WHOOP!'91 said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

WHOOP!'91 said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Rick Burns said:

---

"Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it." MARSH v. STATE OF ALABAMA. 326 U.S. 501 (1946)


https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/571/marsh-v-alabama

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/326/501

---

Then you must not have understood the holding in this case. Marsh involved company towns, because in this situation, the company town was acting as, and performing the exclusive functions of, wait for it...government. The sentence immediately after the one you posted says as much.

Quote:

---

Thus, the owners of privately held bridges, ferries, turnpikes and railroads may not operate them as freely as a farmer does his farm. Since these facilities are built and operated primarily to benefit the public and since their operation is essentially a public function, it is subject to state regulation. And, though the issue is not directly analogous to the one before us we do want to point out by way of illustration that such regulation may not result in an operation of these facilities, even by privately owned companies, which unconstitutionally interferes with and discriminates against interstate commerce...

In our view the circumstance that the property rights to the premises where the deprivation of liberty, here involved, took place, were held by others than the public, is not sufficient to justify the State's permitting a corporation to govern a community of citizens so as to restrict their fundamental liberties and the enforcement of such restraint by the application of a State statute. Insofar as the State has attempted to impose criminal punishment on appellant for undertaking to distribute religious literature in a company town, its action cannot stand. The case is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

---

Facebook, Twitter, and Google are not state actors; they are not performing exclusive government functions. These are not legitimate lawsuits; they are tweets with a filing fee.

---

At a minimum, they are violating their Sec 230 protections and making a huge in-kind donation to Dem pols. With the garbage they let stand from China, Iran and Del Pols, they have no foundation to censor Trump and other Rep pols.

---

No, they are not. There is no such thing as you are alleging in Section 230.

---

So where do people like me get the idea they are not liable for speech on their platform as long as they are not editorializing? Picking who can and who cannot be heard is editorializing.

---

No court has said that. In fact, they've all said quite the opposite, and they aren't going to change their minds now.

WHOOP!'91 said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

WHOOP!'91 said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Rick Burns said:

---

"Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it." MARSH v. STATE OF ALABAMA. 326 U.S. 501 (1946)


https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/571/marsh-v-alabama

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/326/501

---

Then you must not have understood the holding in this case. Marsh involved company towns, because in this situation, the company town was acting as, and performing the exclusive functions of, wait for it...government. The sentence immediately after the one you posted says as much.

Quote:

---

Thus, the owners of privately held bridges, ferries, turnpikes and railroads may not operate them as freely as a farmer does his farm. Since these facilities are built and operated primarily to benefit the public and since their operation is essentially a public function, it is subject to state regulation. And, though the issue is not directly analogous to the one before us we do want to point out by way of illustration that such regulation may not result in an operation of these facilities, even by privately owned companies, which unconstitutionally interferes with and discriminates against interstate commerce...

In our view the circumstance that the property rights to the premises where the deprivation of liberty, here involved, took place, were held by others than the public, is not sufficient to justify the State's permitting a corporation to govern a community of citizens so as to restrict their fundamental liberties and the enforcement of such restraint by the application of a State statute. Insofar as the State has attempted to impose criminal punishment on appellant for undertaking to distribute religious literature in a company town, its action cannot stand. The case is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

---

Facebook, Twitter, and Google are not state actors; they are not performing exclusive government functions. These are not legitimate lawsuits; they are tweets with a filing fee.

---

At a minimum, they are violating their Sec 230 protections and making a huge in-kind donation to Dem pols. With the garbage they let stand from China, Iran and Del Pols, they have no foundation to censor Trump and other Rep pols.

---

No, they are not. There is no such thing as you are alleging in Section 230.

---

So where do people like me get the idea they are not liable for speech on their platform as long as they are not editorializing? Picking who can and who cannot be heard is editorializing.

---

Good question. My best answer is "a fundamental misunderstanding of Section 230."

HTownAg98 said:

---

Rick Burns said:

---

"Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it." MARSH v. STATE OF ALABAMA. 326 U.S. 501 (1946)


https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/571/marsh-v-alabama

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/326/501

---

Then you must not have understood the holding in this case. Marsh involved company towns, because in this situation, the company town was acting as, and performing the exclusive functions of, wait for it...government. The sentence immediately after the one you posted says as much.

