Twitter Subpoena // #VerifiedHate

Twitter can ban whoever they want. They are a private entity.

If you're so fucking based why don't you go shoot up a synagogue then?

Someone needs to be the spark that ignites the fire

Gas yourself you fucking Libertarian

FPBP

/pol is a board of peace

Amazing Atheist tweeted that white people are a disease, aids, a pox on the earth, and every stinking cracka should die of every disease at once, then he tagged the NYT and asked for a lucrative position at their shitty newspaper, having demonstrated the proper qualifications to be hired by this entity.

Twitter immediately suspended him.

Social media is nothing but your gramma's newspaper going shopping at Hot Topic inb4 going out on a cougar hunt for a millenial audience.

Attached: jack-dorsey.jpg (450x450, 31K)

In that case they should be made legally liable for all content hosted on their servers. Because by applying such political censorship, they're effectively announcing that whatever they don't censor is an official endorsement by Twitter. At least by banning in accordance to laws and maintaining neutrality, they can defer responsibility to the user without implicating themselves as supporting any specific position.

Twitter would be immediately shutdown because of See Pee.

What's wrong with twitter supporting a political opinion? If you don't like it, doesn't use twitter. Social media is gay anyways.

The actual point is that if they're favoring a certain political position, then it's clear they're endorsing it at an official capacity. That means they should be held accountable for it.

why not ban the 53.8 million Trump supporters while you are at it jewboy.

Because it is thought control.
Is that somehow not obvious to you?
The deep state/ jews/ globalists/ multicult/ anti-White forces are trying to transform the internet into "kosher media 2.0."
They want almost everyone to be getting their "internet and media fix" via social media like twitter, facebook, reddit, and so forth.
Of course, they control those places and are gradually "squeezing out" via censorship all "wrong think."
They want all "wrongthinkers" to be driven into isolated "containment areas" in order to keep the "wrongthink" (IE the truth) away from the "normies."
Why not just "not use social media cuz it be GAY brah?"
Because it is where the normies are.
Which is the point. (((They))) want to create a "thought control" bubble around EVERYTHING the normies see and here and which ONLY and CONSTANTLY pushes leftist/ globalist/ kosher/ multicult "right think."
"But who cares, brah? YOLO!!!"
They are supporting systems and policies that are supporting, furthering, and enabling the ongoing genocide of White America and the White world. Indeed, they are increasingly DIRECTLY supporting White genocide. They are pushing degeneracy, racemixing, pedophilia, transshit, and so forth.
Never underestimate the power of apparent consensus. By isolating and censoring all opposing viewpoints the "social media" groups are attempting to create the illusion that "everyone LOVES diversity and White genocide!!!!!" in order to drive all the normies into those viewpoints.
None of the jewish shit that they push is the "natural form" of White people or White thought. That is why they want to silence those who tell the normies that "It's OK to be White."
EVERYTHING that they have done since at least post JFK murder has been to destroy White people and White identity. The internet has the potential to reverse their efforts. So they are trying to SHUT IT DOWN.

They are trying to exterminate my people.
They are silencing all who speak THE TRUTH.
They are silencing all who call out THE ONGOING GENOCIDE OF WHITE PEOPLE.
They are violating the rights of REAL AMERICANS (IE, White America) to freedom of political speech. If, by some talmudic trickery bullshit, they "technically aren't" then the rules and laws need to be changed.
Drastically.

worth saying twice

Attached: because it is thought control.jpg (1776x482, 281.48K)

With a pat on the back? You can't arrest Twitter for being blatantly leftist, private companies can do what they want.

You and I and everyone else let them take control by using their platform. There's no legal action you can take in this circumstance because they didn't break the law. For that very reason if someone crashed Twitter's servers with EMP explosives . . . Twitter would be at the mercy of terrorists and counter-terrorists.

Attached: header.jpg (460x215, 27.48K)

never heard of regulation have you, well, I think you will, soon.

You have to prove price collusion otherwise it's fucking illegal, even then that's insofar as it relates to price collusion. You can't tell corporations who they can't deny their services to, unless you think local pizza places should be forced to make faggotry cakes?

Attached: dontyougetit.jpg (1000x675, 123.3K)

Will this be kinda like when Zuckerberg answered questions before Congress?
Not a fucking thing happened because Zuckerberg owns them.

More like Zuckerberg and the government are owned by the same people.

Good question. Hopefully if and when this whole one-sided censorship & 'account banning' situation is brought to light in public, Twitter will no longer be able to violate the law.

There is a reason the Founding Fathers made freedom of speech Article 1 of the Bill of Rights.
meme reelated

Attached: Franklin freedom of expression.jpg (640x360, 176.34K)

Are you retarded too? They can legally deny their services to whomever. Get that through your head.

No. Twitter is public domain.

What's your point?

...

He's a cannibal

I mean sure, but that just creates a loop of ownership.

