Parler CEO George Farmer: Trump lawsuit against Facebook, Twitter, Google will ‘redef

[Into the Night]

Which Trump supported and had to sign before it became law.

The President does not have authority to spend money. Only the House does. Democrats.

 

[Into the Night]

SIZE=4]
That quote was not from me but from Trump's lawsuit.

So?

It proved to you that the lawsuit did claim social media providers are "state actors" which you denied.

And his argument is a sound one.

Then, you go on to argue that it is state action.

No. The lawsuit does.

First you deny it and when I prove you wrong you change your complete argument. What an idiot.

[/QUOTE]
I was unaware the lawsuit had been actually filed. Now I see that it has.

And your legal analysis is as crazy as Trump's lawsuit which has no chance of winning.

His argument is sound.

I don't think Trump expects to win his lawsuits, he is just using them to dupe his supporters out of millions for "legal defense" which can be used for any purpose.
/SIZE]

Trump doesn't need money, dumbass.

 

[Into the Night]

SIZE=4]
It did not mandate welfare.

Yes it does.

SIZE=4]
hat was done by the City of Philadelphia. The Supreme Court only ruled it could not discriminate against Catholic Charities because of their religious beliefs.

The Supreme Court does not have authority to change the Constitution.

SIZE=4]
A good defense of the 1st Amendment freedom of religion.

The Supreme Court does not have authority to change the Constitution.

SIZE=4]
But you are right--it was unconstitutional. The City of Philadelphia acted unconstitutionally by violating the religious freedom of Catholic Charities. [/SIZE]

Correct. According to Section 3.

 

[Flash]

No, it doesn't. The 1st amendment only applies to Congress.
Rights do not come from a piece of paper.

Slander is illegal. So is graft.

The 1st amendment prohibits Congress from restricting free speech which means internet providers can exercise that speech without government restrictions. Later (1925) freedom of speech and almost all other rights in the Bill of Rights eventually were made applicable to the states.

Because you deny the incorporation process occurred does not mean it did not happen and it is the law which governs us today.

Slander is generally not "illegal" but a civil issue. You cannot usually be charged with a crime for slandering somebody but that person can sue you. If it is illegal then Powell and Carlson can be prosecuted.

 

[Flash]

The President does not have authority to spend money. Only the House does. Democrats.

No, the House (and Senate) appropriate the money. The executive branch spends it and the president was given budgetary authority in the Budget and Accounting Act.

The president had to sign the bill appropriating the stimulus money and he included it in the budget which Congress passed.

 

[Flash]

No. The lawsuit does.

I know. That is why I said the Trump lawsuit claims the internet providers are state actors. You are the one who said the lawsuit does not say that.

Trump may not need money but he is certainly raising a lot of it in "legal defense" although most go to Trump and the Republican Party.

 

[Into the Night]

The 1st amendment prohibits Congress from restricting free speech which means internet providers can exercise that speech without government restrictions.

Not if an internet provider being directed by Congress to restrict speech. This is Trump's argument. It's sound. Further, Section 230 only protects internet providers from the users. It does NOTHING to protect them from slander. It DOES require they treat all users the same, which means they cannot censor for political reasons. These sites all have contracts they made with their users. They cannot just arbitrarily change that contract at will.

Later (1925) freedom of speech and almost all other rights in the Bill of Rights eventually were made applicable to the states.

Never happened. No amendment is a right. The 2nd through 10th amendments have always applied to the States as well as the federal government. The 1st amendment does not apply to any State.

Because you deny the incorporation process occurred does not mean it did not happen and it is the law which governs us today.

The Supreme Court does not have authority to change the Constitution.

Slander is generally not "illegal" but a civil issue.

Yes it is. It is also a civil issue.

You cannot usually be charged with a crime for slandering somebody

Yes you can.

but that person can sue you.

You can do that too.

If it is illegal then Powell and Carlson can be prosecuted.

For what?

 

[Into the Night]

No, the House (and Senate) appropriate the money.

The Senate has no authority to appropriate money.

The executive branch spends it

Only what the House appropriates.

and the president was given budgetary authority in the Budget and Accounting Act.

The President does not have authority to appropriate money.

The president had to sign the bill appropriating the stimulus money

No, he doesn't. See the Constitution about overriding vetos.

and he included it in the budget which Congress passed.

He didn't write the budget. The President does not have authority to appropriate money. Only the House does.

 

[Into the Night]

I know. That is why I said the Trump lawsuit claims the internet providers are state actors.

And his argument is sound.

You are the one who said the lawsuit does not say that.

Just can't accept the fact that I agreed with you, can you?

Trump may not need money but he is certainly raising a lot of it in "legal defense" although most go to Trump and the Republican Party.

Irrelevant.

 

[Althea]

Trump: Wahhhh wahhhh wahhhh.

What a fuckin sissy.

I'm betting the suit was never actually filed. There is no way that trump can sit for a deposition.

 

[Flash]

And his argument is sound.

Nope. Private businesses are not state actors. It is just an excuse for government regulation.

Just can't accept the fact that I agreed with you, can you?

You didn't agree with me until you reversed your position. That proved you just made up stuff when you argued the lawsuit did not claim the media platforms were state actors.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I'm betting the suit was never actually filed. There is no way that trump can sit for a deposition.

I'm not sure about that. However, people may have to go to Trump to get that deposition. I don't know how the system works.

Ideally, it would be equal for all, but we all know that's not true.

 

[AProudLefty]

>Ima gonna sue
>Crowd cheers
>Ima gonna set up gofundme account
>Crowd cheers
>Please donate to my gofundme account to help me with paying to sue and lawyers to fight for the First Amendment right
>Crowd cheers. They be donating
>Yo they wouldn't let me sue because Democrats
>Crowd cheers

 

[Althea]

I'm not sure about that. However, people may have to go to Trump to get that deposition. I don't know how the system works.

Ideally, it would be equal for all, but we all know that's not true.

Discovery is part of every suit. trump will be deposed, and be required to turn over all phone/electronic records leading up to the insurrection. Given that only 1 of the lawyers on that case is licensed, I'll bet that it never gets filed.

The defendants won't even make a motion to dismiss, even though trump has no case.

I'm sure they're itching to depose him.

 

[Althea]

>Ima gonna sue
>Crowd cheers
>Ima gonna set up gofundme account
>Crowd cheers
>Please donate to my gofundme account to help me with paying to sue and lawyers to fight for the First Amendment right
>Crowd cheers. They be donating
>Yo they wouldn't let me sue because Democrats
>Crowd cheers

LMAO.

Sad, but true.

 

[Althea]

That quote was not from me but from Trump's lawsuit. It proved to you that the lawsuit did claim social media providers are "state actors" which you denied.

Then, you go on to argue that it is state action.

First you deny it and when I prove you wrong you change your complete argument. What an idiot.

And your legal analysis is as crazy as Trump's lawsuit which has no chance of winning.

I don't think Trump expects to win his lawsuits, he is just using them to dupe his supporters out of millions for "legal defense" which can be used for any purpose.

I believe they incorrectly cited the 'community act', instead of the 'communications act'.