James Woods banned by Twitter because...... drum roll......

[FrostKing]

This meme

https://i.imgur.com/rFJIZ3y.jpg

[ElNono]

This fake news was already posted, tbh

[FrostKing]

This fake news was already posted, tbh
Where and fake in what way?

[Blake]

Lol Woods

[FrostKing]

Lol Woods
Twitter needs to just ban Trump already and blow this Cultural War up a notch

[spurraider21]

Where and fake in what way?
fake because james woods was not banned by twitter

[djohn2oo8]

Frosty the snowflake.

[Chris]

Snowflake is a term used for the Left, mainly Liberals.

[Winehole23]

if the shoe fits, wear it

[Nathan89]

fake because james woods was not banned by twitter

James Woods locked out of Twitter account for posting hoax meme in July
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/james-woods-locked-out-of-twitter-account-for-posting-hoax-meme-in-july/

[Nathan89]

Twitter really doesn't think much of Dems if they think this would lead to them not voting tbh.

[spurraider21]

James Woods locked out of Twitter account for posting hoax meme in July


https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/james-woods-locked-out-of-twitter-account-for-posting-hoax-meme-in-july/
yup. so not banned

thanks

[Nathan89]

yup. so not banned

thanks

If he's locked out it's a temporary ban. Regardless it's a punishment for nothing. You made it sound like nothing happened.

[ElNono]

If he's locked out it's a temporary ban. Regardless it's a punishment for nothing. You made it sound like nothing happened.

The thread title make it sound he was permanently banned. He wasn't.

[spurraider21]

If he's locked out it's a temporary ban. Regardless it's a punishment for nothing. You made it sound like nothing happened.
:lol

[Winehole23]

for Mr.Woods and for Nathan89, it was a very painful slap on the wrist

[Nathan89]

The thread title make it sound he was permanently banned. He wasn't.

Ok, so correct the record. Don't swing to opposite side of things which is even more deceiving because he was banned but only temporarily. It's still a punishment.

[Nathan89]

Dems should be insulted by how stupid Twitter thinks they are tbh

[ElNono]

This isn't a liberal/conservative thing... today, or even last week, when the posts were made, he was just plainly not banned. The supposed outrage that we're supposed to feel about him getting banned for whatever the hell he wants to post doesn't effectively exist (yet anyways).

Furthermore, the temporary ban was actually due to the fact that the content is a hoax, aka fake news. So we have a double-fake-news violation right there, lol.

Now we loop back to the other topic, which is Congress asking these companies to tackle fake news...

[DMC]

I realize Twitter is a privately owned company so they can rightly allow or disallow content as they see fit, no issue there. However, the trend is going to become steeper toward censorship, and it likely won't be done impartially. Agents on both sides (not actual agents) who pull these levers have bias when deciding. It's always been true and now it's simply a company trying to protect itself from litigation while watching the bottom line.

People who post misleading shit should be dealt with though. While Twitter has millions of users, Woods has at least a million followers. Their actions toward him are understandable while his are likely intended to sway an audience. If it's not true, don't post it. Woods knows things like that catch fire and change hearts and minds so I have no sympathy for him, Alex Jones or anyone else using such a large private forum to spread misinformation and manipulate the masses. Plus I don't want to hear someone say "guys are staying home this year, so women really need to get out and vote".

[hater]

The thread title make it sound he was permanently banned. He wasn't.

Howso it says banned not premanently banned

Methinks you got fake new brah

[hater]

This isn't a liberal/conservative thing... today, or even last week, when the posts were made, he was just plainly not banned. The supposed outrage that we're supposed to feel about him getting banned for whatever the hell he wants to post doesn't effectively exist (yet anyways).

Furthermore, the temporary ban was actually due to the fact that the content is a hoax, aka fake news. So we have a double-fake-news violation right there, lol.

Now we loop back to the other topic, which is Congress asking these companies to tackle fake news...

Regardless of the title. Woods has a point. He posted that meme saying “this is probably fake but I would not be surprised if true”

How is that statement fake news??

Also has a point saying he will not be posting there if he is forced to delete his posts. I would do the same in twitter or here :lol

[AaronY]

Poor James woods :depressed
:cry my memes :cry

:cry they're talking away my precious memes :cry

[hater]

Poor James woods :depressed
:cry my memes :cry

:cry they're talking away my precious memes :cry

Standing up for free speech bad now :cry

:lol snowflakes

[dabom]

Standing up for free speech bad now :cry

:lol snowflakes

You missed the from government part faggot. :lmao

[Thanos]

"This is probably fake but won't be surprised if it's true" is Conservatese for "I definitely believe this"

[hater]

You missed the from government part faggot. :lmao

You missed a brain at the brain distribution ceremony snowflake :lol

[Thanos]

Standing up for free speech bad now :cry

:lol snowflakes
not understanding what free speech is :lmao

[hater]

"Let me completely change his words to go with my snowflake agenda"

Post translated from snowflakese to english

[Thanos]

You missed a brain at the brain distribution ceremony snowflake :lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzHTnybolfQ

[hater]

Let me state something with nothing to back it up

Post translated again from snowflakese

[Thanos]

Post translated from snowflakese to english
:lmao in denial because you've said "probably fake but huge if true" so much in the last 2 years.

[Thanos]

:lmao lashing out because he doesn't understand what freedom of speech is.

[hater]

let me say something that makes no sense and attach a lol emoji for good measure.

Translated from snowflakese

[hater]

let me state something with no basis to back It up besides an emoji.

Translated from snowflakese

[dabom]

:lmao lashing out because he doesn't understand what freedom of speech is.

:lol

[Spurminator]

This is a pretty banal thing to be suspended for, honestly. I'm a little surprised given the kind of content that is still allowed on Twitter. Kind of silly to make him a martyr over this.

With that said, James Woods is a fucking tool and so is everyone who takes him seriously. Pretty amazing that someone could tank a successful career because he's so moronically susceptible to conspiracy theories, but some people are just self-destructively stupid.

[leemajors]

Snowflake is a term used for the Left, mainly Liberals.

The term was coined by a gay man.

[hater]

The term was coined by a gay man.

Nothing wrong with that right?

[hater]

This is a pretty banal thing to be suspended for, honestly. I'm a little surprised given the kind of content that is still allowed on Twitter. Kind of silly to make him a martyr over this.

With that said, James Woods is a fucking tool and so is everyone who takes him seriously. Pretty amazing that someone could tank a successful career because he's so moronically susceptible to conspiracy theories, but some people are just self-destructively stupid.

Agreed on first part :tu

2nd part disagreed. He is one of the most prolific twitterers out there. Thus why he has 1.4 million followers without being a musician/ reality tv/ politician that pretty damn good. I also read somewhere he is one of the actors with highest IQ out there. Him and Sharon Stone. but respect your opinion :tu

[CNN]

http://i.imgur.com/AvUPi.gif

[Spurminator]

I also read somewhere he is one of the actors with highest IQ out there.

He's either an idiot who is susceptible to ludicrous conspiracies or he's actively pushing things he knows to be untrue. Dude was a huge peddler of #Pizzagate garbage. Maybe he's just a liar. That's worse, though.

[Quadzilla99]

The term was coined by a gay man.

Only snowflakes think that, you snowflake!