It is directly violating the 1st amendment.

this is why jews have found themselves packing up their wagons 109 times before and being forced from whatever country they've infected. Their synapses do not function as normal.

Attached: hopefully it's a great show.jpg (1277x613, 162.93K)

It's not a loop, it's a cabal.

What is this?

False but probably for the wrong reasons.

see;

Sieg Heil
No speech is free , every word has a price
Inb6 muh freeeeezzzeeeee peaches

>Words have (((consequences)))

Sometimes. Sometimes those (((consequences))) have consequences.

Correct. Also sometimes those sometimes have sometimes , only sometimes though
Fuck jews niggers muds poos beans bugs and the rest to death with bats.

The advantage of "free speech" is that if you're not full of shit then it tends to work in your favor. However leftists have abused the notion with their mindless slogans and chants wherein which they ignore what others say and hammer their own message home, like walking around your neighborhood blaring a megaphone saying "Hail Lenin". Mocking free speech is ironic when your enemy is using it against you and it's to your advantage, even if you can see how flimsy of an idea it seems in the face of it's abuse.

Attached: ss_134b9d0e0e53b1d8a72d4ce9135b4e6c52487cd2.jpg (5000x2812, 5.68M)

Wrong, it's a utility that acts as a point of contact for government services. It is no different than a telephone service which is becoming more and more displaced.

He's not wrong, you're wrong for assuming that the government has any kind of possession over Facebook or Twitter. It might seize them and enforce certain laws in the future, but at the moment they are recognized as private entities that can deny their service to whomever. You want the government to take over, but it needs to establish a legal precedent, which would require a Supreme Court case or something in that nature.

then utilities can turn off electricity to jews? what about grocery stores not selling food to niggers?

their denial of service is due to forced consent which is no consent at all. Their terms of service violate the 1st amendment.

You're presupposing that it's seen as a public utility when you know damn well no one perceives it as such, including the government.

Checked
Yes and they SHOULD deny services to anyone who isn't white.

It's due to their policies, not "forced consent", not even sure what you mean by "forced consent". Who is consenting to what in this sentence?

Facebook, Google face first GDPR complaints over ‘forced consent’
After two years coming down the pipe at tech giants, Europe’s new privacy framework, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), is now being applied — and long time Facebook privacy critic, Max Schrems, has wasted no time in filing four complaints relating to (certain) companies’ ‘take it or leave it’ stance when it comes to consent.

The complaints have been filed on behalf of (unnamed) individual users — with one filed against Facebook; one against Facebook-owned Instagram; one against Facebook-owned WhatsApp; and one against Google’s Android.

Schrems argues that the companies are using a strategy of “forced consent” to continue processing the individuals’ personal data — when in fact the law requires that users be given a free choice unless a consent is strictly necessary for provision of the service. (And, well, Facebook claims its core product is social networking — rather than farming people’s personal data for ad targeting.)

“It’s simple: Anything strictly necessary for a service does not need consent boxes anymore. For everything else users must have a real choice to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’,” Schrems writes in a statement.

“Facebook has even blocked accounts of users who have not given consent,” he adds. “In the end users only had the choice to delete the account or hit the “agree”-button — that’s not a free choice, it more reminds of a North Korean election process.”

techcrunch.com/2018/05/25/facebook-google-face-first-gdpr-complaints-over-forced-consent/

What the fuck does that have to do with blocking accounts? Nothing, as far as I can tell. Your use of that phrase seems half-baked and inappropriate to the discussion.

Shut up, commies don't have rights. Say that enemy propaganda shit when shit hits the fan and your ass will get defiled and you'll die painfully.

You're a hothead who is easily toyed with.

It's obvious that Twitter, and all social media in general is attempting to interfere in the 2020 election.

This whole country convulses every four years.

Government has say over critical infrastructure the moment it started using twitter as a platform. Just like how the electric company can't turn off your fucking house because you dislike the new Ghostbusters.

Grow the fuck up.

And you're a retard who claims they're only pretending to be dumb. Your shit straw mans don't compare to something as critical as the fucking internet.

A. Define "critical infrastructure". B. Is Twitter the "critical infrastructure" or something else? You may have botched your sentence on accident?
Comparing Twitter to an electric company is stupid as fuck, seeing as you need one of those and the other you definitely don't.

Attached: Venus_kallipygos03.jpg (1100x1466, 239.82K)

So is AT&T

But they can't deny you a phone because they don't like your politics.

I didn't claim they're pretending to be anything, hothead. You go ahead and get pissed at strangers who don't even disagree with you, shows just how unready you are to speak in public places.

Law for thee, not for me. IE, the way jews have worked for the past two thousand years, you retarded fucking nigger.

But Twitter never committed price collusion with a competitor, which is the only fucking reason AT&T got broken up in the first place. AT&T can still deny it's services to people it doesn't like for that matter.

