TXAGFAN said:

---

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.

---

Did you sleep through the Obama years? He didn't have to beg though, I'll give you that. The press spent the last decade and a half fellating him non stop despite his long list of failures and virtually non existent list of successes. He still thinks he's some sort of deity.

deddog said:

---

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

---

Ultimate cowards. Weak and spineless male feminists. Talk behind a keyboard wouldn't say sh** in real life.

deddog said:

---

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

---

They can't defend the policies and corrupt morons they vote for, so they project by complaining about Trump, the Republican party, and this board.

It's their only playbook.

I don't offer an opinion on the merits of the suit; however, I can tell by the responses in this thread who's actually a seasoned attorney and who is still in law school/ just licensed.

I'll give those still in law school a pass, even though it is extremely entertaining; however, if you're NOT in law school but perhaps just recently licensed, all I can say is GOD HELP US!

I mean, Wow!!! Is this the mindless dribble and lack of creativity/ insight that law schools are producing????!!!! JESUS CHRISTO!

Rockdoc said:

---

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

---

"Squealing" is an interesting word choice. All of us know how notoriously litigious Trump is are are really just rolling our eyes and laughing at this because we know it's a losing case for him. It is funny to read the complaints and filings for all of the convoluted arguments and typos from his attorneys.

I will definitely bust out the popcorn if and when he has to sit for a deposition, though. But that's a big if.

MASAXET 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.

---

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 . . .

---

Can you admit that Biden and Kamala are absolute disasters and without a doubt the worst ticket in American history? I have a bet with a buddy over whether a single devout liberal male feminist can acknowledge this without ranting on Trump LOL.

interestingly, the lawsuit doesn't say Twitter worked with Congress to ban Trump. It says Congress coerced Twitter into banning him.

the lawsuit says Twitter worked with CDC and Fauci to suppress certain tweets on Hydroxychloroquine and othert non-approved COVID tweets. Hard to disagree with that factual allegation, but thats separate from why Trump was banned.

Linda Cuadros is the plaintiff with that claim. (and other putative class members)

Wish we could bump impeachment threads and FISA threads to see how wrong some of the scholars were. This time they will be right.

I remember one who called Flynn's lawyer tons of names just to watch her win.


By the way this is stupid of Trump but no worse than anything done to him.

Oh and let's not forget the legal people who loved Blowjob Ford.

Quote:

---

Wish we could bump

---

Thank goodness STAFF protects us from the dangers of linking to or bumping a pre-purge threads. Their benevolence knows no bounds

backintexas2013 said:

---

Wish we could bump impeachment threads and FISA threads to see how wrong some of the scholars were. This time they will be right.

I remember one who called Flynn's lawyer tons of names just to watch her win.

---

They were incredibly wrong, and incredibly triggered. Such entertainment.

And even with Trump out offfice, they still can't stop talking about him.

He'll be in their heads until the day they die.

It's not like they have any Democrat successes to celebrate. What else are they going to talk about? They vote for corrupt morons and get the expected results.

BMX Bandit said:

---

interestingly, the lawsuit doesn't say Twitter worked with Congress to ban Trump. It says Congress coerced Twitter into banning him.

the lawsuit says Twitter worked with CDC and Fauci to suppress certain tweets on Hydroxychloroquine and othert non-approved COVID tweets. Hard to disagree with that factual allegation, but thats separate from why Trump was banned.

Linda Cuadros is the plaintiff with that claim. (and other putative class members)

---

Right, apparently Congress coerced Twitter to attack Trump by threatening removal of Section 230 immunity. To support this, the complaint mentions statements from numerous democratic legislatures (and a former first lady). Conspicuously absent from the complaint is acknowledgement (1) that republicans controlled one half of Congress, and (2) all of the statements from republicans also threatening to remove Section 230 immunity. Isn't that strange . . .

OG UNF said:

---

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.

---

If ATT and Verizon said you couldn't use their network to make a phone call, is that acceptable?

---

They are a public utility. Social media networks are not.
And if you don't adhere to their terms of service...(gasp!!)...they won't let you use their network to make a phone call.

Tear Down This Wall said:

---

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.

---

550 gullible morons so far with more to be arrested.

aggieforester05 said:

---

It's not like they have any Democrat successes to celebrate. What else are they going to talk about? They vote for corrupt morons and get the expected results.

---

While whining to this forum about how corrupt the other side is and that we should all change the way we vote because the Republicans are just so awful!

They're so predictable.

leftcoastaggie said:

---

Tear Down This Wall said:

---

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.

---

550 gullible morons so far with more to be arrested.