[koriwhat]

fuck twitter! i got banned and it seems for good or at least another 2 yrs like last time. got banned all because i told an open pedophile that we'd be better off with him hanging from a bridge burning. i guess only pedophiles and isis are allowed on twitter.

twitter's response is cringe worthy to say the least. "boo hoo don't harass pedophiles on our platform. we love kid fuckers."

[spurraider21]

fuck twitter! i got banned and it seems for good or at least another 2 yrs like last time. got banned all because i told an open pedophile that we'd be better off with him hanging from a bridge burning. i guess only pedophiles and isis are allowed on twitter.

twitter's response is cringe worthy to say the least. "boo hoo don't harass pedophiles on our platform. we love kid fuckers."
yes thats the logical deduction

[koriwhat]

yes thats the logical deduction

it is. there's pedo's a plenty on twitter as well as isis pages. that platform is sickening.

[Spurminator]

it is. there's pedo's a plenty on twitter as well as isis pages.

Have you reported them?

Post one.

[koriwhat]

Have you reported them?

Post one.

i can't even get on twitter anymore nor view anything on twitter since. when i was banned i sent an email describing what was what but they want my phone# and well, twitter and jack dorsey can go suck a dick! pedo's are everywhere on that platform though. no lie.

[koriwhat]

.

"@zandexbl F you pedos! whether you think it or act on it yall should all be hung in public. go eat dirt!"

"@zandexbl can't wait til hanging of pedos on nat'l tv is a thing. burn in hell!"

that's the dude. 1 of many other "MAPs" or better known as fucking sick and twisted pedophiles.

[spurraider21]

"@zandexbl F you pedos! whether you think it or act on it yall should all be hung in public. go eat dirt!"

"@zandexbl can't wait til hanging of pedos on nat'l tv is a thing. burn in hell!"

that's the dude. 1 of many other "MAPs" or better known as fucking sick and twisted pedophiles.
:lmao

you go demanding the public killing of users and complain about getting banned

[Pavlov]

.

[koriwhat]

:lmao

you go demanding the public killing of users and complain about getting banned

you must love pedos or be one yourself to not want the same as i when it comes to those sick and twisted individuals. not wanting to rid this world of that kind of filth is perplexing imo.

[spurraider21]

you must love pedos or be one yourself to not want the same as i when it comes to those sick and twisted individuals. not wanting to rid this world of that kind of filth is perplexing imo.
yup. no middle ground between demanding someone's death or loving everything about the person. none at all.

good job!

[koriwhat]

yup. no middle ground between demanding someone's death or loving everything about the person. none at all.

good job!

demanding the death of all pedophiles is something you're upset about i can see. why is that? definitely makes me wonder about you. very interesting.

there's definitely no grey area when it comes to pedophiles at least not in my mind. they're all better off dead. what's your stance exactly?

[Pavlov]

you must love pedos or be one yourself to not want the same as i when it comes to those sick and twisted individuals. not wanting to rid this world of that kind of filth is perplexing imo.Were you like trying to go undercover to expose pedos or something?

This account is....weird....

[koriwhat]

Were you like trying to go undercover to expose pedos or something?

This account is....weird....

nope. dude popped up in a thread i was reading and thought what he was saying was odd so i checked his bio. it said enough about what he is and what he's into.

[koriwhat]

spurraider21 is about to paint his/her ass into a corner i see.

[Pavlov]

nope. dude popped up in a thread i was reading and thought what he was saying was odd so i checked his bio. it said enough about what he is and what he's into.And you're Zandex@zandexbl?

[koriwhat]

And you're Zandex@zandexbl?

no, i tweeted to @zandexbl. told you that you were dense.

[Pavlov]

no, i tweeted to @zandexbl. told you that you were dense.That makes more sense.

:lol twitter death threats

But how did you find this guy?

[spurraider21]

demanding the death of all pedophiles is something you're upset about i can see. why is that? definitely makes me wonder about you. very interesting.

there's definitely no grey area when it comes to pedophiles at least not in my mind. they're all better off dead. what's your stance exactly?
i think we can all agree pedo behavior is wrong/disturbing and should not be tolerated, for many obvious reasons

that being said, if a person has thoughts/urges to commit wrongful acts, that alone should not be grounds for punishment. especially if they are aware that their urges are wrong and therefore do not act on them.

if the thought of screwing around with another woman enters a married man's head, that doesn't mean he's a scumbag and his wife should divorce him. he recognizes the act would be wrong and chooses not to engage. for instance, you seem to fantasize about having people murdered on a nearly daily basis. i dont think that should be grounds to have you arrested and face the death penalty.

[koriwhat]

That makes more sense.

:lol twitter death threats

But how did you find this guy?

omg man... you're getting more dense with every question you ask. that has already been fucking answered in replies previously if only you'd fucking take the time to read them. jesus christ!

[Pavlov]

omg man... you're getting more dense with every question you ask. that has already been fucking answered in replies previously if only you'd fucking take the time to read them. jesus christ!I read them.

You said nothing about how you found these people.

[koriwhat]

i think we can all agree pedo behavior is wrong/disturbing and should not be tolerated, for many obvious reasons

that being said, if a person has thoughts/urges to commit wrongful acts, that alone should not be grounds for punishment. especially if they are aware that their urges are wrong and therefore do not act on them.

if the thought of screwing around with another woman enters a married man's head, that doesn't mean he's a scumbag and his wife should divorce him. he recognizes the act would be wrong and chooses not to engage.

so does that married man label himself as so? a married man with thoughts of adultery like that of a pedophile labeling themselves a "MAP"? you see the flawed logic in your thinking yet?

as far as i'm concerned, if you are a known pedo, whether you act on it or not, you should be dispose of. you want to live among us all with a sick mind then keep your sickness to yourself.

[koriwhat]

I read them.

You said nothing about how you found these people.

he popped up in a thread. guess your reading comprehension skills are lackluster at best.

[Pavlov]

he popped up in a thread. guess your reading comprehension skills are lackluster at best.What thread does a pedo just "pop up" in?

[spurraider21]

so does that married man label himself as so? a married man with thoughts of adultery like that of a pedophile labeling themselves a "MAP"? you see the flawed logic in your thinking yet?

as far as i'm concerned, if you are a known pedo, whether you act on it or not, you should be dispose of. you want to live among us all with a sick mind then keep your sickness to yourself.
so your main concern is that they let it be known and assign a label to it?

so if you're a closet MAP or whatever, then fine you get to live (in your words "keep your sickness to yourself"). but if you acknowledge to the public that you have attractions but are aware that they are wrong and therefore won't act on them, then you should be put to death via public hanging

lol

[koriwhat]

What thread does a pedo just "pop up" in?

dude, i have no clue what it was. probably a tweet from james woods for all i know. can't remember, don't care, and really don't care about a back and forth with you today. go play in traffic faggot.

[koriwhat]

...if you acknowledge to the public that you have attractions but are aware that they are wrong and therefore won't act on them, then you should be put to death via public hanging...

it's all a matter of time imo.

[Pavlov]

dude, i have no clue what it was. probably a tweet from james woods for all i know. can't remember, don't care, and really don't care about a back and forth with you today. go play in traffic faggot.So did he say pedo stuff in the thread or did you research him?

[spurraider21]

it's all a matter of time imo.
but if they keep it to themselves you have no problem with them lmao

their acknowledging their problem is for some reason the red line for you

[koriwhat]

but if they keep it to themselves you have no problem with them lmao

their acknowledging their problem is for some reason the red line for you

i wouldn't know, the world wouldn't know, so how do you suppose we'd all know? coming out is just them trying to normalize it just like claiming they're "MAPs" and not what they truly are which is predatory pedophiles!

either way, you're not going to change my mind. they all should be taken behind the shed and get a bullet to their heads.

