Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2024 Poal.co

925

(post is archived)

[–] • 17 pts (edited )

According to SCOTUS they are depriving her of her constitutional rights. Precedent already exists and SCOTUS has previously ruled on this very topic.

According to SCOTUS, any private entity which functions as a "public square" for communication is protected as a public square. Banning her for discussion is a violation of her 1st Amendment Rights and is therefore a violation of her constitutional rights. Period. All case law is already on record.

If only we were a country of laws.

[–] [deleted] • 12 pts

If only we were a country of laws.

[–] • 5 pts

We have enough more than enough laws. It's time for some enforcement.

[–] • 3 pts

Bingo, way too many laws

[–] • 1 pt

<If only we were a country of laws.

Yes exactly

[+] [deleted] • 0 pt
[–] • 0 pt

Who is her?

[–] • 1 pt

Majorie (((Greene)))

[–] • 0 pt

She has multiple accounts on Twitter as far as I know. I'm not sure she qualifies here.

[–] • 0 pt

Where do you see any mention of her being nosed? She's been called anti-semitic quite a lot.

[–] • 0 pt

Sorry. Was specifically thinking of the congressman recently blocked. Greensomething?

[–] • 1 pt

Greene, yeah. I believe she has additional Twitter accounts. I'm not exactly sure she fits, but I see why you'd say this either way.

[–] • -1 pt

Sauce, please.

This sounds like bullshit.

[–] • 0 pt

PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER v. ROBINS (law.cornell.edu)

State constitutional provisions, as construed to permit individuals reasonably to exercise free speech and petition rights on the property of a privately owned shopping center to which the public is invited, do not violate the shopping center owner's property rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments or his free speech rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Basically, states can require public squares to permit First Amendment activity.

[–] • 0 pt

Yup. Incorrect.

California Supreme Court decided that Art. 1, §§ 2 and 3, of the California Constitution gave appellees the right to solicit signatures on appellants' property in exercising their state rights of free expression and petition.2 In so doing, the California Supreme Court rejected appellants' claim that recognition of such a right violated appellants' "right to exclude others," which is a fundamental component of their federally protected property rights. Appeal is thus the proper method of review.

What the 1980 California Supreme Court determined was that this group could hand out fliers and get signatures on petitions, peacefully and appropriatly, because it was open to the public and caused no harm to the property or to investors of the property, which was claimed by the appellate, but not proven.

Since this case, from 1980, there has been over a dozen cases against Twitter and Facebook where the court ruled that Social media does have a "right to exclude" those who violate their terms of service because the users agree to this terms and violations of those terms of service cause a harm to the value of the social media platform.

One example, if a advertiser (those who pay the bills on the social media platform) advertised to target people of color, and the posts on every one of their advertisements are "nigger", "all niggers should be hanged", " kill all kikes", that advertiser wouldn't advertise on that platform.

[–] • 0 pt

You are already blocked Jew.

[–] • 4 pts

You know what happens when you turn off your internet? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. You can walk away and suffer no repercussions. You know what happens when you stop watching TV, rinse and repeat. Nothing!

[–] • 4 pts

You know what happens when you turn off your internet?

If I were running a business or running a political campaign in this modern age I would be ruined.

[–] • 0 pt

Maybe not, if you went strictly on word of mouth and stuck to your neighborhood you could just do well.

[–] • 0 pt

Fat lot of good that does if you're running for a non-local position.

[–] • 2 pts

You know what happens when you stop paying taxes? They expropriate everything you have and if you effectively resist, they'll shoot you.

[–] • 0 pt

Only if they can find you. Haha, freedom is free.

[–] • 0 pt

And then you will wonder why your elected officials are all niggerfaggots.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

They already are.

And I didn’t vote for any of them. But unofficially I probably voted 4 times for each of them. Except for the weather I hate California!

[–] • 3 pts

Is this not the same as Twitter assisting MTG's opponent? This is clearly a campaign donation

[–] • 2 pts

Ban any foreign ownership or trust ownership of media outlets/social media and only allow direct ownership from US citizens and most of this problem would evaporate overnight. The same must apply to campaign contributions. And abolish the Fed.

[–] • 1 pt

You think these clowns are representing you right now?

They represent their billionaire patrons and corporate donors.

The US is an oligarchy.

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

So it seems like everyone with a brain realizes now that Twitter, Youtube, Facebook, Reddit and left-wing media like BBC is completely hostile to anyone on the right. Plenty of alternatives already exist, some with sizable userbases, from Gab to out very own Poal. Why don't these senile fucking boomer politicians just delete their twitter account and move to something like gab instead? Why are they whining about how the most far left website is censoring them when a much better one is a few clicks away?

I can understand the apolitical fence-sitters who feel like they have to go to Twitter and Facebook because they have to be reached by the absolute maximum of eyeballs. And it's true that these platforms are still the largest. But big tech hasn't been a true monopoly in ages. There are plenty of alternative platforms now. And it's not like years ago when they had no users. These days the majority of conservatives (not just "far right" but even moderate republicans) in America have heard of at least Gab. You'd already be coming into a huge userbase. And if a major politician started using them, it would easily rally the rest of the right as well.

