PDA

View Full Version : James Woods banned by Twitter because...... drum roll......


Pages : 1 [2]
Pavlov
10-04-2018, 11:09 AM
No. People have a reasonable expectation that their ideologies aren't going to be suppressed when using Twitter.
lol still making shit up.

Cite the law you think applies here, derp.
Blake
10-04-2018, 11:15 AM
lol still making shit up.

Avante's ideology shouldn't have been suppressed!!
ElNono
10-04-2018, 01:57 PM
No. People have a reasonable expectation that their ideologies aren't going to be suppressed when using Twitter.

Sorry to disappoint, but that is simply false.
SnakeBoy
10-04-2018, 03:03 PM
James Wood is no different than your average panelist/guest in CNN/Fox News. They're going to opine what they can, sometimes they're gonna get their microphone shut down, sometimes they'll cut them off to commercials, sometimes they won't let them talk.

Can you sue CNN or Fox for that? No you can't. It's a private business, it's their platform and part of the condition of being on their platform is that you're going to stick to their rules and decisions.

The only gray area (not that gray, it's actually enforceable) is outright protected class discrimination. You know, sex, religion, race, national origin, etc.

The others are news services and twitter/fb/etc. are just platforms. I don't remember the details but I've heard/read arguments that they are (or could be) jeopardizing their "platform" status which would make them subject to different rules & regulations, namely legal liability for the things that are posted on their sites.
Pavlov
10-04-2018, 04:06 PM
The others are news services and twitter/fb/etc. are just platforms. I don't remember the details but I've heard/read arguments that they are (or could be) jeopardizing their "platform" status which would make them subject to different rules & regulations, namely legal liability for the things that are posted on their sites.:lol that would mean it would be their duty under the law to ban James Woods.
Spurtacular
10-04-2018, 05:32 PM
What law are you referring to. Quit stalling.


lol still making shit up.

Cite the law you think applies here, derp.

:lol You faggots pretending this is a law board.
Spurtacular
10-04-2018, 05:33 PM
Sorry to disappoint, but that is simply false.

Not at all. Unfair business practices are routinely thwarted in the courts.
Pavlov
10-04-2018, 05:33 PM
:lol You faggots pretending this is a law board.:lol you've been pretending you have a legal argument all along, counselor.

lol derp
Pavlov
10-04-2018, 05:35 PM
Not at all. Unfair business practices are routinely thwarted in the courts.:lol still pretending you have a legal argument
Spurtacular
10-04-2018, 05:42 PM
:lol Sociopath telling me his truth, over and over.
Pavlov
10-04-2018, 05:44 PM
:lol Sociopath telling me his truth, over and over.:lol every time you are asked to explain your legal argument you curl up in a ball and cry out buzzwords hoping we'll leave you alone.

You have no idea what you are talking about and you prove it every time you are called out.
Blake
10-04-2018, 05:49 PM
Not at all. Unfair business practices are routinely thwarted in the courts.

Great, show one of these cases. One.
Blake
10-04-2018, 05:49 PM
:lol You faggots pretending this is a law board.

It's your argument, stupid.
Spurtacular
10-04-2018, 05:53 PM
:lol every time you are asked to explain your legal argument you curl up in a ball and cry out buzzwords hoping we'll leave you alone.

You have no idea what you are talking about and you prove it every time you are called out.

:lmao I won't serve as a paralegal for a sociopath, so I must be lying. :lmao
Pavlov
10-04-2018, 05:58 PM
:lmao I won't serve as a paralegal for a sociopath, so I must be lying. :lmaoYou abandon every legal argument you try to make, so you have no legal argument.

And you curl up into a ball and cry out buzzwords every time you are called out, so you have no legal argument.
Spurtacular
10-04-2018, 07:14 PM
You abandon every legal argument you try to make, so you have no legal argument.

And you curl up into a ball and cry out buzzwords every time you are called out, so you have no legal argument.

Nothing's abandoned. I'm not a sociopath's free paralegal.
Pavlov
10-04-2018, 07:23 PM
Nothing's abandoned. I'm not a sociopath's free paralegal.
:lol buzzword

What is your argument?
Blake
10-04-2018, 07:23 PM
Nothing's abandoned. I'm not a sociopath's free paralegal.

Your claim of a potential lawsuit is stupid. You're talking out of your ass.
Spurtacular
10-04-2018, 07:33 PM
:lol Hens
Pavlov
10-04-2018, 07:45 PM
:lol Hens:lol buzzwords

What is your argument again besides stamping your feet and crying "Twitter unfair!"?
Blake
10-04-2018, 07:56 PM
:lol Hens

:lol retarded chicken shit
ElNono
10-04-2018, 11:43 PM
The others are news services and twitter/fb/etc. are just platforms. I don't remember the details but I've heard/read arguments that they are (or could be) jeopardizing their "platform" status which would make them subject to different rules & regulations, namely legal liability for the things that are posted on their sites.