[spurraider21]

i wouldn't know, the world wouldn't know, so how do you suppose we'd all know? coming out is just them trying to normalize it just like claiming they're "MAPs" and not what they truly are which is predatory pedophiles!

either way, you're not going to change my mind. they all should be taken behind the shed and get a bullet to their heads.
so yeah, you think people should be killed if they put a label on their internal thoughts that they dont act on.

and if they haven't acted on their thoughts, then they arent "predatory pedophiles." they're just people with issues and imo its better if they acknowledge it because then perhaps they can seek treatment/help and be monitored.

otherwise, you should be arrested and face the death penalty right now for talking about your fantasy to have all these people shot in the head, which would be mass murder

[koriwhat]

so yeah, you think people should be killed if they put a label on their internal thoughts that they dont act on.

and if they haven't acted on their thoughts, then they arent "predatory pedophiles." they're just people with issues and imo its better if they acknowledge it because then perhaps they can seek treatment/help and be monitored.

otherwise, you should be arrested and face the death penalty right now for talking about your fantasy to have all these people shot in the head, which would be mass murder

you're just a pedophile sympathizer is all. what's in your closet? what are you hiding? this is getting a bit odd imo considering how much you're standing up for the scum of the earth.

[spurraider21]

you're just a pedophile sympathizer is all. what's in your closet? what are you hiding? this is getting a bit odd imo considering how much you're standing up for the scum of the earth.

yup. no middle ground between demanding someone's death or loving everything about the person. none at all.

good job!

[Pavlov]

you're just a pedophile sympathizer is all. what's in your closet? what are you hiding? this is getting a bit odd imo considering how much you're standing up for the scum of the earth.:rollin

[koriwhat]

your reply before was a great dodge blanket statement about "people with internal issues"... i'm speaking about pedo's first and foremost. i don't care about people with internal issues who haven't come forward and labeled themselves as so.

keep sympathizing with the bottom of the barrel. it's great to know where you stand on this issue you pedophile sympathizer.

[spurraider21]

your reply before was a great dodge blanket statement about "people with internal issues"... i'm speaking about pedo's first and foremost. i don't care about people with internal issues who haven't come forward and labeled themselves as so.

keep sympathizing with the bottom of the barrel. it's great to know where you stand on this issue you pedophile sympathizer.
you're speaking about people that have not committed wrongful acts.

you are effectively calling men who have daydreamed about fucking their coworker adulterers and then saying "why are you defending adulterers"

if people realize that their thoughts/desires are inappropriate and choose not to act on them, i dont think they should be murdered for that. you do. which is completely consistent with your rage-filled personality. cant even imagine how much worse you'd be without the weed to "calm" you down

[koriwhat]

you're speaking about people that have not committed wrongful acts.

you are effectively calling men who have daydreamed about fucking their coworker adulterers and then saying "why are you defending adulterers"

if people realize that their thoughts/desires are inappropriate and choose not to act on them, i dont think they should be murdered for that. you do. which is completely consistent with your rage-filled personality. cant even imagine how much worse you'd be without the weed to "calm" you down

so you think these pedophile "MAPs" aren't viewing/downloading/sharing/storing child abuse photos/videos? are you that naive?

you must've sided with all the dudes in "to catch a predator" too when they claimed they were just there to help with homework, watch some tv, or play a video game all the while carrying condoms, alcohol, and drugs to meet up with said minor.

[Blake]

fuck twitter! i got banned and it seems for good or at least another 2 yrs like last time. got banned all because i told an open pedophile that we'd be better off with him hanging from a bridge burning. i guess only pedophiles and isis are allowed on twitter.

twitter's response is cringe worthy to say the least. "boo hoo don't harass pedophiles on our platform. we love kid fuckers."

Fuck James Woods! I hope he dies!

#koriwhatrant

[Isitjustme?]

All this discussion of pedophilia and ducks nowhere to be found despite wanting to pee in front of teenage daughters

[spurraider21]

so you think these pedophile "MAPs" aren't viewing/downloading/sharing/storing child abuse photos/videos? are you that naive?

you must've sided with all the dudes in "to catch a predator" too when they claimed they were just there to help with homework, watch some tv, or play a video game all the while carrying condoms, alcohol, and drugs to meet up with said minor.
nah, if they get caught with anything obviously they should be prosecuted for it.

but that's not what was being idscussed

[ElNono]

Regardless of the title. Woods has a point. He posted that meme saying “this is probably fake but I would not be surprised if true”

How is that statement fake news??

Also has a point saying he will not be posting there if he is forced to delete his posts. I would do the same in twitter or here :lol

From what I read, what he re-tweeted (and it's in the OP) was a campaign from an actual politically paid group to discourage voters, which is why Twitter took issue, since he could easily comment on it without actually disseminating it.

So it wasn't just fake news, but actually paid for fake news.

[hater]

From what I read, what he re-tweeted (and it's in the OP) was a campaign from an actual politically paid group to discourage voters, which is why Twitter took issue, since he could easily comment on it without actually disseminating it.

So it wasn't just fake news, but actually paid for fake news.

That same thing was retweeted thousand times and twitter did not ban all retweeters

If tweeter banned all retweeters of fake news they would end up with about 10 members :lmao

[hater]

Just did a quick search and that post still being retweeted :lol

Also found this which probably should be considerd interference too? :lmao that guy still online :lmao

https://twitter.com/dochowe/status/1044940591459635206?s=21

[Spurminator]

"@zandexbl F you pedos! whether you think it or act on it yall should all be hung in public. go eat dirt!"

"@zandexbl can't wait til hanging of pedos on nat'l tv is a thing. burn in hell!"

that's the dude. 1 of many other "MAPs" or better known as fucking sick and twisted pedophiles.

I asked you to post tweets of pedos or ISIS. You posted someone suggesting the death penalty for pedos. I don't see how that falls under a pedo or ISIS posting on Twitter.

[Bill_Brasky]

i think we can all agree pedo behavior is wrong/disturbing and should not be tolerated, for many obvious reasons

that being said, if a person has thoughts/urges to commit wrongful acts, that alone should not be grounds for punishment. especially if they are aware that their urges are wrong and therefore do not act on them.

if the thought of screwing around with another woman enters a married man's head, that doesn't mean he's a scumbag and his wife should divorce him. he recognizes the act would be wrong and chooses not to engage. for instance, you seem to fantasize about having people murdered on a nearly daily basis. i dont think that should be grounds to have you arrested and face the death penalty.

You don't have to lower yourself to explaining anything to that loon, spur.

[spurraider21]

Just did a quick search and that post still being retweeted :lol

Also found this which probably should be considerd interference too? :lmao that guy still online :lmao

https://twitter.com/dochowe/status/1044940591459635206?s=21
look at that guys twitter. he's a big time trumper, you dolt

99% of his content is retweeting the same people chrisbot does

[hater]

look at that guys twitter. he's a big time trumper, you dolt

99% of his content is retweeting the same people chrisbot does

My point is that hes still not banned :lmao

So much for banning ppl that post that meme :lmao

[Spurminator]

It's likely (and understandable) that they would prioritize high-follower accounts and not random people with 500 bot followers.

