MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell gets banned from Twitter, again

You again... Whatever... Typical politician puppet: if I disagree with you, it's not right, doesn't matter, it's not in the Constitution, etc, etc, etc..

 

I'm nobody's puppet. You are the one misinterpreting what Freedom of Speech means.

 

I'm not partisan at all.

I don't watch television or only visit specific media sources.

I don't need anyone to think for me or tell me what to think.

You are completely wrong about what the right to Freedom of Speech means.

A person has the right to say what they want to say WITH conditions.

* It's illegal to yell "fire" in a movie theatre.
* It's illegal to say the word "bomb" anywhere inside an airport or on a plane.
* It's illegal to deny the Holocaust (in some places).
* It's illegal to threaten someone else (legally "assault").

The part you continue to overlook is that there is no law anywhere in the US that requires anyone to HOST a venue for someone to exercise their right to Freedom of Speech. If you think there is, please post those statutes. I have legal experience so all I need is the citation. I can save you the legwork. It doesn't exist.

By the way, what is your opinion on the bakery owners that didn't want to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple?

 

The RW doesn't know the difference between freedom and anarchy anymore. They support lawlessness and don't even understand their own arguments.

 

I try to cut them some slack. They have fallen head over heels for a functionally illiterate narcissistic con man. I've learned to manage my expectations.

I will admit aloud that it makes me laugh to read their "arguments". My kids aren't even adults and they could volley all of them back with no problem. How many of them would let somebody come into their house and make the rules and then try to create a law to force them to accommodate their presence? /smdh

 

I thought we were talking about social media. Twitter, Facebook, etc... will lock your account if you post something they don't like thereby suppressing your freedom of speech and that's complete bs. That's why I stay away from those sites because all those sites are good for is collecting as much data on people as possible selling it and making some very irresponsible people ultra wealthy.

As for the bakery owners I'm not familiar but opinion is they are short sighted, controlling, busy bodies. If you are gay, black, Hispanic or whatever and come into one of my stores or are going to rent one of my properties your going to be treated with the same respect as anyone else. I believe in live and let live as long as your not hurting anyone.

 

Postings on private websites is not protected speech.

 

We are talking about social media. There is nowhere online or in real life in which we do not have to abide by the rules as set forth by someone else. The people that own Twitter, FaceBook, etc. make their rules and anyone that wants to use their site must abide by them. It's not BS. If someone doesn't like the rules they are free to (1) not use the site or (2) whine about it for over a year and counting, but they can't force someone to provide a platform for a third party to exercise his or her Freedom of Speech.

There was a lawsuit made against a bakery because the owners refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.

People applauded the bakery owners and said they should not be forced to provide a wedding cake to the engaged couple if they don't want to and the court backed them up.




So, if a business can discriminate against potential customers because they are opposed to homosexual people getting married, the only consistent conclusion is that social media sites also have the right to decide their line in the sand.

Beyond that sheer insanity of Trump's self-entitlement, it makes sense to legally ban him from their sites because he used their platforms to manipulate and incite thousands of people into rioting and mob attacking hundreds of police officers and threatening the lives of our then-seated VP.

Let's take a look at that. Let's say that nobody in the Trump administration resigned after the Capitol riot. Let's also assume that he was not suspended from any social media sites. It's been a while since I looked at the stats but let's say

X = the number of followers he had on each site
Y = the number of times his posts were retweeted or liked or otherwise shared
Z = the number of grassroots efforts are developed to chaos havoc in a bid to stop or overturn the certification results

Any number of people involved in any way with any riots regarding the election results and/or overturning the certification could potentially sue the social media sites that allowed him to post without regard to their terms of service. Why would a business owner, of any type, open themselves to that risk? No thinking business owner or manager would knowingly do that. It's their responsibility to minimize their risks, not increase them.

Again, it's not about denying anyone Freedom of Speech. Trump (and everybody else that lives in US) has that right and has always had it.

**WHAT** he is being denied, is an establish 3rd party's platform for him to exercise that right.

These are the rules we all lives by. If I post something here that violates PF's rules, they have every right to suspend my account or ban me for a term or ban me for life.