That's why I explicitly mentioned panelists/guests (which one could argue are not journalists per se, so they wouldn't be afforded freedom of the press rights). At the end of the day, an opinion from James Woods on twitter or Fox News is not really different.

What you're thinking about are the DMCA Safe Harbor provisions and Section 230 of the CDA (Communications Decency Act). As far as I know so far, the only exception is for online pedo porn.
ElNono
10-04-2018, 11:45 PM
Not at all. Unfair business practices are routinely thwarted in the courts.

When they are illegal. There's simply no law thwarting Twitter from having and enforcing their TOS.
Spurtacular
10-05-2018, 12:28 AM
When they are illegal. There's simply no law thwarting Twitter from having and enforcing their TOS.

Provided its done fairly and not in a discriminatory manner. That is not what Twitter and others are doing.
Spurtacular
10-05-2018, 12:29 AM
:lol buzzwords

What is your argument again besides stamping your feet and crying "Twitter unfair!"?

:lol Your response to using a word for the first time.
:lol buzzwords is your new white flag.
SnakeBoy
10-05-2018, 01:45 AM
That's why I explicitly mentioned panelists/guests (which one could argue are not journalists per se, so they wouldn't be afforded freedom of the press rights). At the end of the day, an opinion from James Woods on twitter or Fox News is not really different.

What you're thinking about are the DMCA Safe Harbor provisions and Section 230 of the CDA (Communications Decency Act). As far as I know so far, the only exception is for online pedo porn.

Okay, you know more about it than I do :toast

We still oppressed though, even if it isn't in any legal or definable or provable sense.
DMC
10-05-2018, 02:26 AM
Okay, you know more about it than I do :toast

We still oppressed though, even if it isn't in any legal or definable or provable sense.

We'll have to do an FBI investigation for 3 days and issue the findings.
Pavlov
10-05-2018, 02:33 AM
:lol Your response to using a word for the first time.
:lol buzzwords is your new white flag.

:lmao trying to protect your new buzzword.

No legal argument at all.
ElNono
10-05-2018, 05:37 AM
Provided its done fairly and not in a discriminatory manner. That is not what Twitter and others are doing.

Discrimination law doesn't protect political ideologies. It protect select classes, like sex, religion, etc.

We can continue circling around the subject, but the bottom line is that there's no such thing as 'fairness' protection on political speech when it comes to private entities.
ElNono
10-05-2018, 05:39 AM
Okay, you know more about it than I do :toast

We still oppressed though, even if it isn't in any legal or definable or provable sense.

Victimhood and woe is me is always a viable tool, it just can't be overdone, otherwise it becomes too obvious.
ElNono
10-05-2018, 05:41 AM
Like James Woods might have a case if he claimed he was banned due to being Christian. But he would have to prove that in court, and obviously his tweet is not about religion.
ElNono
10-05-2018, 05:45 AM
A better question is, why doesn't conservatives build on this momentum to create a conservative-biased Twitter clone?

I'm actually surprised media moguls like Fox or Sinclair haven't tried yet. Maybe, because they're conservative? (phun intended)
hater
10-05-2018, 06:41 AM
A better question is, why doesn't conservatives build on this momentum to create a conservative-biased Twitter clone?

I'm actually surprised media moguls like Fox or Sinclair haven't tried yet. Maybe, because they're conservative? (phun intended)

Why dont u try it? If it seems so easy to you you could become a zillionaire like Jack

Do it :tu
Spurtacular
10-05-2018, 08:54 AM
Discrimination law doesn't protect political ideologies. It protect select classes, like sex, religion, etc.

We can continue circling around the subject, but the bottom line is that there's no such thing as 'fairness' protection on political speech when it comes to private entities.

They're likely violating the laws of some states in which they operate by doing it.
Winehole23
10-05-2018, 09:10 AM
which states and which laws?
Blake
10-05-2018, 09:31 AM
They're likely violating the laws of some states in which they operate by doing it.

Lol "likely"

No they're not. You're an idiot.
Blake
10-05-2018, 09:32 AM
which states and which laws?

Stalling and buzz words forthcoming
Spurminator
10-05-2018, 11:06 AM
A better question is, why doesn't conservatives build on this momentum to create a conservative-biased Twitter clone?