[spurraider21]

My point is that hes still not banned :lmao

So much for banning ppl that post that meme :lmao
he didnt post the meme. you are allowed to voice your opinion that men should stay home.

the problem with the meme posted by Woods is that it represents that the Democrat party was behind that ad.

[hater]

he didnt post the meme. you are allowed to voice your opinion that men should stay home.

the problem with the meme posted by Woods is that it represents that the Democrat party was behind that ad.

Others did and still do. Just a quick search :lol

https://twitter.com/mrsp00ky/status/1043639935394373632?s=21

https://twitter.com/losdragonflyos/status/1043277668656054273?s=21

[koriwhat]

You don't have to lower yourself to explaining anything to that loon, spur.

yall both are loons tbh

[Blake]

yall both are loons tbh

burrrrnnnn

[koriwhat]

burrrrnnnn

the burn you feel is that of your ex leaving you for a real man and not some bitch boy who sobs endlessly on his couch like yo ass.

[ElNono]

That same thing was retweeted thousand times and twitter did not ban all retweeters

If tweeter banned all retweeters of fake news they would end up with about 10 members :lmao

I'm just saying what was the rationale. I'm not twitter, nor make their decisions.

[Blake]

the burn you feel is that of your ex leaving you for a real man and not some bitch boy who sobs endlessly on his couch like yo ass.

I bet I can guess the burn you're feeling, druggy.

[koriwhat]

I bet I can guess the burn you're feeling, druggy.

whatever spineless girly man. you were no ones boyfriend ever considering your lack of testosterone. just a sad excuse of a "man" you are.

[Blake]

Sure, druggy.

[Bill_Brasky]

yall both are loons tbh

You have the mental aptitude of a 5th grader. Like, for real. You're lucky that people actually pay good money to have things drawn on their skin. Just stick to that, please.

[koriwhat]

You have the mental aptitude of a 5th grader. Like, for real. You're lucky that people actually pay good money to have things drawn on their skin. Just stick to that, please.

you have no clue as i print cad work on my 3d printer. kids are pretty brilliant with computers/electronics these days though.

[Blake]

Kw confirming that he's not smarter than a 5th grader

[hater]

I'm just saying what was the rationale. I'm not twitter, nor make their decisions.

Well it was not the rationale as other have not been banned

[Blake]

Well it was not the rationale as other have not been banned

Why is this important to you?

[hater]

Why is this important to you?

Freedom of speech is very important to me

[Blake]

Freedom of speech is very important to me

Woods is still free to speak.

[hater]

Woods is still free to speak.

not to his 1.4 million twitter followers

[spurraider21]

not to his 1.4 million twitter followers
twitter isn't required to give him a microphone

[hater]

twitter isn't required to give him a microphone

Banning him from twitter infringes on his free speech as he had 1.4 million followers. You can disagree but I believe in that :tu

[Pavlov]

Banning him from twitter infringes on his free speechHow?

Give your legal argument.

[spurraider21]

Banning him from twitter infringes on his free speech as he had 1.4 million followers. You can disagree but I believe in that :tu
thats not what free speech is :tu

[hater]

thats not what free speech is :tu

Banning him infringes on his free speech. Well disagree to disagree :tu

[Pavlov]

Banning him infringes on his free speech. Well disagree to disagree :tuExplain how it is an infringement on free speech.

[spurraider21]

Banning him infringes on his free speech. Well disagree to disagree :tu
you don't know what free speech is :tu

[hater]

you don't know what free speech is :tu

I do. Well disagree to disagree :tu

[Pavlov]

I do.What is free speech, hater?

[Pavlov]

Agree to run away, hater:tu

[Blake]

I do. :tu

Lol no :td

[Spurtacular]

:lol Hater shitting on chumpettes. Par.

[Pavlov]

:lol Hater shitting on chumpettes. Par.:lmao he ran away from a simple question just like you always do.

[Blake]

:lol Hater shitting on chumpettes. Par.

:lol :lol a whole bunch of people took turns taking giant shits in you for the same thing in the Alex Jones thread, retard.

[LGBTQIAPK & G-D]

:lol :lol a whole bunch of people took turns taking giant shits in you for the same thing in the Alex Jones thread, retard.

You tell him, cuck!

[Blake]

Poor derp

[Spurtacular]

Poor derp

How much alimony does your ex-wife have to pay to you?

[Spurtacular]

:lol :lol a whole bunch of people took turns taking giant shits in you for the same thing in the Alex Jones thread, retard.

:lol Cuck thinking he has a card to play.

[ElNono]

Well it was not the rationale as other have not been banned

Streisand effect, tbh... then again, not sure why these people whine. Twitter is no different than Spurstalk banning Avante... it's not a democracy...

[Blake]

Derp thinks someone must be laughing with him.

Poor derp

[DMC]

That same thing was retweeted thousand times and twitter did not ban all retweeters

If tweeter banned all retweeters of fake news they would end up with about 10 members :lmao

Fairness and commerce rarely mix. Heavy hitters get more attention by everyone, they will therefore get more scrutiny. The one off types don't move the needle.

[Spurtacular]

Fairness and commerce rarely mix. Heavy hitters get more attention by everyone, they will therefore get more scrutiny. The one off types don't move the needle.

By that same token, heavy hitters should get more latitude. Twitter is disrespecting a broad base of people with their targeting based on ideology.

[DMC]

By that same token, heavy hitters should get more latitude. Twitter is disrespecting a broad base of people with their targeting based on ideology.
You cannot get more scrutiny and more latitude at the same time. You either work under tighter restrictions or you don't. James Woods gets the benefit of having a large audience provided by Twitter. He doesn't also deserve to have leeway because of it. But it's a business so unless Woods is making Twitter millions, he's more of a liability than an asset, and that's how they treated him.

[Spurtacular]

You cannot get more scrutiny and more latitude at the same time. You either work under tighter restrictions or you don't. James Woods gets the benefit of having a large audience provided by Twitter. He doesn't also deserve to have leeway because of it. But it's a business so unless Woods is making Twitter millions, he's more of a liability than an asset, and that's how they treated him.

Woods is not a liability to Twitter.

[Winehole23]

By that same token, heavy hitters should get more latitude. Twitter is disrespecting a broad base of people with their targeting based on ideology.lefties have the same gripe. maybe y'all should compare notes.

[Spurtacular]

lefties have the same gripe. maybe y'all should compare notes.

Tell us what exactly their gripe is.

[Winehole23]

god forbid anyone should deprive you of your precious victimhood

[Spurtacular]

god forbid anyone should deprive you of your precious victimhood

:cry Free speech matters except when it doesn't :cry

[Winehole23]

^^^hugging it tight.

never take off that victim slipper

[Chris]

Tell us what exactly their gripe is.

I'm curious to know as well.

[Winehole23]

you guys are like baby birds, always dependent upon another stomach to digest your dinner.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/08/23/pers-a23.html
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/09/19/goog-s19.html
https://www.salon.com/2017/10/18/fake-news-or-free-speech-is-google-cracking-down-on-left-media/
https://www.michigandaily.com/section/viewpoints/op-ed-why-google-censoring-socialist-websites
https://mic.com/articles/190621/left-wing-news-sites-censored-on-facebook-arent-in-favor-of-banning-alex-jones-either#.HtyKrnNG0
https://dearkitty1.wordpress.com/2018/08/17/anti-left-wing-censorship-on-twitter-facebook/

[DMC]

Woods is not a liability to Twitter.

