR on the basis of ethnicity, national origin, or religious affiliation?

...which is harassment on the basis of religious affiliation, no?

How is that harassment on the basis of ethnicity, national origin, or religious affiliation? Do immigrants all have the one ethnicity, national origin, or religious affiliation?

 

How is what she said hate speech?

 

Of course they're not equivalent! THAT'S my point! One is hateful and one is perfectly okay. When I say that "both should be bannable offences" that's not me saying that I think that Loomer's tweet was bannable, but just that if the brainless morons who run TWITter consider HERS to be bannable, then they should remain consistent and also consider HIS to be bannable.
But of course, the brainless morons who run twitter are NOT consistent and so the piece of human waste Farrakhan remains on twitter. Twitter bans speech which attacks on the basis of race, religion, gender and sexual orientation. Which of those tweets do you think fits that criteria?

Calling Jews "termites" doesn't demonstrate a clear intent to attack Jews for their religion? Surely you can't be serious.

 

No.

 

No.

No.

No.

 

Some of you are fighting the wrong battle here.

The truthful answer is that Twitter as a private company has the right to insist users sign the TOS if they wish to use the service.

If you don't like it, people, don't go there.

No, no, and no. Your opinion is not supported in law, Antiduopolist.

 

People don't pay to use social media do they?

 

Yeah no words can describe how bad the double standards are. It's anyone's guess how the dems managed to become this powerful and above the law.

Since no one seems to have the power to over rule their corruption and bring them to justice, apparently all us peons can do is boycott and speak out on forums.

So I not only deleted my Twitter and Facebook accounts and boycotted movies and TV shows, I've stopped going to restaurants and businesses affiliated to them as well because I literally find them that loathsome.

 

Laura Loomer? Who?

 

How can a Jew be anti-Semitic?

 

Congress might act however I can not see the courts allowing them to mandate the content of a private service
such as twitter anymore then allowing the mandating of the content of newspapers.

Of course you are under no obligation to take part in twitter anymore then being under an obligation to be a reader of any given newspaper.

 

How does it mean that the dems have become powerful?

 

It's Fake Alt Right social media conspiracy theory.

Because they have to meet TOS by Facebook, google, and twitter, to them that means the Dems have taken over, instead of the alt right having to do due diligence and their own research.