I'm actually surprised media moguls like Fox or Sinclair haven't tried yet. Maybe, because they're conservative? (phun intended)

They have, it's the comment sections of Fox Insider and Breitbart.
Spurtacular
10-05-2018, 05:49 PM
Lol "likely"

No they're not. You're an idiot.

You're an expert on letting dudes fuck your wife, not the law.
Pavlov
10-05-2018, 06:15 PM
You're an expert on letting dudes fuck your wife, not the law.Everyone knows Twitter isn't violating any laws by banning James Woods.

Everyone except you.

lol
Blake
10-05-2018, 07:49 PM
You're an expert on letting dudes fuck your wife, not the law.

No legal expertise needed to know you're wrong. Just base reading comprehension and the desire to do a 2 minute Google.

You're just lazier and a lot more stupid than average.
Spurtacular
10-05-2018, 10:36 PM
No legal expertise needed to know you're wrong. Just base reading comprehension and the desire to do a 2 minute Google.

You're just lazier and a lot more stupid than average.

Speaking of lazy, how much does your ex-wife have to pay you in alimony each month?
Pavlov
10-06-2018, 02:43 AM
Speaking of lazy, how much does your ex-wife have to pay you in alimony each month?:lol still trying so hard to run away from your own argument.
Blake
10-06-2018, 12:03 PM
Speaking of lazy, how much does your ex-wife have to pay you in alimony each month?

Lol can't use mention function.

You're such a pussy. And you're stalling.
Spurtacular
10-06-2018, 04:05 PM
Lol can't use mention function.

You're such a pussy. And you're stalling.

I've been talking directly to you, idiot.

So, how much does your ex-wife pay you in alimony each month?
Spurtacular
10-06-2018, 04:08 PM
:lol still trying so hard to run away from your own argument.

:lol "Running" from something that ran its course days ago.
Pavlov
10-06-2018, 04:13 PM
:lol "Running" from something that ran its course days ago.Yeah, you started talking out of your ass and got called on it, so you made up more shit, got called on that and you're still running.

:lol derp
Spurtacular
10-06-2018, 04:15 PM
Yeah, you started talking out of your ass and got called on it, so you made up more shit, got called on that and you're still running.

:lol derp

:lol Looking for your tiny W's either way (on a debate that didn't include you).
:lol Normal people move one.
Pavlov
10-06-2018, 04:18 PM
:lol Looking for your tiny W's either way (on a debate that didn't include you).
:lol Normal people move one.And yet, you're here still making shit up.

You were wrong.

Twitter violated no laws in it's banning of James Woods whatsoever.

You couldn't even try to name a law.

Now try to distract from those simple facts.

:lol derp
Spurtacular
10-06-2018, 04:20 PM
And yet, you're here still making shit up.

You were wrong.

Twitter violated no laws in it's banning of James Woods whatsoever.

You couldn't even try to name a law.

Now try to distract from those simple facts.

:lol derp

It's a good thing you said this for a 23rd time in case people didn't know your position.
Pavlov
10-06-2018, 04:21 PM
It's a good thing you said this for a 23rd time in case people didn't know your position.:lol those are the simple facts.

Do you deny them?
Spurtacular
10-06-2018, 04:30 PM
:lol those are the simple facts.

Do you deny them?

I don't deny that you want to make yourself a part of a debate in search of your little w.
Pavlov
10-06-2018, 04:50 PM
I don't deny that you want to make yourself a part of a debate in search of your little w.So you accept all the simple facts I posted above.:tu
Spurtacular
10-06-2018, 04:56 PM
So you accept all the simple facts I posted above.:tu

Maybe if you post them for the 24th time. I might not 've caught it all.
Pavlov
10-06-2018, 05:03 PM
Maybe if you post them for the 24th time. I might not 've caught it all.
Nope, you didn't refute them so you accept them.

lol derp
Spurtacular
10-06-2018, 05:04 PM
Nope, you didn't refute them so you accept them.

lol derp

:lmao Sociopath logic.
Pavlov
10-06-2018, 05:05 PM
:lmao Sociopath logic.
:lol buzzword crutch
Spurtacular
10-06-2018, 05:09 PM
:lol buzzword crutch

So, you think your logic is infallible?
Pavlov
10-06-2018, 05:13 PM
So, you think your logic is infallible?Nope.

You're simply incredibly and consistently wrong about the simplest things. The fact you can't admit when you've been proved wrong by a knowledgeable and polite guy like Nono is just hilarious.
Spurtacular
10-06-2018, 07:11 PM
Nope, you didn't refute them so you accept them.



Sociopath logic.


So, you think your logic is infallible?


Nope.