With this "Russian meddling, fake news on social media fucked Hillary" sites like Facebook and Twitter are afraid of being blamed for Trump.

[ElNono]

With this "Russian meddling, fake news on social media fucked Hillary" sites like Facebook and Twitter are afraid of being blamed for Trump.

We should also add that he becomes a liability when Twitter is called up to Congress to explain what they're doing about fake news. And Woods is certainly a big megaphone for some people that love to take the bait.

[Blake]

:cry Free speech matters except when it doesn't :cry

:lol Woods is free to speak

[hater]

Lol liability

What about cnn or Bullshington post twatter accounts

They post more fake news than woods could ever

[Winehole23]

not only is Woods free to speak, the ban itself has given him a soap box and pissed off audience

[Blake]

Lol liability

What about cnn or Bullshington post twatter accounts

They post more fake news than woods could ever

Prove it

[DMC]

Prove it

Why isn't his allegation good enough? Now proof is required?

[Nathan89]

https://www.dailywire.com/news/36227/twitter-suspends-james-woods-woods-stands-his-ryan-saavedra

I didn't realize the DNC was the party that reported this. I guess they really think their voters are that pathetic.

[boutons_deux]

https://www.dailywire.com/news/36227/twitter-suspends-james-woods-woods-stands-his-ryan-saavedra

I didn't realize the DNC was the party that reported this. I guess they really think their voters are that pathetic.

Repugs KNOW their base is fucking pathetic, and will swallow any turd that Repugs excrete in their direction, swallow with drooling gusto.

[ElNono]

The difference is wapo and cnn use twitter as a bridge to their own platforms. Wood's platform *is* twitter.

[Spurtacular]

you guys are like baby birds, always dependent upon another stomach to digest your dinner.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/08/23/pers-a23.html
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/09/19/goog-s19.html
https://www.salon.com/2017/10/18/fake-news-or-free-speech-is-google-cracking-down-on-left-media/
https://www.michigandaily.com/section/viewpoints/op-ed-why-google-censoring-socialist-websites
https://mic.com/articles/190621/left-wing-news-sites-censored-on-facebook-arent-in-favor-of-banning-alex-jones-either#.HtyKrnNG0
https://dearkitty1.wordpress.com/2018/08/17/anti-left-wing-censorship-on-twitter-facebook/

:lmao Comparing violent anarchists to people wanting to discuss the issues without sugarcoating.
:

[Spurtacular]

With this "Russian meddling, fake news on social media fucked Hillary" sites like Facebook and Twitter are afraid of being blamed for Trump.

:lol Flimsy.
:lol And that's being very generous.

[Spurtacular]

:lol Woods is free to speak

Someone tell Twitter that.

[DMC]

:lol Flimsy.
:lol And that's being very generous.

Black guy gets kicked out of Starbucks - capitalism and free enterprise

GOPer get temp ban on Facebook - 1st Amendment issue

Same basic situation except the 1st was unwarranted.

[boutons_deux]

Facebook blocked the spread of a liberal article because a conservative told it to

How Facebook’s supposedly unbiased fact-checking can go very wrong.

Facebook, in an effort to deal with the fake news crisis, has given five news outlets the power to block the spread of articles they deem “false” on Facebook — empowering them, in essence, to act as the social media giant’s censors. They are the

Associated Press,

FactCheck.org,

Snopes,

PolitiFact, and

the Weekly Standard: :lol

four nonpartisan outlets and one conservative one.

the liberal publication ThinkProgress (https://thinkprogress.org/brett-kavanaugh-said-he-would-kill-roe-v-wade-last-week-and-almost-no-one-noticed-c0e98494b06d/) published a piece on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing with

the headline “Brett Kavanaugh said he would kill Roe v. Wade and almost no one noticed.”

The fact-checker for the Weekly Standard (https://www.weeklystandard.com/holmes-lybrand/fact-check-has-brett-kavanaugh-stated-hed-overturn-roe-v-wade) ruled it was false.

Facebook’s punishment mechanism kicked in, and

the ThinkProgress article was cut off from being seen by about 80 percent of its potential Facebook audience (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mark-zuckerberg-protecting-democracy-is-an-arms-race-heres-how-facebook-can-help-win-it/2018/09/04/53b3c8ee-b083-11e8-9a6a-565d92a3585d_story.html?utm_term=.8d525d8adb5b).

The stakes here are high: Facebook provides about 10 to 15 percent of ThinkProgress’s traffic (https://thinkprogress.org/facebook-weekly-standard-fact-check-thinkprogress-6176df1d5749/),

which means that getting choked off from readers there is a nontrivial hit to its readership.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/12/17848026/facebook-thinkprogress-weekly-standard

Goddamn, FB is as stupid as it is incompetent and corrupt.

[Spurtacular]

Black guy gets kicked out of Starbucks - capitalism and free enterprise

GOPer get temp ban on Facebook - 1st Amendment issue

Same basic situation except the 1st was unwarranted.

No. Different conventions. Different mediums. Different issues.

[Blake]

Someone tell Twitter that.

I'm telling you that.

[DMC]

No. Different conventions. Different mediums. Different issues.

Medium is irrelevant. What's relevant is that it's a private business and that your rights aren't infringed upon by service or lack thereof. Twitter can ban anyone it wants without violating any rights. Only the market punishes them for it, not the government. This becomes a gray area where content is concerned, it seems.

[Blake]

Black guy gets kicked out of Starbucks - capitalism and free enterprise



Well no, a black guy can't get kicked out for being black

[DMC]

Well no, a black guy can't get kicked out for being black

Woods didn't get banned for being white or being conservative. What's your point?

Black guy got kicked out because he didn't buy anything. Woods got temp ban for spreading false narrative.

[Spurtacular]

Medium is irrelevant. What's relevant is that it's a private business and that your rights aren't infringed upon by service or lack thereof. Twitter can ban anyone it wants without violating any rights. Only the market punishes them for it, not the government. This becomes a gray area where content is concerned, it seems.

The medium is very relevant. Consumer space vs. cyber space are two different things. Nuisance laws apply in physical space in ways they don't apply online. I agree that online businesses have rights of control, but there's a mitigating factor when their business is the exchange of information not associated to products. People aren't signing up for FB or Twitter on the basis that they need them to tell them what they can and cannot say.

[Pavlov]

The medium is very relevant. Consumer space vs. cyber space are two different things. Nuisance laws apply in physical space in ways they don't apply online. I agree that online businesses have rights of control, but there's a mitigating factor when their business is the exchange of information not associated to products. People aren't signing up for FB or Twitter on the basis that they need them to tell them what they can and cannot say.:lol words

[Blake]

Woods didn't get banned for being white or being conservative. What's your point?

Black guy got kicked out because he didn't buy anything. Woods got temp ban for spreading false narrative.

You said "black guy".

You could have just said "guy gets kicked out for not buying anything" but you didn't.

[boutons_deux]

Well no, a black guy can't get kicked out for being black

easy exercise: do you think if those black guys had been white that Starbucks would have sic'd the police on them?

blacks lose out, kicked out, suspected for 1000s things

eg, blacks get less aggressive cancer treatment than whites.

