BRUH LOOK AT THIS DUDE

I don't know what's worse.
>this thing is still around
>no one in the thread seems to know what it is
>i know what it is

what a time to be alive

Attached: literally hitler on the far right.jpg (1125x744, 133K)

This is what conservatives want to do with social media (regulate it because they keep getting banned). It's interesting to watch the horseshoe in real time.

This. Also all women are queens and we should kill all men

>regulation to stop censorship is the same as regulation to censor
Ah yes, the radical centrist strikes again

Attached: file.png (645x773, 170K)

>not liking a movie with a female hero is wrongthink

cute desu

Wait, didn't this autist already run for congress and fail spectacularly?

remind me why this homunculus is relevant and have a voice on news and the media.

Try saying something about Jews

What does this have to do with Yea Forums besides triggering incels?

Have sex

>private company ejecting you from their service for breaking the terms of service
>censorship
Dumb alt-right tranny.

Nothing. Everything.

Attached: dick jones here.jpg (448x250, 16K)

Brianna Wu and Peterson on air at the same time WHEN. I want to see that carnage.

are you offering?

>private company ejecting you from their service because of pressure by political groups
>not censorship

she/he whatever was running for congress at some point
no idea why there is an interview on bloomberg of all places about this crap

her parents are rich

Is he actually john flynt or is that just a meme/lie?

>her

Yeah A/S/L?

He's running again.

I think I'm starting to get it now.

Attached: de15df26e9bf61c4f5672a08dc60a50b.jpg (499x481, 28K)

What exactly did Brianna Wu do than make a abhorrently shitty "Mass Effect meets Typing for Fucks"-based game? Not to mention he's all over these issues but in his game every character has an hourglass figure. WHY is he relevant at all?

>private company inhabiting public space

>it's against the rules to spam nigger at blue checkmarks, so why do they ban me for doing it??
Dumb alt-right tranny.

>her

>she

>Brianna

>Autist

>Women

>It

>women

>she
>her

>woman

>Brianna

>thing

>Dude

30/M/Niger

he's just an especially grotesque clown in the circus playing to keep people form realising that that banking cabals have taken over the world

>women and trannies
Dur.

Still kek

>yet you contribute to society.jpg
Got em user

That's still not how it works, but good meme.

K I’ll be your power bottom but you’re gonna have to pay for my transport, I don’t live in Niger

Attached: oof.png (1012x505, 263K)

>any time a woman steps forward in a male dominated field
>is a man

Attached: ahem.png (512x512, 29K)

Isn't this the guy (sorry, one of the guys) who was found to be fabricating attacks on himself, and profited from a scam aimed at cat ladies?

Run for Congress... And is running again.

lefty groups are pressuring the companies to ban/censor the conservatives they disagree with which is the problem
companies deny that it happens but there is plenty of evidence otherwise and it's mostly a one way street.

Parents are rich.

john flynt ain't shit

Try again, but this time either
>make sense
or
>make an argument

based

Yes.

>women

Attached: 1547122846639.jpg (600x418, 27K)

>her

Yes, I was adding that women do this. I was referring mostly to Sarkeesian and Quinn, not the tranny.

sneed

We need to cancel white men.

Attached: 1552179441510.jpg (676x480, 39K)

>Sarkeesian and Quinn
>women

Attached: 1547877496156.jpg (602x709, 94K)

Private companies aren't public parks, you retarded conservatranny.

Sauce on all these people being trannies? Wiki didn’t say

He thinks he's a woman so it must be true, right?

mutts need to be nuked for being this degenerate.

>She cute

Attached: 1543941534417.jpg (599x449, 68K)

Why, other than "I said so."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

Well I’ve seen pics of Quinn’s beef curtain so at least she is

This is already established case law, idk why you guys are arguing about it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

>While the Marsh holding at first appears somewhat narrow and inapplicable to the present day due to the disappearance of company towns from the United States, it was raised in the somewhat high-profile 1996 cyberlaw case, Cyber Promotions v. America Online, 948 F. Supp. 436, 442 (E.D. Pa. 1996).[1] Cyber Promotions wished to send out "mass email advertisements" to AOL customers. AOL installed software to block those emails. Cyber Promotions sued on free speech grounds and cited the Marsh case as authority for the proposition that even though AOL's servers were private property, AOL had opened them to the public to a degree sufficient that constitutional free speech protections could be applied.

