Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: What Happens to Free Speech in the Public Square When It's Owned by a Private Monopoly.

  1. #1

    Default What Happens to Free Speech in the Public Square When It's Owned by a Private Monopoly.

    https://www.barneslawllp.com/charles...-twitter-case/

    Current Case: Charles Johnson vs. Twitter, Inc.

    Our First Amendment forums for the exercise of our First Amendment freedoms continue to shift as technology transforms the venue and vernacular of the public forum for public expression. Our contractual assumptions and equitable expectations also vary as Americans use new technologies to enable the development of both their businesses and their ideas, which occasionally merge in the world of new media. As the public square moved to the public sidewalk, and then the public sidewalk moved to the company town, the First Amendment followed. Today, Twitter is the new company town, shifting the public sidewalks of cyberspace to its monopolized public square of the twitter feed.

    Twitter induced the public to partake in its “free speech forum,” defining and describing itself as the “free speech wing of the free speech party.” In order to facilitate this freedom of expression, Congress authorized immunity for ISP’s like Twitter to exclude only a circumscribed set of speech: illicit speech such as obscenity, offensive speech, harassment, and even then, Twitter could only enjoy the immunity for such speech exclusions as long as, and if, it acted voluntarily and, most importantly, in “good faith.” Twitter contractually promised, equitably assured, and publicly advertised its forum for free speech as Twitter’s entire profitability depended upon mass usage of its site as a means of public expression and participation in order to induce advertising dollars and gather marketable information about its constituent users it could then sell to potential marketers and advertisers.

    In reliance thereupon, many people, like the plaintiff, depended upon, relied upon, and trusted Twitter, promoting themselves and Twitter through their use of it, bringing millions of people to Twitter through their public expression, and building up commercially marketable equity in their twitter accounts (as courts recognize in everything from business disputes to familial property law). Plaintiff Chuck Johnson is an award winning independent journalist who has written for, among others, The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times, and National Review Online. Plaintiff specializes in investigative journalism, creating donor-funded websites that “transform journalism by empowering everyday people, experts and sources to break news and get rewarded for their effort.” Plaintiff’s websites include Gotnews.com (“Gotnews”), a news outlet that publishes his work and that of other independent journalists, and Wesearchr.com (“Wesearchr”), a site that allows users with newsworthy questions to raise crowd-funded “bounties” that encourage independent researchers to investigate and answer the user asked questions.

    Then, after building equity in Twitter for himself and Twitter, Twitter summarily and suddenly, pulled the rug out from underneath people like the plaintiff, suddenly, and often without any notice, suspending their account. Plaintiff experienced this annually, with the only explanation given for the repeated suspensions and deletions of his Twitter accounts was often unidentified “objectionable” conduct. Despite multiple and myriad efforts to rebuild his Twitter account, each time as his efforts built success, Twitter summarily suspended plaintiff’s accounts. Then, in December of 2017, plaintiff discovered the truth from internal Twitter emails leaked to Buzzfeed: the plaintiff had been secretly, permanently banned from Twitter, any business associated with him had been secretly, permanently banned from Twitter, and this ban was not based on any violation of Twitter’s terms.

    As internal emails disclosed, the ban was permanent, not temporary; admittedly not due to any “direct” violation of any Twitter rule; but was just a “policy” decision, e.g. a political hit job on a politically disfavored individual who had outed the bad conduct of a boyfriend of the owner of Twitter. In another twist of irony, the original source of this ban concerned the plaintiff exposing the criminal-assisting, riot-inducing, violence-welcoming conduct of a political fraud, yet it was the plaintiff who was publicly accused in its stead, in order to cover for Twitter’s intention to use the exclusion of the plaintiff from Twitter and the destruction of the equity he built for his businesses, as a model to target and discriminate against other political adversaries of the Twitter owner, and their political bedfellows.

    This case will decide more than the fate of one man and one of the modern monopolies of social media. This case will decide whether Twitter can, like the monopolists before them, lie with impunity and discriminate with immunity? Or will our foundational freedoms once again protect the public from the crushing power of these modern age monopolists?
    Truth is a social construct. 👁👁



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    What Happens to Free Speech in the Public Square When It's Owned by a Private Monopoly.
    It ceases to exist.

  4. #3

    Default

    Twitter is in no way, shape or form a monopoly.

    ,
    Congress authorized immunity for ISP’s like Twitter
    - and they're not an ISP by any traditional definition. Twitter is private property.

    And here we are, on RPF, reading liberal garbage.
    Last edited by angelatc; 05-19-2018 at 11:39 AM.
    * Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.

    * No Amnesty - The Obama Administration’s endorsement of so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, will only encourage more law-breaking.

    * Abolish the Welfare State – Taxpayers cannot continue to pay the high costs to sustain this powerful incentive for illegal immigration. As Milton Friedman famously said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.

    * End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.




    Reprinted from http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/ [Nov. 29, 2011]

  5. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    Twitter is in no way, shape or form a monopoly.

    , - and they're not an ISP by any traditional definition. Twitter is private property.

    And here we are, on RPF, reading liberal garbage.
    That's your in-depth analysis?
    Truth is a social construct. 👁👁

  6. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    That's your in-depth analysis?
    There's nothing to analyze. Twitter isn't a monopoly. Libertarians believe in private property rights, therefore Twitter has the right to ban anybody they choose.

    Liberty isn't complicated.
    * Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.

    * No Amnesty - The Obama Administration’s endorsement of so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, will only encourage more law-breaking.

    * Abolish the Welfare State – Taxpayers cannot continue to pay the high costs to sustain this powerful incentive for illegal immigration. As Milton Friedman famously said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.

    * End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.




    Reprinted from http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/ [Nov. 29, 2011]

  7. #6

    Default

    Twitter may be run by a bunch of hypocritical asshats, but the only monopoly Twitter has is over Twitter. This is a thing called "ownership."

    You have the right of free speech. You have no right to make someone else provide you with a soap box or printing press.

    (And anyone who thinks Twitter is the whole - or even just most - of "the Public Square" needs to get out of mom's basement for a while ...)

  8. #7

    Default

    Trump Violates First Amendment by Blocking Twitter Users From Feed, Judge Says

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eed-Judge-Says
    Truth is a social construct. 👁👁






Similar Threads

  1. Paper owned by Israeli Zionist stands up for Free Speech in France
    By enhanced_deficit in forum World News & Affairs
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-16-2015, 08:19 PM
  2. Government created private monopoly vs government monopoly
    By Elwar in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-05-2009, 08:37 AM
  3. Free Speech vs. Private Property
    By gornandez@yahoo.com in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-23-2007, 04:41 PM
  4. Private Colleges Free Speech Zones
    By John of Des Moines in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 10-17-2007, 04:07 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •