Last week, I was wrongfully suspended from Twitter for seven days after I posted a recording of staff from a children’s hospital admitting to offering and performing gender-affirming hysterectomies on children. I decided to make use of my time while suspended and sent out a strongly-worded letter to Twitter with the help of Alex Berenson's attorney, James Lawrence.
I know that would be a horribly expensive thing to do but there’s no doubt you would win, and hopefully it would bring about some changes at Twitter. There insanity of banning people for simply speaking the 100% truth needs to be brought to an end some how some way.
The case they are proposing here is the same as the one on which Berenson prevailed -- breach of contract. That does not depend on 1A or any permutation and it is why the letter (you should read it) is drafted as it is. Twitter did not settle as a nuisance suit -- they settled because the discovery would have uncovered truly egregious things. And Berenson is still getting discovery on the Government/Twitter axis which will complement the Louisiana/Missouri case well.
LOTT's claim is slightly more indirect than Berenson's because there was no direct dialog between the parties. But there is now case law about the Twitter breach-of-contract that informs future cases. So fingers crossed.
If “intermediaries” are protected from 3rd party flow lawsuit, an argument can be made that censoring political speech is in violation of protected traffic.
I am not a lawyer but my point is if an entity is protected from liability like Twitter is then that entity cannot by fiat decide what to censor. If I owned an apartment building and allowed Nazi Propaganda on the public board, that would be grounds for lawsuit. In your example you would not let this happen for this very reason. But Twitter is exempt so it gets public utility benefits and as such should be prevented from fiat censoring. If Twitter wants to censor along partisan lines then take away that protection and make best efforts and suspend accounts permanently for violations. But that would hurt the business model...
Please explain how suspending or banning from Twitter is different from a bakery refusing to bake a cake with gay symbols. A corporation which puts up a shingle and benefits from society’s protection can’t arbitrarily refuse service. You have a shirt and shoes and owner hates you, you still get service.
Twitter essentially argues “no shoes no service” - a violation of their terms - and LOTT argues how that’s b.s.. (Which it is.) Why can a baker be sued successfully and Twitter a priori immune to losing on merits?
About 230 - applies to inaction, ie not censoring speech that slanders. What Twitter is accused of is the opposite, excessive censorship. But, again, that’s not why sue them; they can put whatever they want in their terms, but they can’t refuse service when those terms are respected.
So you decided to argue against millennia of dialectic approach to discovery. “Censorship is what we are fighting for”? This invalidates your every opinion and means that any comments favorable to LOTT are the pacing element in the attempt to influence the group you decided to infiltrate.
Forget 1A. We’re not even all Americans here. The point of hearing all sides is that you don’t know who’s right. Of course that comes with hearing from flat-earthers. Who do you shut up? Even “settled science” arguments are invalid: the guy who said stomach ulcer is an infectious disease was derided at first. What you *can* do is not listen. Or, if you’re concerned about undue influence, tell your kids who shouldn’t be on Twitter to begin with that 2500 years before the NASA lied or not, Greeks knew Earth is round and determined its radius fairly accurately. (I’d be more concerned with some of the “undisputed” facts however.)
You’re all over the place so I’m not even going to try a point-by-point…
> “Pornography not protected.” - “US Supreme Court case of Roth v. United States, Justice William Brennan [] narrowed the definition of obscenity, effectively legitimizing most pornography”
> “Censorship is free speech.” This ridiculousness sounds like a quote from “1984”. Here are a few others for comparison - “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”
> “I can't lie on my tax returns and plead freedom of speech.” “Slander” Etc. Technically, you’re free to lie, slander and the rest, but you’re delinquent for not paying taxes due, responsible for the cost of reputation loss, etc., if in fact you lied. That must be proven. Saying Epstein has sex with kids is slander only if it’s proven false. Being able to say it is free speech. Go free speech!
> “Elon Musk used speech to manipulate the market” - Now, that’s slander! His speech *affected* the market, but he wasn’t even accused of creating profits for himself or acolytes - which you imply using “manipulated”. Important figures talk and investors may or may not go crazy. Nothing Musk ever said compares in effect to a Fed speech for example, but SEC in their typical government agency thirst for power, decided that Musk-type comments are improper. They should chill. Musk’s transparency should be the golden standard.
Breach of contract is not 1A dependent. With that said, 1A does come into play if there is collusion with the administration. I believe that is one of the factors Twitter was concerned about in the Berenson lawsuit. It is becoming more clear (although we have know for years) that big tech is colluding with the government.
This sounds like misdirection, good people of Substack. A #1A argument here is idiotic.
Corporations do not have to comply with #1A, only the Government. Furthermore, corporations are free to take direction from Government - and free not to; so when Facebook censored the Laptop From Hell, it was *their* decision.
What corporations have to comply with however is their *own* “constitution”, which includes the 100 page legalese-rife Terms Of Service.
> ‘I think breach of contract is a weak argument. It is reasonable to make the leap that terms of agreement as a customer qualifies as a "contract" but it loses something being that attenuated.’
