The banning of the "My Pillow Guy" by Twitter

[Northcountryman]

This is very disturbing.  Apparently, Twitter banned Mike Lindell for repeatedly violating its "Civic Integrity Policy" which means : We think youre spereading disinformation and perpetuating falsehoods so consequently, were banning you--What?? Did they ban all of those perpetuating the Russian collusion hoax which was PROVEN TO BE FALSE??  Nope!!!  To be honest, I would ban neither; since when did we start arbitrarily banning people and/or groups for their beliefs??  Ultimately, it may turn out that were all wrong and there was no election fraud at a massive scale , but do we really want to--as a country, that is--head down that road of banning speech and/or views we dont agree with and label them summarily as "Lies" or "Falsehoods"?? Should we thern start banning religious tweets that espouse dogma realted to the  Christian or Jewish faiths as well?

Come on!!!

What do you think?

 

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2021/01/26/twitter-bans-mypillow-ceo-mike-lindell-election-fraud-claims/4257458001/

 

[ApexerER]

That was last week. No surprise there......Iran's supreme leader can still tweet tho......

 

Trump, no go, Mike Lindell, no go.....Iran's supreme leader....sure we will let that go....

[Uncle Nicky]

It is incredible, and deeply troubling at the same time. Anyone with any type of celebrity status who questions the election results is automatically deemed a conspiracy theorist, and silenced. If the election was done by the book and legit, why is anyone asking questions muffled & banned from Twitter & other social media sites? 

[ApexerER]

Made me want to order a couple of pillows but i didn't......

[BowmanMike]

Dont you guys confuse private companies with the government censoring anything. Arent you fella's all in on the free market thing? Or maybe there should be some government regulation on big companies and monopolies? 

Careful what you wish for...

[DirtTime]

With all the screwed up crap going on in the world it's so good to see it's the important things like this that keep people up at night.

 

Let me play Devils Advocate ( Oh how I love to do that ). 

How does this effect you personally? What are the reason that this has such a profound impact on your life?

 

 

I'll wait while someone busts out that the internet is bad for those on the right. But while I wait here's something to ponder- WHO CARES! If the internet ticks you off so much then stop using it! Boycott Dicks and Walmart but cling the internet like it's the last life preserver on a sinking boat. 

[Robhuntandfish]

I am not for any publicly used media to be banned for anyone.  Although they might be a private company what they do is offer a public platform.  That being said free speech is the right to say what you want (except threats of course) without being arrested. It does not mean there aren't consequences.  And with that being said. Is it truly free speech if you are limited to being unable to have a platform to speak it?  In a way it can be looked at as a  restriction of free speech if you are only allowed to say it in your home, while others can express themselves and their view. 

I believe there has to be some kind of cutoff of social media cause there are some heinous people out there in the world, but the line seems to keep sliding towards more restrictions on what is acceptable. And with that less options and viewpoints get heard. Which is bad for everyone. 

[9jNYstarkOH]

This should cover it

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/amp-casebrief/casebrief-marsh-v-alabama

[DirtTime]

3 hours ago, Robhuntandfish said:

I am not for any publicly used media to be banned for anyone.  Although they might be a private company what they do is offer a public platform.  That being said free speech is the right to say what you want (except threats of course) without being arrested. It does not mean there aren't consequences.  And with that being said. Is it truly free speech if you are limited to being unable to have a platform to speak it?  In a way it can be looked at as a  restriction of free speech if you are only allowed to say it in your home, while others can express themselves and their view. 

I believe there has to be some kind of cutoff of social media cause there are some heinous people out there in the world, but the line seems to keep sliding towards more restrictions on what is acceptable. And with that less options and viewpoints get heard. Which is bad for everyone. 

Look at it like this:

You own your house right? How would you feel if a bunch of people waltzed in and just did or said whatever they wanted? Dropping cuss words like rain in a monsoon. Would you get pissed off and tell those people to leave? My bet is yes, you would make them leave. If they did not leave you would either get physical or call the cops to get them out. hence in a way you'd be banning those people from your home.

 

There's no difference in owning a web site or social media site. The owner has the right to allow or not allow whatever they wish. If you don't like it then just do go to that site.

 

 

 

Why do people insist on pissing in the wind and then complaining about it if they get wet?

[9jNYstarkOH]

Guess my above post did not cover it for some. @Robhuntandfish if you do not open your house up to the public for your advantage than you can control it without worrying about the public’s constitution right but if you do open it in this way you will have to take their  right into consideration.

