Valerie Plame Wilson fundraising to buy Twitter so she can delete Trump's account (dollar, rating)

[CCbaxter]

No need, Twitter has about 12-18 months left before it's bad business model shuts it down.

[odanny]

Originally Posted by Slats Grobnick

1st amendment applies to the government not private companies.

Is Breitbart or Fox News obligated to give Black Lives matter a tv show or an editorial column?

DOH!

[survivingearth]

Originally Posted by biscuitmom

Twitter's TOS prohibit threats of physical harm against persons or groups. Trump violated that when he threatened "locked and loaded" "military solutions" against NK.

Rules are for peasants

[Old Gringo]

Originally Posted by survivingearth

Bye Bye first amendment....Valerie Plame and others want to buy Twitter to shut Trump off

I found this hilarious...So liberals don't believe in the first amendment anymore?
https://www.aol.com/article/news/201...ount/23157732/

Two things:

1) 1st amendment applies to the government. Maybe you've heard or someone told you the phrase: "Congress shall make no law..."

2) Twitter isn't a government agency. Whoever owns it can make its rules and policies.

Now you know!

It was my pleasure to educate you.

[TheDusty]

Originally Posted by survivingearth

I found this hilarious...So liberals don't believe in the first amendment anymore?
https://www.aol.com/article/news/201...ount/23157732/

That has nothing to do with the first amendment. Actually, Twitter being allowed to ban whomever they want would be a fulfilling the first amendment. Twitter is a company; it belongs to someone (technically several someone's since it's publicly traded). This means that those individuals can run their business as they see fit.

Now, this doesn't mean I agree with this happening. But it's not a violation of the first amendment.

[survivingearth]

Originally Posted by Old Gringo

Two things:

1) 1st amendment applies to the government. Maybe you've heard or someone told you the phrase: "Congress shall make no law..."

2) Twitter isn't a government agency. Whoever owns it can make its rules and policies.

Now you know!

It was my pleasure to educate you.

You know what, i did put my foot in my mouth. But, and this is what i think is most important, what consequences would that bring? Twitter, Facebook, Instagram would never ban a president.
BTW.. smack that positive rating

[Icy Tea]

When did outright fascism become modus operandi for the left? Hands off my internet or I'll break them off.

[survivingearth]

Originally Posted by TheDusty

That has nothing to do with the first amendment. Actually, Twitter being allowed to ban whomever they want would be a fulfilling the first amendment. Twitter is a company; it belongs to someone (technically several someone's since it's publicly traded). This means that those individuals can run their business as they see fit.

Now, this doesn't mean I agree with this happening. But it's not a violation of the first amendment.

Correct

[Goodnight]

If he was denied twitter he would be a better president.

[cttransplant85]

The left is a far greater threat to freedom and liberty than the right. Yet they're painted as the party of freedom and openness. What a smokescreen.