--
You wrote hundreds of words about everything even marginally connected with the topic, but your argument against the core of the claim is circular! Breach of contract LOSES something because it’s ATTENUATED 😂 Went to Kamala Harris’ school of logic perhaps?
To your UNARGUED point, that ignoring terms of service as breach of contract is weak, I refer you to my other reply - you can’t refuse a customer you don’t like. If you think you can, help overturn the judgement against the baker who didn’t want to make a cake for a gay wedding.
It is unconstitutional for Big Tech to act with the government to censor speech. This is what they have been doing since Trump came on the political scene. Government and Big Tech have worked hand in hand to do this. The discovery in the lawsuit brought by the Missouri and Louisiana attorneys general has documented this clearly. At least 50 different people in government were colluding with Big Tech to censor specific people and specific topics. Proven. Unconstitutional.
We need to speak the truth. Calmly and consistently. Over and over again. We need to be that 5% Mattias Desmet talks about in his book, "The Psychology of Totalitarianism."
I have to do the right thing even if, for a time, I am alone doing it.
The WaPo story alluded to is exhibit #1 in why no reasonable person should, without reservation, trust the press anymore. It's journalistic malpractice
I wrote a comment defending LoT in that article's comment section. The other comments were chilling in their uniform mob mentality. No concern at all for the minors.
Excellent letter. Excellent challenge to their (supposed) Terms of Service. Excellent lawsuit threat.
I watched a few minutes of a 2019 Joe Rogan interview with Vijaya and Jack Dorsey just now (didn't have three hours to watch the whole thing) but you can see, even 3 years ago, how they were rationalizing their biases. I'm not sure they realize how biased they are (at least back then) but this letter clarifies it very well. Maybe it will be a wake-up call for the woke, about how lost they are in their insular ideological world.
You are fighting the good fight! You are right to sue. Your work is extremely valuable, and we readers are grateful for your courage and your investigative skills.
Get Nick Sandmann's or Kyle Rittenhouse's attorneys (or even better, Alex Berenson's attorney - they have been successful) and sue the living shit out of these fascists. It is not like you are making this stuff up. You are just giving a louder voice to their own stupid shit. AND THEN THEY ARE UPSET! Imagine that? How phuqueing stupid do the Libs have to be? I mean really. Oh well. Keep fighting the good fight!
I’ll contribute to that fund for sure. Anything to bury those scumbags.
🙋♀️ me too
If twitter is exposed by Musk as the scam they are you can dance and piss on their digital grave when they go out of business.
I know that would be a horribly expensive thing to do but there’s no doubt you would win, and hopefully it would bring about some changes at Twitter. There insanity of banning people for simply speaking the 100% truth needs to be brought to an end some how some way.
She will win as long as she doesn't sue them in D. C.
The case they are proposing here is the same as the one on which Berenson prevailed -- breach of contract. That does not depend on 1A or any permutation and it is why the letter (you should read it) is drafted as it is. Twitter did not settle as a nuisance suit -- they settled because the discovery would have uncovered truly egregious things. And Berenson is still getting discovery on the Government/Twitter axis which will complement the Louisiana/Missouri case well.
LOTT's claim is slightly more indirect than Berenson's because there was no direct dialog between the parties. But there is now case law about the Twitter breach-of-contract that informs future cases. So fingers crossed.
If “intermediaries” are protected from 3rd party flow lawsuit, an argument can be made that censoring political speech is in violation of protected traffic.
I am not a lawyer but my point is if an entity is protected from liability like Twitter is then that entity cannot by fiat decide what to censor. If I owned an apartment building and allowed Nazi Propaganda on the public board, that would be grounds for lawsuit. In your example you would not let this happen for this very reason. But Twitter is exempt so it gets public utility benefits and as such should be prevented from fiat censoring. If Twitter wants to censor along partisan lines then take away that protection and make best efforts and suspend accounts permanently for violations. But that would hurt the business model...
Please explain how suspending or banning from Twitter is different from a bakery refusing to bake a cake with gay symbols. A corporation which puts up a shingle and benefits from society’s protection can’t arbitrarily refuse service. You have a shirt and shoes and owner hates you, you still get service.
Twitter essentially argues “no shoes no service” - a violation of their terms - and LOTT argues how that’s b.s.. (Which it is.) Why can a baker be sued successfully and Twitter a priori immune to losing on merits?
About 230 - applies to inaction, ie not censoring speech that slanders. What Twitter is accused of is the opposite, excessive censorship. But, again, that’s not why sue them; they can put whatever they want in their terms, but they can’t refuse service when those terms are respected.
Getting struck down in a Court doesn't mean you are wrong. So much now depends on who the judge is.
So you decided to argue against millennia of dialectic approach to discovery. “Censorship is what we are fighting for”? This invalidates your every opinion and means that any comments favorable to LOTT are the pacing element in the attempt to influence the group you decided to infiltrate.
Forget 1A. We’re not even all Americans here. The point of hearing all sides is that you don’t know who’s right. Of course that comes with hearing from flat-earthers. Who do you shut up? Even “settled science” arguments are invalid: the guy who said stomach ulcer is an infectious disease was derided at first. What you *can* do is not listen. Or, if you’re concerned about undue influence, tell your kids who shouldn’t be on Twitter to begin with that 2500 years before the NASA lied or not, Greeks knew Earth is round and determined its radius fairly accurately. (I’d be more concerned with some of the “undisputed” facts however.)