Edited February 4, 2021 by 9jNYstarkOH

[9jNYstarkOH]

Also courts have already made a ruling on 1st amendment rights on this private companies platform in the past. I am not saying it’s right but shows the court does take interest in 1st amendment rights on Twitter.

https://apnews.com/article/technology-politics-new-york-lawsuits-u-s-news-1be2575e8310788c9dd7558042af5f4b

Edited February 4, 2021 by 9jNYstarkOH

[Northcountryman]

45 minutes ago, DirtTime said:

Look at it like this:

You own your house right? How would you feel if a bunch of people waltzed in and just did or said whatever they wanted? Dropping cuss words like rain in a monsoon. Would you get pissed off and tell those people to leave? My bet is yes, you would make them leave. If they did not leave you would either get physical or call the cops to get them out. hence in a way you'd be banning those people from your home.

 

There's no difference in owning a web site or social media site. The owner has the right to allow or not allow whatever they wish. If you don't like it then just do go to that site.

 

 

 

Why do people insist on pissing in the wind and then complaining about it if they get wet?

They insist on pissing  in the wind cuz there’s no other place to turn to Currently in social media ; only one game in town Bro , so it’s not quite as simplistic a situation as you make it out to be . What needs to happen is that their little monopoly of social media needs to be busted up So that all voices and points of view can be heard , fairly . 

[DirtTime]

29 minutes ago, Northcountryman said:

They insist on pissing  in the wind cuz there’s no other place to turn to Currently in social media ; only one game in town Bro , so it’s not quite as simplistic a situation as you make it out to be . What needs to happen is that their little monopoly of social media needs to be busted up So that all voices and points of view can be heard , fairly . 

Again I say what did we all do before the interactive age? If there were no internet then this problem wouldn't be here. See my point? Much ado about nothing in a purist form of reality.

 

Also, see my last post before this one. Their house their rules. Don't like the rules don't go to the house. 

[phantom]

9 hours ago, BowmanMike said:

Dont you guys confuse private companies with the government censoring anything. Arent you fella's all in on the free market thing? Or maybe there should be some government regulation on big companies and monopolies? 

Careful what you wish for...

yea but it looks like government found a loophole in the law  twiiter did not ban the  pillow guy on there own they banned him as a favor/bribe   to democratic politicians .  Twitter was making money with the my pillow guy that is the reason private company's exist  so why did they ban him if not to  help rig the election ? It may be technically legal but it was shifty all the same . If the shoe was on the other foot dems  would be rioting at twitter right about now calling for a investigation.

[Robhuntandfish]

9 hours ago, DirtTime said:

Look at it like this:

You own your house right? How would you feel if a bunch of people waltzed in and just did or said whatever they wanted? Dropping cuss words like rain in a monsoon. Would you get pissed off and tell those people to leave? My bet is yes, you would make them leave. If they did not leave you would either get physical or call the cops to get them out. hence in a way you'd be banning those people from your home.

 

There's no difference in owning a web site or social media site. The owner has the right to allow or not allow whatever they wish. If you don't like it then just do go to that site.

 

 

 

Why do people insist on pissing in the wind and then complaining about it if they get wet?

well that analogy doesnt exactly fit.  Because Twitter is a feed that millions of people can get on and the reason they are taking him off is for "misinformation" .   So they are only banning misinformation they dont like?  Which again I understand they own it, but it is not a private house it is public speaking forum.   It is their perogitive but it does bring up is this a slippery slope and is it really free speech if it cant be said anywhere?  Dont know if your familiar with twitter but the things that are said ono there would amaze you and you have to wonder why ban this guy?  

[Robhuntandfish]

8 hours ago, 9jNYstarkOH said:

Guess my above post did not cover it for some. @Robhuntandfish if you do not open your house up to the public for your advantage than you can control it without worrying about the public’s constitution right but if you do open it in this way you will have to take their  right into consideration.

yeah i think we are agreeing here.  It is a public forum and restrictions were to of course foul things , but it seems restrictions these days are that people only want an echo chamber and never hear others opinions (on both sides of the aisle) its not good for anyone and is becoming a barrier to free speech.  The internet can be compared to the telephone. You get banned form using a telephone because Verizon doesnt like what you say?  yes a private company but in a public platform.  So twitter and facebook and google decide to ban someone they no longer can use the internet.  (yes i know the internet is still avail but those guys ban you not much to use)

[Robhuntandfish]

8 hours ago, DirtTime said:

Again I say what did we all do before the interactive age? If there were no internet then this problem wouldn't be here. See my point? Much ado about nothing in a purist form of reality.