---

Why are you complaining about this when you vote for the party that secretly paid for a fake dossier and perpetuated its lies in an attempt to win an election, followed by creating a fake Russian conspiracy in order to try to unseat the POTUS? How would you label them?

Boo Weekley said:

---

MASAXET 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.

---

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 . . .

---

Can you admit that Biden and Kamala are absolute disasters and without a doubt the worst ticket in American history? I have a bet with a buddy over whether a single devout liberal male feminist can acknowledge this without ranting on Trump LOL.

---

I'm not a "devout liberal male feminist," so I can't help you on the bet. Sorry, my man.

Now back to the actual lawsuit . . .

For those interested, this is a recent case actually applying Section 230 to claims brought by plaintiffs against a provider: Domen v. Vimeo, Inc., No. 20-616 (2d Cir. 2021) :: Justia

so there are separate lawsuits against youtube and facebook.

John Coale is lead counsel from what I have seen. He made a fortune on tobacco litigation. (trivia: hes a scientologist and married to Greta Van Sustren)

Trump does have a great lawyer for this one (unlike some previous cases)

leftcoastaggie said:

---

Tear Down This Wall said:

---

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.

---

550 gullible morons so far with more to be arrested.

---

How many charged with anything like treason, insurrection, etc?

MASAXET said:

---

Boo Weekley said:

---

MASAXET 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.

---

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 . . .

---

Can you admit that Biden and Kamala are absolute disasters and without a doubt the worst ticket in American history? I have a bet with a buddy over whether a single devout liberal male feminist can acknowledge this without ranting on Trump LOL.

---

I'm not a "devout liberal male feminist," so I can't help you on the bet. Sorry, my man.

Now back to the actual lawsuit . . .

For those interested, this is a recent case actually applying Section 230 to claims brought by plaintiffs against a provider: Domen v. Vimeo, Inc., No. 20-616 (2d Cir. 2021) :: Justia

---

You're just a dime a dozen liberal attorney like almost every single other one. Bunch of circle jerking sheep. One of the least admirable professions in existence. A bunch of soft, left-wing socialist sympathizers who are actually hyper materialistic greedy capitalists and overly concerned with image and appearance. Tell me I didn't just nail 93.6% of the profession.

Do they create liberals in law school or are liberals disproportionately attracted to the profession for some reason? Serious question.

WHOOP!'91 said:

---

leftcoastaggie said:

---

Tear Down This Wall said:

---

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.

---

550 gullible morons so far with more to be arrested.

---

How many charged with anything like treason, insurrection, etc?

---

Everyone knows the best way to overthrow a govt is with a group of people with protest signs carrying flags. That's how it's done.

leftcoastaggie said:

---

Tear Down This Wall said:

---

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.

---

550 gullible morons so far with more to be arrested.

---

Still more intelligent than the average liberal that still believes in "muh Russia" or calling 1/6 an "insurrection". The American left will believe literally anything that their propaganda sources tell them. They're like Ron Burgundy regurgitating the teleprompter. It's sad, it's pathetic, and shows a complete lack of critical thinking at even the most basic of levels.

aggieforester05 said:

---

leftcoastaggie said:

---

Tear Down This Wall said:

---

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.

---

550 gullible morons so far with more to be arrested.

---

Still more intelligent than the average liberal that still believes in "muh Russia" or calling 1/6 an "insurrection". The American left will believe literally anything that their propaganda sources tell them. They're like Ron Burgundy regurgitating the teleprompter. It's sad, it's pathetic, and shows a complete lack of critical thinking at even the most basic of levels.

---

And their beloved leader is literally this as well. Bunch of clowns.

aggieforester05 said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

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.

---

Did you sleep through the Obama years? He didn't have to beg though, I'll give you that. The press spent the last decade and a half fellating him non stop despite his long list of failures and virtually non existent list of successes. He still thinks he's some sort of deity.

---

I am sorry, did Obama beg for money with this frequency? I don't remember that.

Boo Weekley said:

---

MASAXET said:

---

Boo Weekley said:

---

MASAXET 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.

---

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 . . .

---

Can you admit that Biden and Kamala are absolute disasters and without a doubt the worst ticket in American history? I have a bet with a buddy over whether a single devout liberal male feminist can acknowledge this without ranting on Trump LOL.

---

I'm not a "devout liberal male feminist," so I can't help you on the bet. Sorry, my man.

Now back to the actual lawsuit . . .

For those interested, this is a recent case actually applying Section 230 to claims brought by plaintiffs against a provider: Domen v. Vimeo, Inc., No. 20-616 (2d Cir. 2021) :: Justia

---

You're just a dime a dozen liberal attorney like almost every single other one. Bunch of circle jerking sheep. One of the least admirable professions in existence. A bunch of soft, left-wing socialist sympathizers who are actually hyper materialistic greedy capitalists and overly concerned with image and appearance. Tell me I didn't just nail 93.6% of the profession.