This was the worst failure of Trump in my opinion: He didn't delete his Twitter account and start using something else like Gab, he didn't use a tiny chunk of his immense personal fortune to build an alternative and he didn't set up a government operated platform (which would have been public and hence not subject to the bullshit "it's a private company they can do what they like" argument). Well Trump is gone now but why won't his would-be successors learn from his mistakes?

[+] [deleted] • 1 pt
[–] • 0 pt

This is precisely why I don't bother with dropping truth bombs on (((social media))). I go for word of mouth in real life - you can't get banned there. And in regards to the leftist horde attempting to cancel you - you have a mentality of "Don't care what you're screeching, I'm not going to stop saying what I'm saying".

[–] • 0 pt

But big tech hasn't been a true monopoly in ages. There are plenty of alternative platforms now. And it's not like years ago when they had no users.

look at the financial backing, when you have access to the printing press it doesnt matter how profitable you are. then look at bitcoin vs fiat currency, bitcoin is complex fiat most people have used their entire lives. the amount of effort to understand cryptocurrency is way less then just doing what you used to do, doesnt matter if you lose 6% value per year even if you arent in debt.

[–] • 0 pt

when you have access to the printing press it doesnt matter how profitable you are

This would be true if I was talking about trying to make Twitter go out of business, but I'm not. We're not in the situation of just one printing press we have to defeat. There are actually many printing presses out there, some large, some small, and anyone can choose whichever one they like. The handful of really big printing presses are blatantly abusive, so why keep going to them and then complain about the abuse, instead of just going to the far less abusive competitors?

[–] • 0 pt

his was the worst failure of Trump in my opinion: He didn't delete his Twitter account and start using something else like Gab, he didn't use a tiny chunk of his immense personal fortune to build an alternative and he didn't set up a government operated platform (which would have been public and hence not subject to the bullshit "it's a private company they can do what they like" argument). Well Trump is gone now but why won't his would-be successors learn from his mistakes?

Not the 'worst', but yes, a huge mistake.

[–] • 1 pt

You don't have a "right" to representation. This vague, always shifting definition of the word "right" causes a great deal of confusion.

The government does not grant rights. Rights are inherent, inalienable, and shared by all human beings, regardless of geography.

The government violates rights by granting privileges. One of those privileges is that a majority of the population is able to force onto a minority a "representative" who has the authority to make rules about your life and your property which violate your own rights of self-ownership and your ownership of your own property.

If you believe taxation is anything more than just theft, then I beg you to think harder about the subject. The government requires you to pay taxes because they will kidnap and imprison you, or just flat out murder you, if you don't. That is where the "requirement" to pay taxes comes from. That requirement will not disappear just because your privileges (i.e., your right to lord over others through the person of an elected representative) have possibly been violated.

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

You're conflating "income tax" with "taxation".

Taxation is not theft. The government has the authority to tax that which it can regulate. However, the government improperly taxes wages that are paid in exchange for labor by having the wage slave declare it as "income", which they can regulate, and paying a tax on it.

There are lots of legit taxes. The income tax is a legite tax, using the correct definition of "income" which was never, prior to the 1940's, your wage or salary.

[–] • 0 pt

using the correct definition of "income"

See section 83 of the irs code. Compensation for labor is not income.

[–] • 0 pt

No, I'm not conflating the two. I don't recognize the government's authority as I never consented to it, and neither did most people. It is not a voluntary organization created from a consensual agreement between two or more parties. It is imposed on us regardless of our consent; even before we are old enough to provide consent.

The government does not have the authority to tax and has no right to exist.

[–] • 0 pt

But you aren't the decider for legit taxes and you don't have to do anything that's regulated so, other than an improperly imposed income tax, you can avoid all taxes if you wanted to. Hence the word voluntary.

Don't want to pay sales tax? Don't buy from a business that's regulated to sell products commercially. Don't want to play use taxes? Don't use products from businesses that are regulated by the government. Etc.

I've read Rothbard. Yes. You never specifically consented to be governed. But don't expect to enjoy the fruits of government without paying the taxes to pay for those fruits.

[–] • 1 pt

If the federal government held a 10% share in TwatBook, would the first amendment apply?

[–] • 1 pt

In theory, I would say I support companies' rights to refuse service, just like you shouldn't be forced to bake a faggot cake. The issue is that the government has created monopolies with subsidies, tax breaks, laws that favor huge corps, never punishing them when they break the law (but punishing small companies) etc

[–] • 1 pt

Oy Vey , private companies can do as they wish , goyim

[–] • 1 pt

at the point you feel that it does and you then refuse to pay taxes on that grounds.

Don't ever wait for the government to give you permission to stop paying taxes or ever say "hey my bad you don't actually owe taxes cause I violated your rights here"

Load more (4 replies)