Israel and its domestic kikes are and have been interfering with U.S. elections

look at these kikes getting all libertarian
too late, kike
we're running with it

I'm not a kike, I just know the law better than you. Truth hurts, sorry bud.

No it can't. It's a publicly offered good/service

Twitter is as much a private company as a christian cake baker.

If twitter can deny service, then so can the baker. If the baker can't, then neither can twitter.

You stupid, naive goy.

There is no law regulating or not regulating twitter or other social media platforms. It's a grey area that hasn't been decided on or legislated yet. It will be legislated on eventually, and not in twitters favor.

Says the goy.

It's a private corporation, so no, not in the slightest.
Exactly which is why it has the same right to deny it's services as it sees fit.
Exactly. So both are going to do just that, and have.

Exactly.
You might as well tell me the world will end tomorrow, I don't see any good reason to believe you.

You stupid fucking boomers, holy shit. This is the time to be arguing how, specifically, the kikes are abusing the legal system to use things like Twitter to spread propaganda. This is time to fight for your fucking goddamn existence.

Yes, but it's offering a public service. Just like the Christian cake baker is a private sole proprietorship but it's offering public goods for sale.

In principle I agree with you, but in practice and precedent you are wrong.

No. The Christian cake baker lost his case in the Colorado supreme court. He LOST his case. What he won was a discrimination suit against that court that was heard in the supreme court.

How?

Shitpost in real life. Call your local pizzeria, and ask for a swastika made in toppings. If they refuse, ask them why they would gladly write "TRUMP SUCKS" in toppings. Apply the fucking pressure.

Political beliefs aren't protected though….

What?

Political beliefs aren't protected. So pizza places can do whatever they want regarding expressing your political beliefs

They can. But, you're supposed to pressure them into cooperating. They need to know that this is the final battle. Either they take a side, or they die in a gutter.

All private corporations do that . . . can you give me an example of a private service and how that's different?
Then give me examples.
And what was the result of winning that discrimination suit in the Supreme Court and relate that back to Twitter's right to deny their services.

As all veterans will tell you, there is no such thing.

One without public spaces selling their goods. A good example would be someone who works out of his house making crafts who agrees to sell them to someone that offers to buy one. Another example is a private house sale, or auction.

Literally every civil rights case the fags have done in the past 30 years

The result was he's now sueing a lawyer who is again claiming he was discriminating against her.

All the veterans fought in wars while the jews existed. you stupid fag.

Well that's just fucking stupid. They'll hang up on you and if you keep it up get you for harrassing them

I've already tried. The smarter white girls who pick up the phone already laugh when I call, and the stupid niggers groan because they know I'm going to get outsmarted. I still haven't had my number blocked.

I'm going to oustmart them*

So then you run into the problem of deeming the internet a "public" space.
twitter .com means .commercial, as in a commercial domain.
I said this towards the beginning, a case can be made that Twitter is discriminating against people's political beliefs. I can get behind that.
But what legal precedent was established, if any, by the supreme court case? Can Twitter/Christian Bakeries deny their services to whomever or does the discrimination become the issue? These questions are what's going to be asked for the next five or so years.

Attached: ((sHephaestionGodofFIreandTechnology.jpg (1280x1286, 480.62K)

And the war you're referring to will also be fought "while the jews existed" too, retard.

You misunderstood me. The veterans of all the worlds wars literally made themselves jewish slaves by fighting in their wars. We have the internet now, and no one will ever do that again.

Ya, there is no law regulating these companies on the internet yet, like I said. There will be soon

Discriminating against political beliefs isn't illegal. Violating the right to free speech on a public forum is.

The Civil Rights Act and state interpretations of it that force bakers to bake cakes for faggots (or take pictures, or whatever)

twitter .com means .commercial, as in a commercial domain.

Fucking kill yourself, you reddit-spacing sixty year old. You destroyed this fucking country, and all your interest in the 'hackers known as 4chan
' will never save you from your public hanging.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Your sextagenerian ass is going to die on the DotR, and no matter how hard you rub up on the millenials, we will kill you.

Seriously, what the FUCK are you talking about?

Are you implying that I'm off-base, or do you literally not understand what I'm implicating?

That's a stupid thing to say. Wars have been fought against jews directly, the Romans for example . . . lol you don't know shit.
I'll wait until I see something happen, I'm not as inclined to prophesy as you.
Then Twitter is totally in the clear and no one can do anything about what they're doing, period. They have the right to deny all right-wing views on their commercial domain.
It's not a public forum, it's one owned by a private business.
Being a faggot is fucking made-up, so not sure how that works.

Read this post but skip the first response.

Jewish schizophrenia, folks. Take it in, before it's just a museum exhibit.

Attached: 2e398dbf9c67b3739eb7b1d48a3907b84ac4299ff62f65a8115a7968b9e4074c.png (452x440, 133.48K)