Do they create liberals in law school or are liberals disproportionately attracted to the profession for some reason? Serious question.

---

Just like Journalism, the industry is a product of liberal arts majors. The century long Marxist infiltration of academia is very real and obviously most effective in departments that attract right brain students and focus on language arts instead of math/science.

TXAGFAN said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

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.

---

Did you sleep through the Obama years? He didn't have to beg though, I'll give you that. The press spent the last decade and a half fellating him non stop despite his long list of failures and virtually non existent list of successes. He still thinks he's some sort of deity.

---

I am sorry, did Obama beg for money with this frequency? I don't remember that.

---

The DNC certainly did and guess who was the leader? Obama was better at keeping degrees of insulation between himself and his heinous agenda.

aggieforester05 said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

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.

---

Did you sleep through the Obama years? He didn't have to beg though, I'll give you that. The press spent the last decade and a half fellating him non stop despite his long list of failures and virtually non existent list of successes. He still thinks he's some sort of deity.

---

I am sorry, did Obama beg for money with this frequency? I don't remember that.

---

The DNC certainly did and guess who was the leader? Obama was better at keeping degrees of insulation between himself and his heinous agenda.

---

It's ok if they have a (D) next to their name. That's the logic.

MASAXET said:

---

Boo Weekley said:

---

MASAXET 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.

---

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 . . .

---

Can you admit that Biden and Kamala are absolute disasters and without a doubt the worst ticket in American history? I have a bet with a buddy over whether a single devout liberal male feminist can acknowledge this without ranting on Trump LOL.

---

I'm not a "devout liberal male feminist," so I can't help you on the bet. Sorry, my man.

Now back to the actual lawsuit . . .

For those interested, this is a recent case actually applying Section 230 to claims brought by plaintiffs against a provider: Domen v. Vimeo, Inc., No. 20-616 (2d Cir. 2021) :: Justia

---

Take a step back for a second and look at this from a policy perspective. Not the state of the law now, but rather, what you personally believe it should be.

Do you believe that these companies, which share more news and information about current events than any newspaper ever has, and have the ability to push and limit content that heavily favors one side, AND CONTROL THE ABILITY FOR COMPETITORS TO TAKE THE OPPOSITE STANCE (see Parler), should be allowed?

TXAGFAN said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

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.

---

Did you sleep through the Obama years? He didn't have to beg though, I'll give you that. The press spent the last decade and a half fellating him non stop despite his long list of failures and virtually non existent list of successes. He still thinks he's some sort of deity.

---

I am sorry, did Obama beg for money with this frequency? I don't remember that.

---

Strange; I do.

Gigem314 said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

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.

---

Did you sleep through the Obama years? He didn't have to beg though, I'll give you that. The press spent the last decade and a half fellating him non stop despite his long list of failures and virtually non existent list of successes. He still thinks he's some sort of deity.

---

I am sorry, did Obama beg for money with this frequency? I don't remember that.

---

The DNC certainly did and guess who was the leader? Obama was better at keeping degrees of insulation between himself and his heinous agenda.

---

It's ok if they have a (D) next to their name. That's the logic.

---

i don't remember any fundraising after he was out of office.

Please post an article about his post-2016 go fund me's?

larry culpepper said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

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

---

"Squealing" is an interesting word choice. All of us know how notoriously litigious Trump is are are really just rolling our eyes and laughing at this because we know it's a losing case for him. It is funny to read the complaints and filings for all of the convoluted arguments and typos from his attorneys.

I will definitely bust out the popcorn if and when he has to sit for a deposition, though. But that's a big if.

---

How do you KNOW its a losing case? How long have you been licensed? Your posts certainly don't make me believe you hold any graduate degree of any sort, let alone a J.D.

TXAGFAN said:

---

Gigem314 said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

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.

---

Did you sleep through the Obama years? He didn't have to beg though, I'll give you that. The press spent the last decade and a half fellating him non stop despite his long list of failures and virtually non existent list of successes. He still thinks he's some sort of deity.

---

I am sorry, did Obama beg for money with this frequency? I don't remember that.

---

The DNC certainly did and guess who was the leader? Obama was better at keeping degrees of insulation between himself and his heinous agenda.

---

It's ok if they have a (D) next to their name. That's the logic.

---

i don't remember any fundraising after he was out of office.

Please post an article about his post-2016 go fund me's?

---

What's a very obvious distinction here, chief?

Tear Down This Wall said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

Gigem314 said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

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.