Quote:

---

Thus, the owners of privately held bridges, ferries, turnpikes and railroads may not operate them as freely as a farmer does his farm. Since these facilities are built and operated primarily to benefit the public and since their operation is essentially a public function, it is subject to state regulation. And, though the issue is not directly analogous to the one before us we do want to point out by way of illustration that such regulation may not result in an operation of these facilities, even by privately owned companies, which unconstitutionally interferes with and discriminates against interstate commerce...

In our view the circumstance that the property rights to the premises where the deprivation of liberty, here involved, took place, were held by others than the public, is not sufficient to justify the State's permitting a corporation to govern a community of citizens so as to restrict their fundamental liberties and the enforcement of such restraint by the application of a State statute. Insofar as the State has attempted to impose criminal punishment on appellant for undertaking to distribute religious literature in a company town, its action cannot stand. The case is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

---

Facebook, Twitter, and Google are not state actors; they are not performing exclusive government functions. These are not legitimate lawsuits; they are tweets with a filing fee.

---

"Tweets with a filing fee" is a great way to put it.

Maybe after these suits are dismissed the next one will be against pacer for "censorship"

HTownAg98 said:

---

MASAXET said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

I'm guessing he's just local, but the attorney that signed the pleading is a first party insurance attorney. interesting choice.

---

Just a few funny things seen on a quick scan (not in any real order):

• The complaint leans heavily on democrats "threatening" to remove Section 230 protections from twitter, while simultaneously trying to remove Section 230 protections from twitter as being unconstitutional. It also ignores all of the calls from both sides of the aisle to reform/repeal Section 230 protections. Hell, Trump himself repeatedly called for repeal of Section 230!
• Similarly, apparently only democrats count as "the government" in this. It completely ignores the fact that Trump was PRESIDENT when most of the operative facts went down.
• It has screenshots of examples of twitter "censoring" Trump's tweets, which only show that a warning was attached to the tweet (i.e., the tweet was and is still viewable).
• It's funny how Trump previously argued in the Knight case that he, as president, was not acting in his official capacity when blocking people on twitter. But now he says twitter was "an instrument of his presidency" and he used it "in his official capacity as President."
• Apparently government agencies using twitter somehow makes twitter a state actor. Good stuff.
• So all of this coordination between twitter and "the government" gave rise to the claims and makes twitter a state actor, but there no actual government officials named as defendants?
• Dorsey is sued in his individual capacity because, reasons? Corporate veil is pierced somehow, but I guess they'll get to that later.
• The relief seeks a "judgment ordering Twitter to remove its warning labels and misclassification of all content of the Plaintiff and the Class and to desist from any further warnings or classifications." So it asks for the court to restrain a company from speech. Sounds legit.
• Going to need to look up these attorneys. This is not always a fair characterization, but not a good sign when the signatures include "aol" email account domains.

---

They're also suing in the wrong court.

---

Well there is that.

Assuming Twitter has a forum selection clause in the TOS?

blacksox said:

---

Hey, Trump wants to tell companies what they can and cannot publish on their own platforms. And he's going to sue them to make them publish what he wants! That seems to be a bit overreaching and not very conservative. But don't worry, this lawsuit will go about as well as his election lawsuits.

---

Cool. So these guys are publishers. Glad you agree!!!

I don't know in what backwoods jurisdiction you practice in but in Harris County all the white shoe litigators use AOL email addresses.

MASAXET said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

MASAXET said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

I'm guessing he's just local, but the attorney that signed the pleading is a first party insurance attorney. interesting choice.