[Blake]

The medium is very relevant. Consumer space vs. cyber space are two different things. Nuisance laws apply in physical space in ways they don't apply online. I agree that online businesses have rights of control, but there's a mitigating factor when their business is the exchange of information not associated to products. People aren't signing up for FB or Twitter on the basis that they need them to tell them what they can and cannot say.

http://static.tumblr.com/cgqgvir/AuJm53hg1/steve-carrell-is-articulate.gif

[ElNono]

The medium is very relevant. Consumer space vs. cyber space are two different things. Nuisance laws apply in physical space in ways they don't apply online. I agree that online businesses have rights of control, but there's a mitigating factor when their business is the exchange of information not associated to products. People aren't signing up for FB or Twitter on the basis that they need them to tell them what they can and cannot say.

There's no such laws. You should talk to your Congressmen about getting government involved to make laws to regulate FB and Twitter.

[ElNono]

But then, because it's *government* that would be involved in regulating free speech, they would likely be violating the 1st Amendment.

[ElNono]

Especially in light of Citizen's United, which established that private companies are people.

[Pavlov]

But then, because it's *government* that would be involved in regulating free speech, they would likely be violating the 1st Amendment.
https://media1.tenor.com/images/ea54fde4b4a8303a0650d1dcebd38b7d/tenor.gif

[Blake]

easy exercise: do you if those black guys had been white that Starbucks would have sic'd the police on them?

blacks lose out, kicked out, suspected for 1000s things

eg, blacks get less aggressive cancer treatment than whites.

Well Starbucks caved in pretty fast on that one

[Chucho]

LOL, Derp got fatalitied.

[DMC]

You said "black guy".

You could have just said "guy gets kicked out for not buying anything" but you didn't.

I could have just said "individual". Why did that trigger you? Let's discuss in another thread.

[Blake]

I could have just said "individual". Why did that trigger you? Let's discuss in another thread.

Yeah you could have said "individual". But you added black to it. I got triggered by you getting it wrong.

[Spurtacular]

:lol words

I can see this from your p.o.v. You tend to be a laughing stock.

[Spurtacular]

http://static.tumblr.com/cgqgvir/AuJm53hg1/steve-carrell-is-articulate.gif

:lmao Cuck still his bestie's joke.
:lmao Cuck trying to smack talk.

[Spurtacular]

There's no such laws. You should talk to your Congressmen about getting government involved to make laws to regulate FB and Twitter.

Wrong. The Supreme Court has made numerous decisions on the application of free speech outside of government.

[Pavlov]

I can see this from your p.o.v. You tend to be a laughing stock.It's not my fault you got called out for making shit up again.

:lol derp

[Blake]

Wrong. The Supreme Court has made numerous decisions on the application of free speech outside of government.

:lol you're so stupid

[ElNono]

Wrong. The Supreme Court has made numerous decisions on the application of free speech outside of government.

Such as?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

See the underscore?

[Spurtacular]

Such as?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

See the underscore?

I agree from strict interpretation perspective. But the SC has not been strict about it.

[Spurtacular]

It's not my fault you got called out for making shit up again.

:lol derp

:lol Sociopath worried about "making shit up"

[ElNono]

Ain't you a selfproclaimed libertarian, Spurts? How you reconcile that with seeking government intervention into private companies?

[ElNono]

I agree from strict interpretation perspective. But the SC has not been strict about it.

Exceptions to the 1st Amendment are exceptionally narrow and limited, and normally follow a competing interest, like national security. (ie: yelling bomb in a public place).

[Pavlov]

:lol Sociopath worried about "making shit up"Your entire post was a complete lie.

[Spurtacular]

Exceptions to the 1st Amendment are exceptionally narrow and limited, and normally follow a competing interest, like national security. (ie: yelling bomb in a public place).

They've applied free speech to plenty of scenarios that have nothing to do with Congress or government. This is no secret.

[ElNono]

They've applied free speech to plenty of scenarios that have nothing to do with Congress or government. This is no secret.

If it's no secret, enlighten us. List them. Don't give me the ole 'this is known' and 'common sense'. Just list them.

The only other scenario I can recall is temporary suspension of some of those protections at the border, again, due to national security.

[ElNono]

This is a good rundown on this topic, BTW:

https://corporate.findlaw.com/law-library/freedom-of-speech-in-the-workplace-the-first-amendment-revisited.html

[ShotThroughTheHeart]

:lol Sociopath worried about "making shit up"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9swDIB-d1w

[Blake]

If it's no secret, enlighten us. List them. Don't give me the ole 'this is known' and 'common sense'. Just list them.

:lol good luck with that

And i really mean good luck with that. I want to see what he's talking about for more lolz.

[Pavlov]

:lol good luck with that

And i really mean good luck with that. I want to see what he's talking about for more lolz.:lmao derp running to his closet full of alts whenever he feels threatened.

[Spurtacular]

This is a good rundown on this topic, BTW:

https://corporate.findlaw.com/law-library/freedom-of-speech-in-the-workplace-the-first-amendment-revisited.html

The first amendment prohibited Congress from abridging the free speech of citizenry. It did not state that a lack of decorum among professionals could thusly be not enforced.

[Spurtacular]

:lmao derp running to his closet full of alts whenever he feels threatened.

:lmao "feels threatened"

[Blake]

It did not state that a lack of decorum among professionals could thusly be not enforced.

Lol give an example of a court case then, derp

[Spurtacular]

Lol give an example of a court case then, derp

Calm down, cuck.

[Pavlov]

Calm down, cuck.You haven't cited a single case, derp.

Let's see them.

[Blake]

Calm down, cuck.

:lol what a chicken shit.

[Spurtacular]

You haven't cited a single case, derp.

Let's see them.


:lol what a chicken shit.

:lol Tantrum

[Blake]

:lol Tantrum

Stalling

[Pavlov]

:lol TantrumWe're mocking you, derp.

Still not one citation....

[Spurtacular]

Stalling


We're mocking you, derp.

Still not one citation....

:lol Tantrum. I wasn't even discussing this with either of you snowflakes.

[ElNono]

The first amendment prohibited Congress from abridging the free speech of citizenry. It did not state that a lack of decorum among professionals could thusly be not enforced.

IOW, The first amendment doesn't protect arrangements between 'professionals' or private parties, to be more concise. Only regulates Congress and Congress-created institutions (since Congress is the only branch of government that can create laws), which fall under the same umbrella.

Arrangements between private parties fall into contract law, and such arrangements stipulate what can and cannot be done. If Twitter would want to extend 1st-amendment-like protections to it's users, they can do so in their Terms of Service. They do not, AFAIK. Then again, that has nothing to do with constitutional protections, just as long as they don't run into other constitutionally protected rights or laws that don't specifically limit the government (ie: discrimination by race, color, origin, etc).

That's why I mentioned that if you want government to regulate free speech between private parties, a law would need to be passed by Congress to do that. However, it's a BAD IDEA (tm), if you consider the slippery slope it creates. Today it might help Woods sue Twitter, but tomorrow, it might be used by the next 'Democrat facist' president to shut down opposing voices.

[Pavlov]

:lol Tantrum. I wasn't even discussing this with either of you snowflakes.:lol You never back up any argument you make on this board. You think word count + thesaurus = internets victory

Now avoid backing up your argument some more.

[Spurtacular]

IOW, The first amendment doesn't protect arrangements between 'professionals' or private parties, to be more concise. Only regulates Congress and Congress-created institutions (since Congress is the only branch of government that can create laws), which fall under the same umbrella.

