You have to be involved to care right?
You have to be involved to care right?
The 'private company' argument that the social media uses is outrageous and doesn't stand up to existing law.
Twitter being a private business has a Legal Classification as a “public accommodation” according to federal law. Place of 'public accommodation' means a facility operated by a private entity whose operations affect commerce. 'Facility' means all or any portion of buildings, structures, sites, complexes, equipment, rolling stock or other conveyances, roads, walks, passageways, parking lots, or other real or personal property, including the site where the building, property, structure, or 'equipment' is located. One can argue the facility or facilities that Twitter uses are the location to which those servers or equipment are housed, thereforth to which Twitter provides a public accommodation.
Pursuant to Title III Reg 28 CFR§36.104. Twitter's private business serves the public and is engaged in commerce. 'Commerce' means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication.
Therefore, Twitter shall abide by all State and Federal laws.
No business policy supersedes the law. No business in communication can hide the fact they are a public accommodation.
Twitter is open to the public, and anyone using Twitter is the public. Twitter denial of service violates several laws.
Federal law prohibits the ”denial of participation” from any business establishment as found under 28 CFR §36.202.
Under 28 CFR §36.202(c) further states that unless I have been individually assessed as a “direct threat” you may not exclude me from the same and equal services as others. Twitter does not have the right to impersonate a police officer and to make policy that is discriminatory and unlawful. Twitter must follow and not exceed the statutory laws already legislated. a "direct threat" means a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices, or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services, as provided in 28 CFR §36.208.
Denying service or suspending someone is a violation of Title II, III, and VII of the U.S. Civil Right Act of 1964.
Title III Sections 28 CFR §36.202(a)(b)(c) and 28 CFR §36.203(a)(b)(c) state that I shall not be denied the same participation and equal access as everyone else. The law prohibits Twitter from providing service that is discriminatory or differently from any one else.
Why aren't people applying the laws that are already in the books? Where are the lawyers?
The 'private company' argument that the social media uses is outrageous and doesn't stand up to existing law.
Twitter being a private business has a Legal Classification as a *“public accommodation”* according to federal law. Place of 'public accommodation' means a *facility* operated by a private entity whose operations affect *commerce*. 'Facility' means all or any portion of buildings, structures, sites, complexes, *equipment*, rolling stock or other conveyances, roads, walks, passageways, parking lots, or other real or personal property, including the site where the building, property, structure, or 'equipment' is located. One can argue the facility or facilities that Twitter uses are the location to which those servers or equipment are housed, *thereforth* to which Twitter provides a public accommodation.
Pursuant to Title III Reg 28 CFR§36.104. Twitter's private business serves the public and is engaged in *commerce*. 'Commerce' means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or *communication*.
Therefore, Twitter *shall* abide by all State and Federal laws.
No business policy supersedes the law. No business in communication can hide the fact they are a *public accommodation*.
Twitter is open to the public, and anyone using Twitter is the public. Twitter denial of service violates several laws.
Federal law prohibits the ”denial of participation” from any business establishment as found under 28 CFR §36.202.
Under 28 CFR §36.202(c) further states that unless I have been individually assessed as a “direct threat” you may not exclude me from the same and equal services as others. Twitter does not have the right to impersonate a police officer and to make policy that is discriminatory and unlawful. Twitter must follow and not exceed the statutory laws already legislated. a "direct threat" means a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices, or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services, as provided in 28 CFR §36.208.
Denying service or suspending someone is a violation of Title II, III, and VII of the U.S. Civil Right Act of 1964.
Title III Sections 28 CFR §36.202(a)(b)(c) and 28 CFR §36.203(a)(b)(c) state that I shall not be denied the same participation and equal access as everyone else. The law prohibits Twitter from providing service that is discriminatory or differently from any one else.
**Why aren't people applying the laws that are already in the books? Where are the lawyers?**
(post is archived)