L. Lin Wood was just locked out of his twitter account presumably for posting an article about POTUS Trump's support for his client.

Control the platforms, control the narrative.

Maybe he'll get irritated enough to go after Twittidiot on his own dime.

Wait, I thought that patriots were in control of Twitter?

I just saw him on Carlson's show earlier.

It truly is an information war. Communication is what the enemy attacks first.
This attorney has what should be a dismissal for his client, kr.

That twitter shut him up goes to show that this goes beyond Rittenhouse in its impact.

Restriction of the First Amendment rights.

Twitter might be gonna wish they hadn't done that.

The First Amendment is a protection against governmental actors, and Twitter isn't.

Not really.

The 1st Amendment allows freedom of speech without retribution by government.

Twitter isn't govt.

But it does exemplify the double standard between what they allow the Left to post, and what they allow the Right to post.

I expect you are correct.

He needs to take it to 4chan.

Most of American has no idea about 4chan.

Maybe not. But 4chan would put his message anywhere he wants it to go.

I so wish all the conservative patriots here knew what the Bill of Rights actually states. It's bad enough when all the woke liberals cry about freedom of speach.

They aren't as omnipotent as they once were several years ago. Lots of moderating and deleting going on now As I learned reading through the Rittenhouse threads.

Same as what has happened over at Reddit.

Tuck Fwitter

Hoping Dorsey and the like minded social media platform owners get gutted by the Feds for operating as monopolies when Trump wins.

Trump isn’t done with social media and fake news operations.

If he can find a way, he’ll shred them for bias.

😎

Is it true that the board of directors of Twitter serves hors d'oeuvres made from the organs of small children?

I read that on Facebook

While this is true there is a case which deals with this situation that is along the same bounds as herein.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

This woman was passing out flyers in a 'company town' which was privately owned. She was arrested for trespassing, but eventually the SC ruled in her favor as the sidewalk was allowed to be accessed by the public freely. Therefore by allowing such wide open access to the public the court ruled that her First Amendment rights should be held intact.

Many have long known about similar instances with yewtewb, giggle, twat'r, DARPAbook, etc., but so far no one has taken it to court so that everyone can have their First Amendment rights validated since these companies are essentially doing the same thing with their freely accessed, public 'sidewalk'.

I cannot see how it wouldn't be a slam dunk case, but I'm no jewdical Scholar.

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.

Your pumping government control of private enterprise, thats as left as you can get.

Thanks for YOUR thought filled contribution to a thread thats discussing things that require aptitude further than being paper editor. It doesnt go unnoticed, everyone gets a participation trophy.

I’m not going to keep going around in circles with you. You lack the ability to engage on the points brought up and then counterpoint.

You remind me of the old phrase. “Never argue with an idiot he’ll bring you down to his level and then beat you with experience.”

What's twitter, I do know? I've never used it and don't have a facebook account. If more people could use what we call critical thinking and let their minds be made up on how to vote by the person's past history our nation would be so much better off.

Absolutely.
As politically incorrect as this is. There was reason that our founders had disdain for pure democracies and wanted a republic limiting who had a vote while insuring freedom and a Constitution/Bill of Rights for all Americans. Unfortunately they didn’t take into account or have an answer for politicians that would pander for votes by offering evermore people a say.

Your mom help you write up that little reply? Fuggin loser

Word around town is that you’re mom did while he had her bent over your bed;)

Was waiting on an intelligent line by line reply but since you chose to sling mud..

Were you born stupid or did you have to work at it? My comment is directed at a post made by Reloader28 where he said "Restriction of the First Amendment rights." Get it? FIRST AMENDMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!! So I am simply saying this of not a restriction of first amendment. Why can you not grasp that? Am I using too many big words to cut through the veil of foolishness you seem to have?

I haven't said a thing about anti-trust. My comments are on first amendment and only first amendment. Do you have an advanced case of idiocy that you can't grasp that. I don't give a damn about the anti-trust angle because I don't do business with any social media platform. I don't have a twitter account, I don't have a facebook account, I don't have an instagram account, I don't have a snapchat account and I don't have a tiktok account. Not one of those outfits makes a dime off me. My point is not one of them is the govt so anything they do is not a violation of the first amendment.