Arrangements between private parties fall into contract law, and such arrangements stipulate what can and cannot be done. If Twitter would want to extend 1st-amendment-like protections to it's users, they can do so in their Terms of Service. They do not, AFAIK. Then again, that has nothing to do with constitutional protections, just as long as they don't run into other constitutionally protected rights or laws that don't specifically limit the government (ie: discrimination by race, color, origin, etc).

That's why I mentioned that if you want government to regulate free speech between private parties, a law would need to be passed by Congress to do that. However, it's a BAD IDEA (tm), if you consider the slippery slope it creates. Today it might help Woods sue Twitter, but tomorrow, it might be used by the next 'Democrat facist' president to shut down opposing voices.

This is all based on granting that Twitter properly enforcing terms of service. It is readily apparent that TOS is being weaponized to go against certain political factions and is thereby violating people's freedom of speech.

[Spurtacular]

:lol You never back up any argument you make on this board. You think word count + thesaurus = internets victory

Now avoid backing up your argument some more.

:lol Today's snowflake


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN7LW0Y00kE

[Pavlov]

This is all based on granting that Twitter properly enforcing terms of service. It is readily apparent that TOS is being weaponized to go against certain political factions and is thereby violating people's freedom of speech.:lol today's word salad

[ElNono]

This is all based on granting that Twitter properly enforcing terms of service. It is readily apparent that TOS is being weaponized to go against certain political factions and is thereby violating people's freedom of speech.

If you don't want to enter into an agreement with Twitter, then you don't. If you do, it's their service and their terms. Nobody is forced to agree to anything, nor anybody's rights being violated.

This is contract law in a nutshell and applies to pretty much any instance when private entities are involved.

If Woods feels like the contract arrangement with Twitter is not being fulfilled, he can always use the courts. I would expect a guy like him, who I'm sure has a lawyer readily available, would've already sued if he had a case.

[ElNono]

Nobody should be mocking anybody else for not knowing something. Nobody was born knowing it all.

Spurt is not the first to be confused about what the 1st amendment protects. I would even go as far as saying it's a fairly common mistake.

Government has other laws or tools to intervene when it feels that certain companies have taken over a certain percent of the market, and hold a dominant position which might be counterproductive to consumer's benefits, such as anti-trust law.

[DMC]

Yeah you could have said "individual". But you added black to it. I got triggered by you getting it wrong.

So the guy wasn't black?

NY Times - Two black men whose arrests at a Starbucks in Philadelphia led to protests and plans for bias training at thousands of the chain’s locations spoke about the ordeal for the first time on Thursday, saying they were not told by the police why they were being escorted out.

Washington Post - Two black men arrested at Starbucks settle with Philadelphia for $1 each

USA Today - The incident at a Philadelphia Starbucks where two black men were arrested while waiting for a white friend is novel in its coverage, but African Americans say this type of treatment isn't new.

CNN - Black men arrested at Philadelphia Starbucks reach agreements


Do you need more or are you just satisfied to be a twat?

[Blake]

Nobody should be mocking anybody else for not knowing something. Nobody was born knowing it all.

Spurt is not the first to be confused about what the 1st amendment protects. I would even go as far as saying it's a fairly common mistake.

Government has other laws or tools to intervene when it feels that certain companies have taken over a certain percent of the market, and hold a dominant position which might be counterproductive to consumer's benefits, such as anti-trust law.

Derp is being mocked for talking out of his ass; not because he's an ignorant retard. I don't mock retards just for being retards.

[Blake]

So the guy wasn't black?

NY Times - Two black men whose arrests at a Starbucks in Philadelphia led to protests and plans for bias training at thousands of the chain’s locations spoke about the ordeal for the first time on Thursday, saying they were not told by the police why they were being escorted out.

Washington Post - Two black men arrested at Starbucks settle with Philadelphia for $1 each

USA Today - The incident at a Philadelphia Starbucks where two black men were arrested while waiting for a white friend is novel in its coverage, but African Americans say this type of treatment isn't new.

CNN - Black men arrested at Philadelphia Starbucks reach agreements


Do you need more or are you just satisfied to be a twat?

Yeah I'm confident they were tossed for being black. I'm not sure you think the same.

[hater]

:lol Today's snowflake


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN7LW0Y00kE

:lol

[DMC]

Yeah I'm confident they were tossed for being black. I'm not sure you think the same.

I never said they were tossed for being black. That's your narrative.

[Blake]

I never said they were tossed for being black. That's your narrative.

It's your sloppy wording.

[DMC]

It's your sloppy wording.


Black guy gets kicked out of Starbucks - capitalism and free enterprise

GOPer get temp ban on Facebook - 1st Amendment issue

Same basic situation except the 1st was unwarranted.

:lol

[Blake]

Black guy gets kicked out of Starbucks - capitalism and free enterprise

Perfectly worded where no one could think anything except what you were thinking.

[DMC]

Perfectly worded where no one could think anything except what you were thinking.

Pretty sure no one else had a problem with it. You go into a goldmine looking for dirt because you just happen to be triggered very easily.

[Blake]

Pretty sure no one else had a problem with it. You go into a goldmine looking for dirt because you just happen to be triggered very easily.

It was a wrong statement and I called you out on it.

If you want to stay pissy about it that's on you.

[Spurtacular]

If you don't want to enter into an agreement with Twitter, then you don't. If you do, it's their service and their terms. Nobody is forced to agree to anything, nor anybody's rights being violated.

This is contract law in a nutshell and applies to pretty much any instance when private entities are involved.

If Woods feels like the contract arrangement with Twitter is not being fulfilled, he can always use the courts. I would expect a guy like him, who I'm sure has a lawyer readily available, would've already sued if he had a case.

You always talk about the legal system as though it's smooth sailing. It isn't. Winning cases can be hard and costly even when you have a case. The wheels of justice move very slowly. In the meantime, a lack of a case is not proof that Twitter is acting legally or within good faith.

[Spurtacular]

Yeah I'm confident they were tossed for being black. I'm not sure you think the same.

:lol Today's cuck

[Blake]

:lol Today's cuck

Still stalling.

[Pavlov]

You always talk about the legal system as though it's smooth sailing. It isn't. Winning cases can be hard and costly even when you have a case. The wheels of justice move very slowly. In the meantime, a lack of a case is not proof that Twitter is acting legally or within good faith.:lol a lack of a case means there is no case.

At all.

Twitter would already have been sued had there been any case.

[ElNono]

You always talk about the legal system as though it's smooth sailing. It isn't. Winning cases can be hard and costly even when you have a case. The wheels of justice move very slowly. In the meantime, a lack of a case is not proof that Twitter is acting legally or within good faith.

America has one of the speediest judicial systems in the world. The problem is that if you think it's slow to win a case even when you have a case, it's even worse when you don't. A decent lawyer probably gave him good advice.

And yeah, a lack of a ruling to the contrary means Twitter is indeed acting legally and in good faith. That's what presumption of innocence is. The burden of proof is on the accuser to prove that's not the case.

I mean, honestly, if there would be even a hint of Twitter's TOS being unenforceable or illegal, they would've been sued a long time ago. They have a lot of money, which puts a big bullseye on them for any seasoned law firm.

[AaronY]

America has one of the speediest judicial systems in the world. The problem is that if you think it's slow to win a case even when you have a case, it's even worse when you don't. A decent lawyer probably gave him good advice.