---

Just a few funny things seen on a quick scan (not in any real order):

• The complaint leans heavily on democrats "threatening" to remove Section 230 protections from twitter, while simultaneously trying to remove Section 230 protections from twitter as being unconstitutional. It also ignores all of the calls from both sides of the aisle to reform/repeal Section 230 protections. Hell, Trump himself repeatedly called for repeal of Section 230!
• Similarly, apparently only democrats count as "the government" in this. It completely ignores the fact that Trump was PRESIDENT when most of the operative facts went down.
• It has screenshots of examples of twitter "censoring" Trump's tweets, which only show that a warning was attached to the tweet (i.e., the tweet was and is still viewable).
• It's funny how Trump previously argued in the Knight case that he, as president, was not acting in his official capacity when blocking people on twitter. But now he says twitter was "an instrument of his presidency" and he used it "in his official capacity as President."
• Apparently government agencies using twitter somehow makes twitter a state actor. Good stuff.
• So all of this coordination between twitter and "the government" gave rise to the claims and makes twitter a state actor, but there no actual government officials named as defendants?
• Dorsey is sued in his individual capacity because, reasons? Corporate veil is pierced somehow, but I guess they'll get to that later.
• The relief seeks a "judgment ordering Twitter to remove its warning labels and misclassification of all content of the Plaintiff and the Class and to desist from any further warnings or classifications." So it asks for the court to restrain a company from speech. Sounds legit.
• Going to need to look up these attorneys. This is not always a fair characterization, but not a good sign when the signatures include "aol" email account domains.

---

They're also suing in the wrong court.

---

Well there is that.

Assuming Twitter has a forum selection clause in the TOS?

---

They do, as does Facebook. Not sure about Google.

Rockdoc said:

---

Lol, sure got the legal libs on here squealing. I love it!

---

I think we're all loving this.

It's funny how the usual suspects show up on the Trump threads, but never on the Biden threads

I just donated to Zuckerberg and Dorsey's legal defense fund. Got in early and got the 10x multiplier. These billionaires really need our help!!!

we do it specifically because it makes you mad

blacksox said:

---

I don't know in what backwoods jurisdiction you practice in but in Harris County all the white shoe litigators use AOL email addresses.

---

Took me longer than I'd care to admit to realize this was sarcasm. You never know on this site

Lol saying it's grift meanwhile I bet those same posters donated to BLM

Someone is also appearing pro hac vince. I didn't know that was a thing.

Every lib has come crawling out of the baseboards they hide behind.

They can't defend Vegetable Joe or his idiotic liberal policies, so this is all they have.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Someone is also appearing pro hac vince. I didn't know that was a thing.

---

It is the formal way of saying "my cousin Vinnie"

HTownAg98 said:

---

Someone is also appearing pro hac vince. I didn't know that was a thing.

---

Can't lie: seeing only one paren italicized there is almost as grating as the misspelling

Cassius said:

---

Every lib has come crawling out of the baseboards they hide behind.

They can't defend Vegetable Joe or his idiotic liberal policies, so this is all they have.

---

I love all the squealing, AND we know which lib lawyers not to use!

reminds me of the kraken lawsuit that misspelled "district" two different ways on the first page

Demosthenes81 said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Someone is also appearing pro hac vince. I didn't know that was a thing.

---

It is the formal way of saying "my cousin Vinnie"

---

Trumps in bed with Italian Hackers!!!

blacksox said:

---

The concept of it does? What does that even mean? Either it does or it doesn't. (Hint: it doesn't.)

It is really difficult (and obvious, most of the time) when a private company is a state actor. It's silly to argue social media platforms are state actors because you want them to publish more conservative messaging. The Donald and his minions are free to start their own social media platforms; they don't get tell existing ones what they publish. 12b6.

---

If you don't understand what I just said, you aren't licensed anywhere and that's why you're avoiding the question. Please stop providing us all with your matchbook legal opinions.

Onceaggie2.0 said:

---

Lol saying it's grift meanwhile I bet those same posters donated to BLM

---

I don't think/hope that most people don't donate to political campaigns unless they are local. Most national politicians/organizations are grifters. Like sending money to a Nigerian prince. Total waste.

Old McDonald said:

---

we do it specifically because it makes you mad

---

No, you do it because even you realize what a losing battle looks like.

Cassius said:

---

Every lib has come crawling out of the baseboards they hide behind.

They can't defend Vegetable Joe or his idiotic liberal policies, so this is all they have.