:lmao Today's sociopath.
:lmao Contradicting himself.
:lmao Par
Pavlov
10-06-2018, 07:15 PM
:lmao Today's sociopath.
:lmao Contradicting himself.
:lmao ParI didn't contradict myself at all. My logic is not infallible in all cases.

In this case, you have done absolutely nothing to refute my logic.

lol derp understands nothing
Spurtacular
10-06-2018, 07:22 PM
I didn't contradict myself at all. My logic is not infallible in all cases.


Yup. You just gave me your most recent fallible logic.
Pavlov
10-06-2018, 07:24 PM
Yup. You just gave me your most recent fallible logic.Yup, you've completely abandoned every claim you made in this thread.

:lmao
Spurtacular
10-06-2018, 07:35 PM
Yup, you've completely abandoned every claim you made in this thread.

:lmao

Good thing you're telling us for the 27th time.
Pavlov
10-06-2018, 07:39 PM
Good thing you're telling us for the 27th time.Good thing you never denied it.
Spurtacular
10-06-2018, 08:54 PM
Good thing you never denied it.

Which is acceptance according to the latest sociopath doctrine. Yet you still feel the need to argue cos you don't believe your own shit. :lol
Blake
10-06-2018, 08:55 PM
I've been talking directly to you, idiot.

So, how much does your ex-wife pay you in alimony each month?

Lol can't use the mention.

Still stalling
Spurtacular
10-06-2018, 08:56 PM
Lol can't use the mention.

Still stalling

:lol "Obsession" good now.
:lol Today's cuck.
Pavlov
10-06-2018, 08:57 PM
Which is acceptance according to the latest sociopath doctrine. Yet you still feel the need to argue cos you don't believe your own shit. :lolDo you deny that you've abandoned all your claims, derp?

Yes or no.
Spurtacular
10-06-2018, 08:58 PM
Do you deny that you've abandoned all your claims, derp?

Yes or no.

The debate ran its course. You certainly are free to do your spin on something that didn't involve you. Par even.
Pavlov
10-06-2018, 09:00 PM
The debate ran its course.You abandoned every stupid argument you tried to make.

That's why the debate is over.

Resolved: You had no idea what you were talking about.
Spurtacular
10-06-2018, 09:00 PM
You abandoned every stupid argument you tried to make.

That's why the debate is over.

Then, why are you so triggered?
Pavlov
10-06-2018, 09:05 PM
Then, why are you so triggered?I'm mocking you.

If it's all over and settled, why are you still here stamping your feet?
Spurtacular
10-06-2018, 09:13 PM
I'm mocking you.

If it's all over and settled, why are you still here stamping your feet?

:lol The guy making the same statement of victory 30 times worried about "stamping your feet"
:lol Today's sociopath
Pavlov
10-06-2018, 09:13 PM
:lol The guy making the same statement of victory 30 times worried about "stamping your feet"
:lol Today's sociopathI was asking if you refuted any of it.

You didn't.

If it's all over and settled, why are you still here stamping your feet?
Blake
10-06-2018, 09:28 PM
:lol "Obsession" good now.
:lol Today's cuck.

Your obsession is funny. Especially after you flew your white flag in this thread.
Pavlov
10-06-2018, 09:29 PM
This will be instructive.

Derp, were you wrong about anything at all in this thread?
Spurtacular
10-06-2018, 09:42 PM
Your obsession is funny. Especially after you flew your white flag in this thread.

:lol You're just stringing words together.
Blake
10-07-2018, 09:05 AM
You're waving a white flag. You've given up. You surrender. You're an idiot.

I can't make those statements any simpler.
Spurtacular
10-07-2018, 11:30 AM
I can't make those statements any simpler.

Agreed.

:lol Today's simpleton
Blake
10-07-2018, 05:16 PM
Agreed.

:lol Today's simpleton

You just said they were just words strung together.

You suck at whatever this is you're trying to do.
Spurtacular
10-07-2018, 09:09 PM
You just said they were just words strung together.

You suck at whatever this is you're trying to do.

The were just words strung together by a simpleton. Don't worry; I don't expect you to keep up.
Blake
10-07-2018, 10:22 PM
:lol you're the only one that can't keep up in this thread.....regarding a simple 1st amendment legal concept.
Pavlov
10-08-2018, 03:17 AM
:lol you're the only one that can't keep up in this thread.....regarding a simple 1st amendment legal concept.NO TWITTER IS TOTALLY VIOLATING SOME LAW I'VE NEVER HEARD OF IN SOME JURISDICTION IN EITHER THIS UNIVERSE OR ANOTHER ONE THAT STILL COUNTS FOR MY W.