And yeah, a lack of a ruling to the contrary means Twitter is indeed acting legally and in good faith. That's what presumption of innocence is. The burden of proof is on the accuser to prove that's not the case.

I mean, honestly, if there would be even a hint of Twitter's TOS being unenforceable or illegal, they would've been sued a long time ago. They have a lot of money, which puts a big bullseye on them for any seasoned law firm.
lol wasting reasonable. well thought out, logical argument on Derptacular..fuck wrong with you nono. get a hobby or something

[ElNono]

lol wasting reasonable. well thought out, logical argument on Derptacular..fuck wrong with you nono. get a hobby or something

I have a bunch of hobbies... and black friends... so not a racist, tbh

I'm just educating when I can one post at a time. You just hatin' coz I'm better than the libural MSM...

[DMC]

It was a wrong statement and I called you out on it.

If you want to stay pissy about it that's on you.

:lol no

[spurraider21]

I have a bunch of hobbies... and black friends... so not a racist, tbh

I'm just educating when I can one post at a time. You just hatin' coz I'm better than the libural MSM...
is that what you think is happening? :lol... so naive

derp disregards everything you tell him because you haven't taken the redpill bro

he just knows stuff. its common knowledge.

[ElNono]

is that what you think is happening? :lol... so naive

derp disregards everything you tell him because you haven't taken the redpill bro

he just knows stuff. its common knowledge.

Spurt isn't the only audience here, tbh...

[DMC]

is that what you think is happening? :lol... so naive

derp disregards everything you tell him because you haven't taken the redpill bro

he just knows stuff. its common knowledge.

But nothing like WC who knows just like *SNAP* there it is! The answer.

[AaronY]

is that what you think is happening? :lol... so naive

derp disregards everything you tell him because you haven't taken the redpill bro

he just knows stuff. its common knowledge.
Eggs Actly.

Derp is for dunking on. Nothing more

[Blake]

:lol no

:lol :lol yes. Blacks can't get kicked out for being black.

[Nother Level]

Eggs Actly.

Derp is for dunking on. Nothing more

Yea-hah! Egg actorz in da hizzay!

[Spurtacular]

America has one of the speediest judicial systems in the world.

Among industrialized nations, we're nothing special.

http://data.worldjusticeproject.org/#

[ElNono]

Among industrialized nations, we're nothing special.

http://data.worldjusticeproject.org/#

If you actually look at the breakdown (here: http://data.worldjusticeproject.org/#/groups/USA), what really kills the US are 3 items: discrimination, accessibility & affordability and labor rights.

Not really surprising, but also doesn't invalidate what I said.

[Spurtacular]

If you actually look at the breakdown (here: http://data.worldjusticeproject.org/#/groups/USA), what really kills the US are 3 items: discrimination, accessibility & affordability and labor rights.

Not really surprising, but also doesn't invalidate what I said.

Actually, it does. Affordability affects James Woods too. He may have made some decent income in his day; but his coffers are no match for a giant corporation.

[ElNono]

Actually, it does. Affordability affects James Woods too. He may have made some decent income in his day; but his coffers are no match for a giant corporation.

That's because there's no case. If there would be a sliver of a case, he'll have law firms lining up to represent him. The fact that they are a giant corporation also means a bigger payday.

At any rate, affordability is certainly an issue, especially not just James Wood, but your average American, I can certainly agree with that.

[Spurtacular]

That's because there's no case. If there would be a sliver of a case, he'll have law firms lining up to represent him. The fact that they are a giant corporation also means a bigger payday.

At any rate, affordability is certainly an issue, especially not just James Wood, but your average American, I can certainly agree with that.

Your case is very overstated. James Woods may have a winnable case; but that doesn't mean the numbers say he should go for it. Nor does it mean it's going to be a big draw for law firms.

[Winehole23]

wishcasting. James Woods has no case.

if he did, an enterprising lawyer would be willing to spend his own money on it.

[ElNono]

Your case is very overstated. James Woods may have a winnable case; but that doesn't mean the numbers say he should go for it. Nor does it mean it's going to be a big draw for law firms.

Sorry, but lawyers don't pass on winnable cases when the payout could be in the millions. Heck, they take those pro-bono, with legals fees contingent on winning the case.

It doesn't even need to be Woods. If they think they have a winning shot at it, they'll seek out any Twitter user in a similar position and likely try a class action, where the payout is even bigger for them.

One of the very few good things about living in an extremely litigious society is that there's little room for error, especially in contract law.

[Blake]

James Woods may have a winnable case

:lol derp

[Spurtacular]

Sorry, but lawyers don't pass on winnable cases when the payout could be in the millions. Heck, they take those pro-bono, with legals fees contingent on winning the case.

It doesn't even need to be Woods. If they think they have a winning shot at it, they'll seek out any Twitter user in a similar position and likely try a class action, where the payout is even bigger for them.

One of the very few good things about living in an extremely litigious society is that there's little room for error, especially in contract law.

Let's put it this way, non-winnable doesn't mean that twitter isn't in violation. Their lawyers would muddy the waters with conjecture this and we did that to others that. It's still painfully obvious that twitter is ideologically discriminating. And nobody is saying the payout is in the millions in the second place.

[Pavlov]

Let's put it this way, non-winnable doesn't mean that twitter isn't in violation. Their lawyers would muddy the waters with conjecture this and we did that to others that. It's still painfully obvious that twitter is ideologically discriminating. And nobody is saying the payout is in the millions in the second place.:lol still just making shit up

[Blake]

Let's put it this way, non-winnable doesn't mean that twitter isn't in violation. Their lawyers would muddy the waters with conjecture this and we did that to others that. It's still painfully obvious that twitter is ideologically discriminating. And nobody is saying the payout is in the millions in the second place.

In violation of what?

[Spurtacular]

:lol still just making shit up

:lmao That would be the subtitle for the Chump Era of posting. :lmao

[ShotThroughTheHeart]

:lol still just making shit up


:lmao That would be the subtitle for the Chump Era of posting. :lmao


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9swDIB-d1w

[Pavlov]

:lmao That would be the subtitle for the Chump Era of posting. :lmaoNope.

Explain the law Twitter is breaking, derp.

:lmao relying on your alt to prop yourself up with cartoons.

[Spurtacular]

In violation of what?

Don't worry, blake; being a cuck is legal last I checked. One even took runner-up in a presidential nomination race in true cuck fashion.

[Pavlov]

Don't worry, blake; being a cuck is legal last I checked. One even took runner-up in a presidential nomination race in true cuck fashion.What law are you saying Twitter broke, derp?

[ElNono]

Let's put it this way, non-winnable doesn't mean that twitter isn't in violation. Their lawyers would muddy the waters with conjecture this and we did that to others that. It's still painfully obvious that twitter is ideologically discriminating. And nobody is saying the payout is in the millions in the second place.

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.

[Blake]

Don't worry, blake; being a cuck is legal last I checked. One even took runner-up in a presidential nomination race in true cuck fashion.

Stalling

[Spurtacular]

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

No. People have a reasonable expectation that their ideologies aren't going to be suppressed when using Twitter.

[Chucho]

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.

You're working way too hard to explain something so simple to an empty-headed twit. The people teaching apes to paint don't have to use this much effort.

[Blake]

No. People have a reasonable expectation that their ideologies aren't going to be suppressed when using Twitter.

What law are you referring to. Quit stalling.