In fact, I just experienced this. I registered on another forum but wanted to change my username. I had never posted so I didn't know it was an issue. I signed up with another email address and that lead to me being instantly banned. It was only after that, that I read their terms of use completely, and they have a rule about people having more than one account. Do I have the right to sue them because they won't let me break their rules? Well, technically, anybody can file a lawsuit about anything. Would I win? No. I agreed to abide by their rules when I registered for an account there and I violated their rules (unknowingly) and I was instantly banned.

Trump violated the rules of the sites that banned him and since he is still quite vocal, quite angry and quite stupid, he is a clear and present danger who can't be given carte blanche to reach countless people to forward his agenda of burning this country to the ground. It's shocking to me that any of you think that they should but I take comfort in knowing the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the bakery and would rule in favor of any of the social media sites if Trump decided to sue them. Nobody would ever open a business doing anything if they were legally forced to provide a service or product they don't want to provide. Why would anyone do that?

Further, Trump has tried to launch his own social media site several times now. He is angry that it's not getting too much traction and doesn't post to it. That's because he wants all the heavy-lifting done for him so it's easier for him to want to lob onto established social media sites where he can reach many, many more people. He doesn't want to engage with his supporters. He wants them to send money and believe every lie that he tells and do none of the "building of his brand". That is very telling as far as his motives. He wants to take none of the risks but reap all the benefits - his MO in every aspect of his life.

 

The bakers had a right not to participate in a ceremony that went directly against their religion.

The couple knew this before even attempting to patronize their business. They did it simply because everyone's all too happy to sue someone and try to get rich off it.

I would say the homosexuals were discriminating against the bakers religious beliefs. Was the baker trying to force them to renounce their way of life?

 

And that's part of the problem. We have a Constitution, if the site in question will not abide by our Constitution the site should not be allowed to operate. Where do you draw the line? If you visit a convenience store and their policy is you can't discuss the weather or you will be temporarily banned, is that ok?

 

It seems to me if this had been anyone other than Trump you won't have bothered to post about it.

 

And the left all collectively agree that if you don't agree with them you are wrong.

 

I deny that but you are free to your opinion.

I am for law and order. Unlike many people, a person's political leanings, race, gender, sexuality, age, etc. don't matter to me.

Freedom of Speech is a right. Freedom to express that on/in 3rd party venues is not.

 

Both sides play that game.

 

I've said it a hundred times MJ you just choose to ignore it: All politicians are the problem. Not one side or the other.

 

The Constitution does not apply to private companies in this regard. They are in no way bound to guarantee free speech any more than your local news station MUST broadcast a drunk on a street corner yelling at imaginary monsters.

You are arguing the drunk is having his free speech violated. And I will tell you, postings on media are as bad or worse than a drunk yelling at the sky.

 

I didn't ignore it. Also, I don't disagree with that.

 

So what's your stance on the governor's that let the rioters burn, loot, and destroy people's businesses? That was their livelihoods and those governor's did nothing. Not very law and orderly.

 

There is a difference and the right wing is far worse than the left. Fox Noise has been running the joke once known as the republican party for over a decade.

 

And social media sites violate that right every time they lock your account for something you posted.

 

And social media sites violate that right every time they lock your account for something you posted.

 

Would you hold this position if the person that was banned did not hold the same political leanings you do?

Every store, convenience or otherwise, requires shoes and shirts and they have the right to deny people entry for not abiding by that.

Therefore, if the rule is one can't discuss the weather inside said store, the store owner(s)/manager(s) have every right to refuse service. By entering, one is agreeing to abide by the rules sort forth for entry.

 

You want to ignore the law. Again, the law states that one has Freedom of Speech. It does not guarantee or require any 3rd party entity to provide the platform for that free speech.

Look at it this way. You know how every major city has some random guy standing on a milk crate screaming "The End of the World is Near!!!!"?

That guy has the right to stand there for hours shouting whatever he wants to shout.

Would you argue that the law can force YOU to pay for his milk crate and meals while he stands there shouting all day long? If so, what law is that?

 

No they don't. Freedom of speech refers to government suppressing your speech. It does not apply to private companies and was never intended to.

You are arguing that every drunk on a street corner is entitled to have their opinion on the evening news.

 

That's whataboutism. However, my position is consistent on any and all criminal activity. All of it needs to be addressed and stopped.