---

Did you sleep through the Obama years? He didn't have to beg though, I'll give you that. The press spent the last decade and a half fellating him non stop despite his long list of failures and virtually non existent list of successes. He still thinks he's some sort of deity.

---

I am sorry, did Obama beg for money with this frequency? I don't remember that.

---

The DNC certainly did and guess who was the leader? Obama was better at keeping degrees of insulation between himself and his heinous agenda.

---

It's ok if they have a (D) next to their name. That's the logic.

---

i don't remember any fundraising after he was out of office.

Please post an article about his post-2016 go fund me's?

---

What's a very obvious distinction here, chief?

---

My obvious distinction is there is a huge difference between campaign fundraising that Obama did in office and begging for lawsuit money which has been Trump's MO since November.

if we can interrupt the derail for a moment, a huge problem for Trump is going to be that Kavanaugh, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch & Roberts signed off on the following just a few years ago:

Quote:

---

By contrast, when a private entity provides a forum for speech, the private entity is not ordinarily constrained by the First Amendment because the private entity is not a state actor. The private entity may thus exercise editorial discretion over the speech and speakers in the forum. This Court so ruled in its 1976 decision in Hudgens v. NLRB. There, the Court held that a shopping center owner is not a state actor subject to First Amendment requirements such as the public forum doctrine. 424 U. S., at 520521; see also Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U. S. 551, 569570 (1972); Central Hardware Co. v. NLRB, 407 U. S. 539, 547 (1972); Alliance for Community Media, 56 F. 3d, at 121123.

The Hudgens decision reflects a commonsense principle: Providing some kind of forum for speech is not an activity that only governmental entities have traditionally performed. Therefore, a private entity who provides a forum for speech is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor. After all, private property owners and private lessees often open their property for speech. Grocery stores put up community bulletin boards. Comedy clubs host open mic nights. As Judge Jacobs persuasively explained, it "is not at all a near-exclusive function of the state to provide the forums for public expression, politics, information, or entertainment." 882 F. 3d, at 311 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part).

In short, merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints. If the rule were otherwise, all private property owners and private lessees who open their property for speech would be subject to First Amendment constraints and would lose the ability to exercise what they deem to be appropriate editorial discretion within that open forum. Private property owners and private lessees would face the unappetizing choice of allowing all comers or closing the platform altogether. "The Constitution by no means requires such an attenuated doctrine of dedication of private property to public use." Hudgens, 424 U. S., at 519 (internal quotation marks omitted). Benjamin Franklin did not have to operate his newspaper as "a stagecoach, with seats for everyone." F. Mott, American Journalism 55 (3d ed. 1962). That principle still holds true. As the Court said in Hudgens, to hold that private property owners providing a forum for speech are constrained by the First Amendment would be "to create a court-made law wholly disregarding the constitutional basis on which private ownership of property rests in this country." 424 U. S., at 517 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Constitution does not disable private property owners and private lessees from exercising editorial discretion over speech and speakers on their property

---

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1702_h315.pdf

Boo Weekley said:

---

MASAXET said:

---

Boo Weekley said:

---

MASAXET 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.

---

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 . . .

---

Can you admit that Biden and Kamala are absolute disasters and without a doubt the worst ticket in American history? I have a bet with a buddy over whether a single devout liberal male feminist can acknowledge this without ranting on Trump LOL.

---

I'm not a "devout liberal male feminist," so I can't help you on the bet. Sorry, my man.

Now back to the actual lawsuit . . .

For those interested, this is a recent case actually applying Section 230 to claims brought by plaintiffs against a provider: Domen v. Vimeo, Inc., No. 20-616 (2d Cir. 2021) :: Justia

---

You're just a dime a dozen liberal attorney like almost every single other one. Bunch of circle jerking sheep. One of the least admirable professions in existence. A bunch of soft, left-wing socialist sympathizers who are actually hyper materialistic greedy capitalists and overly concerned with image and appearance. Tell me I didn't just nail 93.6% of the profession.

Do they create liberals in law school or are liberals disproportionately attracted to the profession for some reason? Serious question.

---

You're right. I'm one, but a conservative obviously. There's no real explanation for it, other than liberals fancy themselves as a lot more intelligent than they actually are, and so appeals to policy arguments (the legal equivalent of "feels") and "legislative intent" often appeal to them because a statute that can be readily and easily interpreted doesn't allow them to pontificate long enough to display their self-perceived "brilliance." Just go peruse the opinions of appellate judges when you get a chance. Look at those written by conservative judges vs. liberal judges. You'll notice a distinct departure from simply interpreting the statute based on the language itself and how it was used at the time it was enacted to a much more convoluted, evolutionary, "what should be" mindset.