>The federal district court disagreed, thereby paving the way for spam filters at the Internet service provider level.
TL;DR: twitter isn't public space and can ban you for whatever it wants

This woman just couldn't put 2+2 together, could she?

See

Story?

She still talking about gamergate...

Attached: BenQuadinaros.jpg (284x398, 16K)

Different situation. It's the difference from placing an ad in the newspaper, and soliciting door to door. Or, to put it another way, it is improper use, while social media is being used properly, but in an unwanted way, which free speech should protect. If it isn't, they should very clearly lay out what is, and is not, allowed. Another example: wireless devices cannot cause harmful interference, but if you connect to a wifi router and it has a packet sniffer, it is on you.

Just fucking have sex you incel poltard

It's entirely true, a background search done by the farms revealed that John flynt once owned the shitty company wu has.

Reminder that this is the son of the guy who owns Hustler.

have sex

Do you think "her" husband takes it up the ass from "her"?

>Different situation
It isn't, though. The ruling fundamentally disagreed that "AOL is a public space" and thus there's no right to free speech.

>In Mark v. Borough of Hatboro,[31] the Third Circuit observed that the Supreme Court uses three distinct tests in determining whether there has been state action.[32] Applying the three tests to the facts of this case, the judge found that the first test, whether AOL "exercise[d] ... the exclusive prerogative of the state," was clearly not met.[33] The judge further concluded that AOL did not act with the help of or in concert with state officials;[34] nor did the government so far insinuate itself into a position of interdependence with AOL to be recognized as a joint participant in its activities.[35] Because none of the three tests were met, the judge did not proceed with any further First Amendment analysis, and concluded that Cyber had no free speech right to send unsolicited e-mail to AOL's members [36]

scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1181&context=btlj

Unless you can demonstrate those three tests, twitter is no more public space than AOL was.

I wonder if you'd sing the same tune if that same company was kicking people out for, for example, suggesting that black people are human? Would you still be of the opinion that "private corporations" can do whatever the hell they please, no matter how large and omnipresent they get?

Private companies banning people based on the opinions they express literally is censorship regardless of the terms of service you retard.

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor

>social media is being used properly
Only the company that owns the platform can determine if their platform is "being used properly" in absence of any law-breaking, it's not really up to you to decide.

far right next to the dude is a qt

Funny enough, that's the same Literally Wu/John Flynt who called people
>fat dykes
>ragheads
>sandniggers
During the ten years this tranny abomination spent in college and did not get a degree.

For this homophobia and racism alone, he deserves death penalty by being sat on by a dangerhair obese SJW.

who is this sexy librarian lady with misguided views on what the government should do?
based af

>she
Stop giving its illusions fuel, retard.

Just fucking throw it in an oven already.

Attached: Brianna Wu.jpg (533x720, 70K)

So trannies can talk about dilation in all Christian churches?

After all, under your loose definition that qualifies twitter as a public space, community churches are "public spaces" too.

Wow, for a second I thought Kathleen Kennedy was on Kate Beckinsdale’s foreskin and egg whites routine.

"put her toe in the water"

Attached: Green_pool2-1253x940.jpg (1253x940, 260K)

take a good look these are the bitches trying to censor your video games

She could fucking smile for once

>she

>citing an arson case
Anyway, let's take twitter.
All three points basically say
>doing functions of the state
>involved with members of the state
>performs a function the state doesn't have
an email obviously does none of these, but twitter easily does 2 and 3. 1 is a bit more difficult, but it could be very easily argued, particularly with the vague language used.
You're also forgetting that the law is constantly reexamined, and to equate email with social media is intellectually dishonest.
I'm all for anyone who uses social media being shot, but it is foolish to ignore the impact it has had on the average retard.

>mentally ill tranny is delusional and unself aware
IMAGINE MY SHOCK

Kiwi Farms

What is the difference between company and government at this point.
At the very least, it's false advertisement, since such platforms are sold as places to speak ones mind.

