TexasCHLforum.com

Twitter silenced The New York Post in their exclusive story on the Hunter Biden laptop. Now Twitter decides to put a caution under a Tweet where the Detroit News has endorsed a Black Republican Senate Candidate.

When they clearly endorsed the man.

https://pjmedia.com/election/matt-margo ... e-n1079065

Twitter doesn't want people to know the Detroit News endorsed Republican John James for Senate.

Today Twitter started pasting warnings on tweets of unedited videos of Joe Biden saying he would ban _______. Tech companies interference should be counted as an in kind contributions.

and they stopped reposting of he ny post actual link to the story
so most of us went to the news papers site and screen shot the story then posted it as pics


the twitter police program cant read pics so they fly free

So...

This could affect you and I...

The owner of this forum can't get sued because of section 242 (or some such section) because they aren't a publisher. Twitter, (and others) are hammering at the boundaries. If they irritate enough congress critters, the law could be changed but, they don't care. If they get sued, so what! They have staff lawyers. It will not affect their bottom line.

If the law changes, it very well may, affect small forums, like this one.

The owners of these forums don't have lawyers on staff.

A serious lawsuit could get the forum shut down.

That would just push more business to Twitter.

(Sorry, I may just be getting paranoid because of the election.)

tomneal wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 10:00 pm So...

This could affect you and I...

The owner of this forum can't get sued because of section 242 (or some such section) because they aren't a publisher. Twitter, (and others) are hammering at the boundaries. If they irritate enough congress critters, the law could be changed but, they don't care. If they get sued, so what! They have staff lawyers. It will not affect their bottom line.

If the law changes, it very well may, affect small forums, like this one.

The owners of these forums don't have lawyers on staff.

A serious lawsuit could get the forum shut down.

That would just push more business to Twitter.

(Sorry, I may just be getting paranoid because of the election.)

I don't believe it's paranoia if it's true.

https://www.foxnews.com/world/spanish-p ... t-pregnant

Spanish politician suspended for saying a man cannot get pregnant.

How quickly we have gone downhill.

tomneal wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 10:00 pm So...

This could affect you and I...

The owner of this forum can't get sued because of section 242 (or some such section) because they aren't a publisher. Twitter, (and others) are hammering at the boundaries. If they irritate enough congress critters, the law could be changed but, they don't care. If they get sued, so what! They have staff lawyers. It will not affect their bottom line.

If the law changes, it very well may, affect small forums, like this one.

The owners of these forums don't have lawyers on staff.

A serious lawsuit could get the forum shut down.

That would just push more business to Twitter.

(Sorry, I may just be getting paranoid because of the election.)

I think Twitter and Facebook and such should worry more. I do not think it would take a change to say they are not publishers but are owners of the content. I think they are ripe for a lawsuit from someone who they shut down or who got insulted and he could argue in court that their editing and restrictions on posts make them the owners and providers of the content. It can be argued that a publisher is not allowed to censor opinions and post warning labels like these companies do. I think their algorithms that define what you get to see would also argue that they are not merely publishers that are exempt.

Yes, I know the old newspaper did it also, but they could always argue that they had a restriction on what was printed due to their space requirements. Electronic companies cannot do that.

Twitter and Facebook are private entities; they can do as they please. That said, there is zero reason for anyone who isn't a die-hard Democrat to use either service.

Probably wouldn’t have been allowed under old leadership.

This may take research to truly get it and find the humor.