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

©2026 Poal.co

1.4K

https://twitter.com/RoseCityAntifa/status/1354497195991437313

  1. @jack has cancelled out taken away all of our accounts for violating their rules on hate speech and inciting violence.

  2. @allways antiracist ( Rose City Antifa of Portland Oregon) still has their account...

This is in direct violation of @TWATTERS rules.

I am asking all Lawyer Anons.. Will you file a law suits against Twatter?

https://twitter.com/RoseCityAntifa/status/1354497195991437313 1. @jack has cancelled out taken away all of our accounts for violating their rules on hate speech and inciting violence. 2. @allways antiracist ( Rose City Antifa of Portland Oregon) still has their account... This is in direct violation of @TWATTERS rules. I am asking all Lawyer Anons.. Will you file a law suits against Twatter?

(post is archived)

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

Lawyers have ruined the world. "Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge." "shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you." THAT is exactly what they've done. The 'best' of lawyers become judges. What good can there be in that?

[–] • 1 pt

And what exactly is your standing? The current rules are that a private company can kick you out of their sandbox and no laws were broken.

And what damages have you suffered? Not being able to post tweets does not count.

Without standing and without damages you have no case.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

They cannot enforce for violating rules X,Y and Z for one person while allowing others to violate the very same rules.

when a company does that are they not violating their own rules? That they enforced upon others?

[–] • 1 pt

Their rules are not laws. They can make the rules and break the rules all they want.

They might have violated their status as a "public forum" and hence theoretically could loose section 230 protections but you still would have no standing... In that case they could open themselves to libel and defamation suits because of content they HAVE NOT removed but you would have no standing or recourse because they DID remove your content.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

Isn't what you're describing discrimination? What if Twitter banned Muslim accounts?

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

ohm i sell cars you come in and after selling you a car i find out you supported Trump.. that car is financed so i take it away from you because you violated my company POLICY

Aslo This:

Title 18 US Code s/s 242 https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law

The first part :
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both;

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

1) Isn't this discrimination?

2) Finding an attorney - This is where the Patriots fall horribly short. If you were a Dem in this situation, an illegal immigrant, or any other group that the Globalists are currently using courting, you could approach any number of Globalist organizations and not only get representation but probably pro bono representation. I've been looking for someone for nearly a year to set up queries for an excel spreadsheet so I can publish it for free use to researchers. If I was researching for Globalists, they'd have someone who could do that.

3) Many of these services - like Twitter, Google, FB have government contracts that are paid through taxpayer revenue, yet they're preventing more than half of those taxpayers from using their service. Anyone who has a government contract should be required - per the terms of that contract - to provide services without political bias. Period.

[–] • 0 pt

Attention Q Followers.....

https://poal.co/s/QStorm/275587