Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire L. Lin Wood - Kyle Rittenhouse's attorney just locked out of Twitter account.

From a link I found on Tik Tok

Some interesting reading in your link:

Subsequent history

While the Marsh holding at first appears somewhat narrow and inapplicable to the present day due to the disappearance of company towns from the United States, it was raised in the somewhat high-profile 1996 cyberlaw case, Cyber Promotions v. America Online, 948 F. Supp. 436, 442 (E.D. Pa. 1996).[1] Cyber Promotions wished to send out "mass email advertisements" to AOL customers. AOL installed software to block those emails. Cyber Promotions sued on free speech grounds and cited the Marsh case as authority for the proposition that even though AOL's servers were private property, AOL had opened them to the public to a degree sufficient that constitutional free speech protections could be applied. The federal district court disagreed, thereby paving the way for spam filters at the Internet service provider level.

In Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, the Supreme Court distinguished a private shopping mall from the company town in Marsh v. Alabama and held that the mall had not been sufficiently dedicated to public use for First Amendment free speech rights to apply within it.

Recently the case has been highlighted as a potential precedent to treat online communication media like Facebook as a public space to prevent it from censoring speech.[2][3] However, in Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck the Supreme Court found that private companies only count as state actors for first amendment purposes if they exercise “powers traditionally exclusive to the state."

I agree with the AOL case because AOL was an entirely private network which allowed access to the WWW, it wasn't a freely accessible domain, as there was a payment needed to gain access to their system in place. The companies I listed earlier are 'freely accessible by the public'. That makes them 'public forums' as far as I see it, which would guarantee free speech for all on their 'sidewalk'.

Pray tell, do you know what these so called 'powers traditionally exclusive to the state' would be? In my unindoctrinated opinion the powers of the state have become engorged and overly self affirming, which is nearly the same as any private corporation today.

There is terms of service when you sign up, case closed. Platforms are proprietary, the very same reason you can be banned from any message board at their discretion.

Oh, I soooooooooooooooooo hope so. I'd contribute real money to see him seriously take on both Twitter & FB.

MM

That's easy to fix.

Classify them as a utility.

They absolutely should be classified as a utility. FB and Twitter are to 2020 what “Ma Bell” was in 1960’s.
The government has always recognized that in rare circumstances certain services need to be regulated. It isn’t practical for a dozen different cable gas companies to run lines to every home in a given area due to economies of scale so the government needs to be involved to safeguard against a monopoly. Twitter, FB, and Youtube all operate in the same way.
The other issue being that all three of them are except from lawsuits in ways that NBC, Fox ect. aren’t because rather than publishing information as a content provider they’re a “platform” for random people to post what they want on. When they turnaround and selectively delete or ban post/posters. They’re no longer a platform they’re working as a publisher.
This isn’t even a gray area they’re flagrantly thumbing the law as is written and really should be considered modern day utilities in addition. Unless you want a world with a few tech/media giants controlling access to free information.

The other thing to keep in mind is these “media/tech companies” are working hand in hand with the left government. So unless you want 1984 we need to get a handle on this.

He's on Parler

https://parler.com/profile/linwood/posts

I hate twitter and everything they stand for, but it isn't a first amendment case. The first amendment says CONGRESS shall pass no law..... Twitter is not congress, it is a private entity. This sort of thing has already been to the SCOTUS. There is even a good clip on Youtube of the late Justice Scalia schooling Diane Feinstein on the first amendment.

You don’t get it.
I’m all for capitalism but do you want your electrical energy provider quadrupling your energy cost next month just because they can?There are rare circumstances in which some antitrust regulations are needed. A few tech giants controlling most of the information available and working hand in hand with one political party as a de facto propaganda wing is not desirable.
And then there’s the whole platform Vs news source regulations mentioned above that they are flagrantly thumbing there noses at.

You’re right it’s not a First Amendment issue it’s a antitrust issue as well as a clear cut violation of the platform Vs publisher laws.

Ultimately, the goal would be to use said information as leverage over elected officials. If one party's members will be more easily leveraged, then the first step would be to put as many of them in office as possible.

Lmao... your out there man...

Utility? Do you need these platforms to survive? No... Are they charging the general public to use them, no... is anyone being forced to use them, no... are the markets open and free for competition, yes.

Your honestly on this thread, calling for larger government regulation of private enterprise? Hahahaha never seen anyone openly advocate for communism before and not realize it hahaha

Dunce.

Learn to read! I said I hate twitter. I am commenting on the first amendment aspect. Did you miss that? Don't you get that? You want to break up twitter and other social media platforms, have at it. You won't get any complaints form me but that doesn't have anything to do with the first amendment. Have you ever bothered to read the Constitution? Do you have any idea what the first amendment says? Do you know why they came up with the Bill of Rights? It is to protect the people from the government. Twitter ain't the government. Got it?

Lin Wood doesn't strike me as a man that would take his muzzling lightly.

Got his hands full with the Nick Sandman case, but he might fit this in his schedule.

Now tell me how any of what you stated didn’t apply to the big three cable companies or your phone company in the 80’s.

We’re you forced to watch network TV.. No

Did you need network TV to survive.. No

We’re the markets open and free.. Yes (but similar economies of scale for differing reasons)

Your honestly on this thread for state controlled information via the Democrat party of government and there propaganda wing.

That's rich pointing out someone else's mistakes. It's YOU'RE you fugggin idiot (as in you are). Damn, and you think you are (you're) smart. Loser

This post does not strike as one where he plans to take on Twitter. He can't take on the world. he probably has to pick and choose his cases based on maximum return (not talking financial).

https://parler.com/post/2f44c960beb74d3f9eaa6129baf7414d

Apparently you missed that it isn’t 1A. It’s about antitrust and most definitely about flagrantly abusing there platform status while acting as a publisher.
Which part of that do you not understand? I’d be happy to repeat it for you a third time if you think that will help you.