There’s nothing wrong with that either

t. Ancap

encyclopediadramatica.rs/Brianna_Wu

You have the right to say whatever you want, but you aren't protected from the consequences of having those opinions or thoughts. I guess this is just the next step, but it feels like more of the same

Attached: Brianna Wu goes to the airport.gif (295x250, 1.81M)

>>citing an arson case
That's literally the precedent for the Cyber Promotions vs American Online case. Can you not read?

You are also misrepresenting the test, it's not
>involved with members of the state
it's
>"has the private party has acted with the help of or in concert with state officials ... a conspiracy between a private party and a state official to engage in unlawful discrimination constituting action ‘under color’ of law for purposes of the statute.”
Is twitter acting on behalf of a state official when banning you for saying something offensive? No.

It's also not
>performs a function the state doesn't have
it's
> [t]he State has so far insinuated itself into a position of interdependence with ․ [the acting party] that it must be recognized as a joint participant in the challenged activity.
Has the government insinuated itself into interdependence with Twitter to the point where Twitter is fielding requests for censorship from the government? No.

>to equate email with social media is intellectually dishonest.
Cyber Promotions vs AOL was concerning whether someone had protected speech when using another entity's private resources to deliver that speech. That's exactly what you're arguing for when you say Twitter should be forced to host your speech and that removing it is a restriction of your first amendment rights.

>You're also forgetting that the law is constantly reexamined
No shit, what a meaningless and empty truism to state. I'm telling you what the actual case law is currently and you all getting all butthurt about it and trying to pretend it isn't true. If you have issue with that, take it up with a judge.

>What is the difference between company and government at this point.
What a retarded post.

>such platforms are sold as places to speak ones mind.
Yeah, I'm sure there's tons of twitter marketing out there that says "come and call people niggers and tell trannies to kill themselves"

Why do you leftists not understand definitions? Free speech means literally that, you're protected from harm for your opinions

Attached: Screenshot(1).png (641x316, 11K)

>free speech means you're protected from harm for your opinions
Not the legal definition of "free speech", no. Your definition is absurd and would have tons of negative consequences for conservatives anyways.

The case they cite is an arson case.
Are you arguing that social media isn't pursuing government policy in regards to censorship, say regarding Israel or suchlike.
Email accounts are private information. Social media pages are not.
>actual case law is currently
yeah, no shit, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. the question is whether such a position is tenable in the longterm.

>A small loan of $200,000

Attached: 1535650490889.gif (480x375, 880K)

It's not free speech if you're punished for it. I don't know why this is such a difficult concept.
Seriously, what is the difference. Google is more powerful than the state of Ohio.
>but elections
Vote with your money and time, just like how companies representatives are run.
>call people niggers
They also don't say you have to praise muslims, but both are accepted to be allowed.

Attached: oh no no no no.jpg (694x702, 43K)

I miss deagle nation

>The case they cite is an arson case.
Yes, but the arson case precedent gives rise to a test of what constitutes "government action." in the context of a private company. The fact that it's an arson case is irrelevant.

>Are you arguing that social media isn't pursuing government policy in regards to censorship, say regarding Israel or suchlike.
That's a pretty strong claim, you would have to prove that they were censoring people directly under orders from the government specifically on Israel issues. You're wrong anyways because I can find a dozen anti-Israel accounts right now. Surely if I can find them using basic twitter search, twitter's engineers could easily find them in order to comply with an order from the government, right?

>Email accounts are private information.
Not really when we're discussing the one-to-many multicast capability of mailing lists, which is what the Cyber Promotions vs AOL is concerned with. If you send an email to all 350 million people in America, is it still "private"?"

In any case, Twitter is easily able to replicate such "privacy" by using their "protected tweet" feature.

>Not the legal definition of "free speech"
There is no legal definition of free speech because free speech doesn't exist anywhere in the world, even the U.S. has obscenity laws

>It's not free speech if you're punished for it. I don't know why this is such a difficult concept.
So trannies should be able to come to your home/school and tell your kids all about dilation and other sick shit and you shouldn't be able to do anything about it because removing or ostracizing them would be "harming them for their opinions" and thus contravene "free speech"?

See how retarded definitions can have unintended consequences for the things you believe in as well?

Why are they all white? Wasn’t this for all women?

>There is no legal definition of free speech
Read the federalist papers you uneducated zoomer nigger.