You’re all over the place so I’m not even going to try a point-by-point…
> “Pornography not protected.” - “US Supreme Court case of Roth v. United States, Justice William Brennan [] narrowed the definition of obscenity, effectively legitimizing most pornography”
> “Censorship is free speech.” This ridiculousness sounds like a quote from “1984”. Here are a few others for comparison - “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”
> “I can't lie on my tax returns and plead freedom of speech.” “Slander” Etc. Technically, you’re free to lie, slander and the rest, but you’re delinquent for not paying taxes due, responsible for the cost of reputation loss, etc., if in fact you lied. That must be proven. Saying Epstein has sex with kids is slander only if it’s proven false. Being able to say it is free speech. Go free speech!
> “Elon Musk used speech to manipulate the market” - Now, that’s slander! His speech *affected* the market, but he wasn’t even accused of creating profits for himself or acolytes - which you imply using “manipulated”. Important figures talk and investors may or may not go crazy. Nothing Musk ever said compares in effect to a Fed speech for example, but SEC in their typical government agency thirst for power, decided that Musk-type comments are improper. They should chill. Musk’s transparency should be the golden standard.
Breach of contract is not 1A dependent. With that said, 1A does come into play if there is collusion with the administration. I believe that is one of the factors Twitter was concerned about in the Berenson lawsuit. It is becoming more clear (although we have know for years) that big tech is colluding with the government.
This sounds like misdirection, good people of Substack. A #1A argument here is idiotic.
Corporations do not have to comply with #1A, only the Government. Furthermore, corporations are free to take direction from Government - and free not to; so when Facebook censored the Laptop From Hell, it was *their* decision.
What corporations have to comply with however is their *own* “constitution”, which includes the 100 page legalese-rife Terms Of Service.
> ‘I think breach of contract is a weak argument. It is reasonable to make the leap that terms of agreement as a customer qualifies as a "contract" but it loses something being that attenuated.’
--
You wrote hundreds of words about everything even marginally connected with the topic, but your argument against the core of the claim is circular! Breach of contract LOSES something because it’s ATTENUATED 😂 Went to Kamala Harris’ school of logic perhaps?
To your UNARGUED point, that ignoring terms of service as breach of contract is weak, I refer you to my other reply - you can’t refuse a customer you don’t like. If you think you can, help overturn the judgement against the baker who didn’t want to make a cake for a gay wedding.
It is unconstitutional for Big Tech to act with the government to censor speech. This is what they have been doing since Trump came on the political scene. Government and Big Tech have worked hand in hand to do this. The discovery in the lawsuit brought by the Missouri and Louisiana attorneys general has documented this clearly. At least 50 different people in government were colluding with Big Tech to censor specific people and specific topics. Proven. Unconstitutional.
We need to speak the truth. Calmly and consistently. Over and over again. We need to be that 5% Mattias Desmet talks about in his book, "The Psychology of Totalitarianism."
I have to do the right thing even if, for a time, I am alone doing it.
The WaPo story alluded to is exhibit #1 in why no reasonable person should, without reservation, trust the press anymore. It's journalistic malpractice
I wrote a comment defending LoT in that article's comment section. The other comments were chilling in their uniform mob mentality. No concern at all for the minors.
We will support your lawsuit financially. Count on it.
You should. Set up a GiveSendGo. I'll contribute.
I do not support Twitter, however I do support Libs of Tik Tok and the truth, therefore I will contribute.
Excellent letter. Excellent challenge to their (supposed) Terms of Service. Excellent lawsuit threat.
I watched a few minutes of a 2019 Joe Rogan interview with Vijaya and Jack Dorsey just now (didn't have three hours to watch the whole thing) but you can see, even 3 years ago, how they were rationalizing their biases. I'm not sure they realize how biased they are (at least back then) but this letter clarifies it very well. Maybe it will be a wake-up call for the woke, about how lost they are in their insular ideological world.
They know. They think their bias is righteous. Check out the Project Veritas exposé just after Musk made his offer for Twitter.
Ditto
I'll contribute more as well!! Stay the course LOTT!!
Call out their hypocrisy.
It’s not hypocrisy it’s hierarchy, which is far more dangerous. It’s “we’re in charge, you’re not, shut your mouth, we do whatever we want”
You are fighting the good fight! You are right to sue. Your work is extremely valuable, and we readers are grateful for your courage and your investigative skills.
Keep up the good fight @libsoftiktok . America and Israel need you. We're all behind you.
Get Nick Sandmann's or Kyle Rittenhouse's attorneys (or even better, Alex Berenson's attorney - they have been successful) and sue the living shit out of these fascists. It is not like you are making this stuff up. You are just giving a louder voice to their own stupid shit. AND THEN THEY ARE UPSET! Imagine that? How phuqueing stupid do the Libs have to be? I mean really. Oh well. Keep fighting the good fight!
You go girl - let us know if you need some help $$
And zuck