[Curlyben]

Trump sues Twitter, Google and Facebook alleging 'censorship'

Former US president Donald Trump has announced plans to sue tech giants Google, Twitter and Facebook, claiming that he is the victim of censorship.

The class action lawsuit also targets the three companies' CEOs.

Mr Trump was suspended from his social accounts in January over public safety concerns in the wake of the Capitol riots, led by his supporters.

On Wednesday, Mr Trump called the lawsuit "a very beautiful development for our freedom of speech".

The lawsuit has been criticised by legal experts, who pointed to Mr Trump's habit of issuing lawsuits for media attention but not aggressively defending the claims in court. His argument of free speech infringement has also been questioned by analysts, as the companies he accuses have those same First Amendment protections in determining content on their sites.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-57754435

I'm not going to comment.....

[Wondergirl]

The First Amendment protects us against government limits on our freedom of expression, but it doesn’t prevent a private employer from setting its own rules.

[jlisenbe]

It's a little more complicated than a simple free speech argument, that being due to federal protections afforded to these tech giants not available to the rest of us. At any rate, Twitter banned Trump but allows Louis Farrakhan, Richard Spencer, Ali Khamenei, Maduro and O.J. Simpson to tweet freely. There's no one more outrageous than Farrakhan, so that strikes me as suspicious.

I hope he wins.

\\https://townhall.com/columnists/john...acist-n2463869

[tomder55]

Illegal monopolies are illegal monopolies and should be subject to Sherman Act action . This view of hi tech is the one true bi-partisan issue in Congress. If the Sherman Act isn't sufficient enough when it was used to break up big oil and rail , then Congress needs to pass new regulations to break up these behemoth's that dominate the public square .

The House Judiciary Committee led by Jerry the Toad Nadler came to that conclusion last year and I agree with them .
Nadler said at the time “Our investigation leaves no doubt that there is a clear and compelling need for Congress and the antitrust enforcement agencies to take action that restores competition, improves innovation and safeguards our democracy,”

[paraclete]

Trump is keeping his options open while diverting attention from the prosecution of his interests

[tomder55]

He is not diverting attention .He is speaking about the tax case against his CFO and organization , and NOT helping himself by doing so . The fault lies in a tax system so full of loopholes that advantage wealthy individuals can hire a staff of lawyers and accountants to find legal ways to not pay taxes.

He is not alone . ProPublica published a story last month that details how many rich people use the tax code to "scheme" tax avoidance (something that Trump boasted about in his debate with Evita in 2016) .Bezos ,Musk ,nanny Bloomy , and many others pay little to no taxes .

The Secret IRS Files: Trove of Never-Before-Seen Records Reveal How the Wealthiest Avoid Income Tax — ProPublica

Eliminate loop holes and set flat rates and most of this goes away (and the bonus is that many lawyers ,accountants and IRS agents will need to find something else to do for a living ) .

As for his law suit ;he is making a mistake by basing it on 1st amendment grounds. The REAL problem is that these companies have monopolies . If there was REAL competition in the market place then he would have many choices of forums to express his views . The fact that someone like Bezos can use the power of Amazon AND the Washington Compost to dominate the public debate and in fact set the debate ,and decide who can participate is the issue .

[jlisenbe]

Eliminate loop holes and set flat rates and most of this goes away (and the bonus is that many lawyers ,accountants and IRS agents will need to find something else to do for a living ) .

I like the idea of a flat tax, even if it is two-tiered. It could be something like 10% for everyone, and an additional 10% for income over some limit like 100K. No deductions other than some limit for drastic medical expenses. I'd also key it to the budget. Budget goes up, then taxes go up automatically. No more deficit spending. If we had to actually pay for these lunatic budgets we have, the public would raise an outcry and spending would magically go down dramatically.

But I don't expect to ever see it. The "suck up to the crowd" pols we have now would never do it. It's going to take some sort of financial breakdown for us to wake up and see how the Washington crowd is getting us into an enormous, deep hole. And even then we might not see it. Reference Venezuela if you want to see how it all works. So we'll continue with the current idiocy of Robinette Biden proposing new taxes on the wealthy, but then proposing new spending that far outstrips whatever the new taxes would bring in, thus making the hole ever wider and deeper. It's incredible to me that we sit back and allow it to continue. We're like a married couple competing to see which one can max out the most credit cards. Well, enjoy it while you have it because a day is coming.

