Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, actually. He can't argue that Twitter is wrongfully denying him access, since he had access, violated their terms of service, repeatedly, and was banned. He had access. He KNOWINGLY violated the terms of service and lost that access. The easement by necessity does not apply. He has no right or necessity to post.
If you dare to watch this video, you'll see what the social media groups are willing to allow from lefties.
Knight created the 'public forums' on Twitter... of course it applies.
It does not. The Knight decision does not compel Twitter or any other social media business to do away with their terms of service, or to host any and all users. Twitter gets to call the shots. Sorry.
It does not. The Knight decision does not compel Twitter or any other social media business to do away with their terms of service, or to host any and all users. Twitter gets to call the shots. Sorry.
That's why they're called 'unintended consequences'... creating 'public forums' on Twitter opened the door to the 'easement by necessity' claim.
That's why they're called 'unintended consequences'... creating 'public forums' on Twitter opened the door to the 'easement by necessity' claim.
You don't get this, clearly.
The Knight lawsuit was NOT against Twitter, it was against Donald Trump. The ruling did not compel Twitter to do anything. It did not compel them to alter their terms of service. It did not compel them to become a non-moderated forum. The ruling was against President Trump who is PRESIDENT, and is therefore a GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL. The ruling held that the PRESIDENT'S account was a public forum (are you going to argue it is not), and that the PRESIDENT's blocking users from that account was as a GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL (are you going to argue that the President is not a government official) blocking users. The GOVERNMENT cannot do that, because those blocked users are having their freedom of speech rights blocked/violated by a GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL. Twitter is not a government official. And those blocked users aren't government officials. When those blocked users were unblocked by the President, many of them promptly blocked the President. Since they weren't government officials, their blocking of him was not illegal. When the government blocks someone, that is illegal. That is the ruling of Knight. Twitter can ban, block, suspend anyone they want. They are NOT the government.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