---

Can only speak for myself, but if it isn't obvious I mainly only show up when legal issues are discussed because that is what interests me. I'm not all that interested in "defending" Biden, Trump, or any other politician on this board. I just don't see what it accomplishes here.

I'm not sure why it would be surprising that people discuss the topics that interest them and don't discuss the topics that are less interesting to them. What you are doing would be like me crying that you (or others) only want to bash Biden, dems, Trump, repubs, etc., and don't want to discuss legal topics that I find interesting. It's clear you don't really understand and/or care much about the legal issues, so why should you be shamed/coerced into discussing them? Weird flex, but ok . . .

Cassius said:

---

Every lib has come crawling out of the baseboards they hide behind.

They can't defend Vegetable Joe or his idiotic liberal policies, so this is all they have.

---

All they've proven is that they have a complete lack of character. They don't care how they win as long as they do. Moral or ethical boundaries are of no consequence to them. Sad

Somehow someway, the propaganda wing of the DNC needs to be brought to it's knees. If not America will be destroyed by these fools.

Cassius said:

---

Every lib has come crawling out of the baseboards they hide behind.

They can't defend Vegetable Joe or his idiotic liberal policies, so this is all they have.

---

I come here for the LOLs.

if trump can bust up the big tech/media/fortune 500 board/government insider trusts, that would be the greatest contribution to america since 1776.

how A N Y human could not back this effort is incredible. absolutely, utterly incredible.

unless you are one of the couple of thousand 'untouchables' inside that club.

TXAGFAN said:

---

blacksox said:

---

Hey, Trump wants to tell companies what they can and cannot publish on their own platforms. And he's going to sue them to make them publish what he wants! That seems to be a bit overreaching and not very conservative. But don't worry, this lawsuit will go about as well as his election lawsuits.

---

Exactly. Conservatives and republicans don't even know what they stand for anymore.

---

And "liberals" dropped that label long ago. Congratulations, you vote for leftists, architects of mass genocide and poverty the world over since the early part of the 20th century. But hey - none of them make you feel bad about the fact that you have sex with other guys, so it's ok!

leftcoastaggie said:

---

Cassius said:

---

Every lib has come crawling out of the baseboards they hide behind.

They can't defend Vegetable Joe or his idiotic liberal policies, so this is all they have.

---

I come here for the LOLs.

---

And you provide them for us all, every single time. Thank you!

Oh good because that's relevant to this thread about another baseless lawsuit and money grab by Trump.

This guy is the most desperate attention ***** in political history.

I hope it goes to discovery so we can see the communication between the execs and certain Democrats.

e=mc2 said:

---

I hope it goes to discovery so we can see the communication between the execs and certain Democrats.

---

...and the White House and the seditionists. That should fun too.

leftcoastaggie said:

---

Cassius said:

---

Every lib has come crawling out of the baseboards they hide behind.

They can't defend Vegetable Joe or his idiotic liberal policies, so this is all they have.

---

I come here for the LOLs.

---

So you don't care that the big tech companies are propagandizing millions by highlighting politicians that they like and suppressing politicians that they don't like? AKA massive campaign contributions that go unpublished.

You don't think that could be problematic, because at this moment you happen to ideologically align with the same politicians they do? What about when that is no longer the case?

Shouldn't politicians win over voters by the merit of their ideas instead of a popularity contest decided by controlled propaganda? Especially when one political party dominates the control mechanism, even if indirectly?

If you are intelligent enough to be accepted to A&M, domination of big tech and news media by the Democrat party should concern you even if at this moment you perceive it to be beneficial to your self interests. There is not going to be a happy ending here if they are not reigned in and we get some balance back.

What do you think it's going to look like in 10 or 20 years with the giant leap leftward we're taking while the deep corruption of the Democrat party is completely ignored?

This thread is great. Like a TDS spotlight shot out, and all the infected flocked to it.

leftcoastaggie said:

---

e=mc2 said:

---

I hope it goes to discovery so we can see the communication between the execs and certain Democrats.

---

...and the White House and the seditionists. That should fun too.

---

The "seditionists." The "insurrectionists."

Some of you are such gullible morons.