Just how much dumb do you have in one brain?

You can’t see the forest but for the trees. Just how dumb are you that you’re grasping at straws in order “to be right” but can’t grasp the bigger picture.

How about we get this thread back on topic. The socially acceptable practice of blatant discrimination and the overt (attempted) intimidation of conservative/right leaning/patriotic Americans. United we stand, divided we WILL fall. No matter if you're from North Carolina or Northern California, it's time to stand together.

We need to quit being so fair-minded and think outside the box. The enemy is as the Devil and loves to use our own rules against us. The 1st Amendment and Constitution in general are not infallible. When an entity such as Twitter, which is public despite hiding behind supposed privatized rights, does restrict free speech...in that it allows free speech for one group but not for another...then something has went wrong and if not unconstitutional, should be. Same with Facebook and all the other commie free speech mavens. Metaphorically, these communists/anti-americans have to be hunted down and faced down with ideas in every corner of the world of information. Their ideology must be exterminated. It is not just contrary to the American way, it is evil.

Indeed, and when govt hires a nongovt third party to spy on you it is not a violation. As long as some spergitarian can see a private hand in the mix doing the deed, govt gets a pass.

The market trends toward monopoly. Govt is needed to balance that. Twitter is a monopoly. Also, twitter claims to be exempt from illegal acts done on its platform. For that immunity they are supposed to be neutral content providers.

Libertarians...the other white meat.

there is nothing neutral about twitter.

Is phone service a utility? I communicate more with family on social media than I do in person. I used to pick up the phone and order stuff from the Sears catalog. Obama seemed to think net access was not only a utility, but a right.

I am not advocating for more government, but it's a bit disingenuous to argue that social media is not a utility if you believe phone service is a utility.

Do you pay for the phone service, yes...

Do you pay for the social media platform, no.

GFY Dumbass, you're about as bright as EJP. You need to learn the difference between your and you're also fuggstick.

Check out the deep thinker.

How much money did your two dads pay for THAT education?

LOL

I've heard that major social media is locking down anyone who even suggests that Rittenhouse is anything but a mass shooter/murderer. They call it promoting mass shooters to do so.

Really? They aren't operating under Federal Regulation whereby they are protected against lawsuits so long as they operate as a medium for free speech, and don't operate as a publisher? I think you are mistaken. When they make editorial decisions for one political view vs another, they are violating Federal law, and the Federal Government is supposed to lift all their protections against lawsuits based on content.

Poor EJ......
Here is a condensed version just for you-

When the .gov affords a corp protections, there are certain rules said corp must follow.

Twitter/FB etc are walking a very fine line currently and may have actually crossed that line.
They also know that they must have those protections or will be open to massive lawsuits.

Of course they are.

Rogan had at least two Twitter reps on his podcast and they made it very clear they will find a way to ban anybody that says something they don’t like.

Actually you do 'pay", because you are the product in social media. The information about you when on their platform they harvest for lots of money.

As a kid watching westerns, lynch mob at the door, sheriff saying no way, deputy with the scattergun and me thinking that things were sure scary back in them days. Had some things to learn, didn't I?

Does not have to be the government stepping on your rights.

I might say, your ISP is a utility. Social media, not so much.

There are lots of conservative social media platforms to compete with the libs. This is one.

The courts need to come down hard on FB and Twitter for their continuous 1st amendment violations, but they won't because the government and social media are owned by the same people.

Lin Wood update, his tweet from yesterday:

"If attorneys lack courage to speak truth about corrupt judges, how can we expect others to do so?

There is corruption in federal judiciary.

For example, judges should not be flying on Jeffrey Epstein’s private jet.

Who is the “John Roberts” on Epstein flight logs?

#FightBack"

Lin Wood twitter account

Gloves are coming off now. Good thing Mr. Wood has some ex-Navy Seal bodyguards

Correct.

Once they cross over from disseminating information to restricting information from one group,they have in essence become publishers and have violated the regulations under which they've agreed to operate.

This is awesome, Wood went there.

Yep.

Almost gives you some hope.