Thing is it’s not just 75 public records requests,... It’s 75 public records requests that don’t follow the law... It’s the appeals she made to the denials, that she then lost.. It’s the 20 complaints made to various other government offices, none of which have apparently resulted in any action against the town... And if you want the cherry on top of the icing on this cakes, it’s apparently a threat to sue the town for 20 million dollars, for “intentional infliction of emotional distress” , where the “citizens and homeowners of the town” were the alleged victims... So yeah the town may be asking for a benchslap by suing, but it seems that Mrs Mc Daniel is on a path to one as well...
Well the most telling piece of evidence is that according to the complaint she filed over 20 complaints over being denied access, and won none of them.
But that presumes the goal is to remove “conservatives” or “trumpsters”, if the goal however is to remove the -liars- and -people inciting violence- then the point is you end up with an honest debate of the issues on their merits.
Yes, Fingerprints, Dental Records and DNA may remain the most reliable means of identifying people, but Ukraine doesn't have those records, they're back in Russia, while the dead bodies are in Ukraine. Identifying the dead by those means would have to wait until hostilities end, or a third party steps in.
I say once the law passes, someone should sue Truth Social under it, after all, promotion of goods and services isn’t one of the things internet platforms are specifically authorized by federal law to remove, and that’s to say nothing of making truthful claims pointing out that the election wasn’t stolen, or that Devin Nunes has lost a defamation case -again-.
Your chronology is severely lacking, in it’s resemblance to reality (much like your assertion that right wingers protesting policy is has been made illegal, doubly so when many of the laws against protests were passed to limit left wing protests, and when right wingers broke those laws the laws were oddly ignored (see the articles here on the police reaction to anti-Cuba protests) there wasn’t a federal statute on obscenity until the Comstock act of 1873, and what was considered obscene was narrowed in 1957, and again in 1973. As it is, the books that are currently the subject of right wing ire, have a few explicit scenes in them, -that doesn’t make the entire work gay pornography, much less obscene.
You know, thse laws seem to have a loophole you could drive a trucker convoy through. “ 1) An expression that the common carrier is specifically authorized to censor by federal law;” The only place AFAIK, where expression is specifically authorized to be removed by internet platform is in Section 230(c), and that listing includes the “or otherwise objectionable” clause. All a provider would have to say is “we find bigotry, quackery, and false claims of election fraud” otherwise objectionable, and under federal law we are specifically authorized to remove it. It’s not our problem if you think the federal government was to vague in their authorization, you can sue them over it.
"Social media is not like Radio, TV, Cable and Satellite. Those are common carriers that use public airwaves and wire." - except Radio, TV, Cable and Satellite are not common carriers, common carriers would be the telephone system, railways, and postal system, and arguably internet service providers.
It's potentially corporate governance issue, regardless of weather or not DTV carries OANN or not. If AT&T they does carry OANN, then William Kennard making decisions on is buying content from a company that's being sued by another company he has investments in, one that could also potentially spill over to AT&T. Legally speaking with regard to fiduciary duties it might be in both AT&T and his best interest to sever ties between AT&T and OANN, before Dominion decides AT&T might be be subject to liability distributing OANN's BS to it's viewers.
This would be relevant if DTV was blocking access to OAN’s internet sites, they’re not, they’ve stopped purchasing content from OAN for their TV programming , which legally is a different kettle of fish.
Except they’re not common carriers,DYV is -paying- OAN for content, not OAN paying DTV for distribution. DYVis perfectly free to stop buying from OAN, and given the Dominion lawsuit, they have ample reason to drop them, lest they get caught up in the legal consequences of OAN’s recless disregard for the truth.
The problem with that argument is this is not a case of OAN engaging DTV to distribute their content, like a train moving OAN’s DVD shipment. This is a case of DTV purchasing content from OAN to distribute to their customers, DTV is simply deciding not to purchase any more content, from OAN like a blockbuster buying more movies from OAN.
The existence of the formerly contract between Direct TV and OAN, whereby Direct TV pays OAN ( and not the other way around) rather speaks against Direct TV being a Common Carrier obligated to carry OAN.
You know what? Even if AT&T decided to come out and flatly say “ Yes we dropped OAN because it on the political right and we don’t like that” - They’re entitled to do that by the First Admendment
I had a round with the lawyer on twitter, The lawyer got through a loophole, there’s an individual right to sue in the TX law, and the injunction staying the law only applies to the TX AG. The law probably willl be fully struck down, and his case nerfed, but for the moment, he’s got a win of sorts.
Well, if this is true, then Truth Social is -also- a common carrier, and it "must carry content, irrespective of any desire or external compulsion to discriminate against Plaintiff"
India may not have the same “Freedum” death cult as the US, but that’s not to say they don’t have their own flavor of death cult there, look up Modi’s government's promotion of “Hindu Science” sometime, that being said, Delta was actually identified before any of the vaccines were available at all, it’s spread was probably inevitable.
Break up Twitter? Into what? Twit? And Er?
I mean seriously, Twitter is one company that really provides one service, how do you split the baby?
When officers appear to be predisposed to use force against someone it’s often because the 9-1-1 operator or police dispatch gave him information that puts him on his toes.
And how often is that information -wrong-? Tamir Rice, Daniel Shaver...
... complete the sentence. “And won none of them” This indicates, that at some point, she Made a public records request,didn’t get a response, Made an appeal, The appeal, is to the GRC,mwhich is a state agency, not just higher up in the town, The State agency apparently ruled in the towns favor. This would seem to be a indicator that her requests were flawed in the first place, i.e. the might well be frivilous. (I will admit I was wrong on the number, she has filed “several” appeals, the the figure of 20, is the number of complaints she filed against the town with various other agencies )