[paraclete]

You Pelicans always invent a way for the poor to pay, how about a 20% tax on all income over $100K and that includes corporate and no deductions, you would soon have the budget back in the black. to do this of course you would have to abolish all state taxes

[jlisenbe]

a 20% tax on all income over $100K and that includes corporate and no deductions, you would soon have the budget back in the black. to do this of course you would have to abolish all state taxes

Doing away with state sales and income taxes would leave schools and state agencies without money and destitute, so that's not a good idea. And 20% of income over 100K would not put us in the black or anywhere close to it. That's close to the amount already being paid by those people to begin with, a group that already pays practically all of the fed income tax. And then you would have to do something to replace the multiple hundreds of billions in tax revenues lost from your no state taxes idea.

If you want to comment on our country, you might want to try doing your homework first. Just sayin.

[Curlyben]

https://www.theregister.com/2021/07/..._social_media/

Snigger

[jlisenbe]

Robinette Biden met with Chicago Mayor Lightfoot yesterday to discuss what to do about rising crime rates. Other than electing republicans, what do you think they will come up with?

[Wondergirl]

Biden's first order of business is bringing home Mark Frerichs from Afghanistan.

[jlisenbe]

Inner city Chicagoans dies by the dozens, but since Robinette Biden can only do one thing at a time, there is nothing to be done? That is hardly a rousing endorsement of the man. Now he could put KH in charge of it, now that she has the southern border under control. (sarcasm meter pegged)

[Wondergirl]

Inner city Chicagoans dies by the dozens, but since Robinette Biden can only do one thing at a time, there is nothing to be done? That is hardly a rousing endorsement of the man. Now he could put KH in charge of it, now that she has the southern border under control. (sarcasm meter pegged)

Yep, too bad VP Harris tore down the entire 2,000-mile length of tRump's border wall. [/sarcasm]

[jlisenbe]

Trump built about 400 miles of border fencing. That's what, about 400 miles more than Obama built? And with Robinette Biden in office, Texas has now determined to start on more effective fencing on their own, secure in the knowledge that Biden will do positively nothing other than putting KH in charge. And that, of course, is...doing nothing. [/better sarcasm]

[Wondergirl]

Trump built about 400 miles of border fencing. That's what, about 400 miles more than Obama built? And with Robinette Biden in office, Texas has now determined to start on more effective fencing on their own, secure in the knowledge that Biden will do positively nothing other than putting KH in charge. And that, of course, is...doing nothing. [/better sarcasm]

"Texas has now determined to start on more effective fencing on their own ... And that, of course, is...doing nothing."

Truer words were never spoken.

[Curlyben]

....And back to the matter of the thread, if you please.

[jlisenbe]

"Texas has now determined to start on more effective fencing on their own ... And that, of course, is...doing nothing."

Truer words were never spoken.

The way you twist meaning, you could work for CNN. Apply today!! You'd fit right in.

[Wondergirl]

....And back to the matter of the thread, if you please.

In news items on the internet and in print, I eventually get to some quote from a lawyer that says what I said earlier:

The First Amendment protects us against government limits on our freedom of expression, but it doesn’t prevent a private employer from setting its own rules.

[jlisenbe]

but it doesn’t prevent a private employer from setting its own rules.

Actually it does. A private employer cannot make untrue, libelous statements about an employee or client. A private company cannot allow it's employees to make sexually abusive remarks. A private employer cannot mandate some types of speech. Schools cannot require students to say the Pledge of Allegiance. Schools cannot set unreasonable bounds on the free speech of students. The list goes on and on. But I think your point is that Facebook and others can restrict the type of speech and expression they allow. I think that's a fair statement, but the question is do we want them to favor certain political views and punish others. You might think that's fine, but considering that they are practically complete monopolies, I think it's a bad idea. Might be Trump today so you cheer that, but a few years down the road it could be liberal dems, and then you'd feel differently. The open and free exchange and expression of ideas is a valuable freedom in any country. When tech giants feel the freedom to censor the President of the United States, or a former pres, then I would think we'd consider that to be concerning.