 

Also, see my last post before this one. Their house their rules. Don't like the rules don't go to the house. 

well back in 1800 there wasnt any cars..... this analogy makes less sense.  The internet and social media are in our everyday lives and it is here to stay.  If we want to go back in time its like banning you from church because you dont agree with them on liking who the priest is.  

[BowmanMike]

3 hours ago, phantom said:

yea but it looks like government found a loophole in the law  twiiter did not ban the  pillow guy on there own they banned him as a favor/bribe   to democratic politicians .  Twitter was making money with the my pillow guy that is the reason private company's exist  so why did they ban him if not to  help rig the election ? It may be technically legal but it was shifty all the same . If the shoe was on the other foot dems  would be rioting at twitter right about now calling for a investigation.

The pillow guy is a nut,even a newsmax anchor walked off the stage when the pillow dude was on a rant and would not stop. 

Did the democrats get to newsmax too? 

[DirtTime]

4 minutes ago, Robhuntandfish said:

well that analogy doesnt exactly fit.  Because Twitter is a feed that millions of people can get on and the reason they are taking him off is for "misinformation" .   So they are only banning misinformation they dont like?  Which again I understand they own it, but it is not a private house it is public speaking forum.   It is their perogitive but it does bring up is this a slippery slope and is it really free speech if it cant be said anywhere?  Dont know if your familiar with twitter but the things that are said ono there would amaze you and you have to wonder why ban this guy?  

I still think my analogy fits. But we all read into written text differently. Perhaps there was something going on the general public didn't see? This will turn out to be a he said she said thing in the end.

 

I wonder how pillow dude is holding up over this? I'm 100% positive it will not hurt him in the end, especially financially. If he was banned for misinformation that's not political and if that's true no violation of his rights were made. So once again someone got worked up and off on a tangent over nothing except to post a knee jerk reaction to something when they don't know the entire truth to the whole story. Sort of like Mr. Gloom and Doom who is no longer with us.

 

No I don't go on Twitter or any of those foolish sites. It took me a few years to get my Facebook page under control and that's bad enough, the only reason I keep that is because it's geared towards a few family members. I'm growing to despise sites that are mainly a focal point for constant political fecal matter.

[DirtTime]

6 minutes ago, Robhuntandfish said:

well back in 1800 there wasnt any cars..... this analogy makes less sense.  The internet and social media are in our everyday lives and it is here to stay.  If we want to go back in time its like banning you from church because you dont agree with them on liking who the priest is.  

Guess what? It makes perfect sense. No internet no way for all the cry babies to whine over BS they can't control.

[Grouse]

The problem here is the selective use of censorship against speech the forum doesn't like.  When it is obvious a business has a prejudice against a particular type of opinion, it is violating the law.

Businesses used to refuse to serve blacks, gays, even women.  They were all brought up on charges and forced to abide by the law.  Discrimination doesn't allow for prejudice.  Twitter banning only conservative opinions and promoting leftist ones, is clearly discrimination.  Saying a business has a right to do that is clearly a misunderstanding and corruption of the law.

But the left has been ignoring the Rule of Law in many areas for quite some time now and has been getting away with it, because half the people in the country don't see the problems it will cause.

[Robhuntandfish]

23 minutes ago, DirtTime said:

Guess what? It makes perfect sense. No internet no way for all the cry babies to whine over BS they can't control.

I dont use anything but this site now and lurk on one other.  Just cause of all the craziness out there.  But the cat is out of the bag, world aint going back unless it falls apart.  

[Robhuntandfish]

28 minutes ago, DirtTime said:

I still think my analogy fits. But we all read into written text differently. Perhaps there was something going on the general public didn't see? This will turn out to be a he said she said thing in the end.

 

I wonder how pillow dude is holding up over this? I'm 100% positive it will not hurt him in the end, especially financially. If he was banned for misinformation that's not political and if that's true no violation of his rights were made. So once again someone got worked up and off on a tangent over nothing except to post a knee jerk reaction to something when they don't know the entire truth to the whole story. Sort of like Mr. Gloom and Doom who is no longer with us.

 

No I don't go on Twitter or any of those foolish sites. It took me a few years to get my Facebook page under control and that's bad enough, the only reason I keep that is because it's geared towards a few family members. I'm growing to despise sites that are mainly a focal point for constant political fecal matter.

I think it might hurt him financially because people that were just buying pillows before might now recognize --- "isnt this the guy that got banned form twitter?"  hes prob more famous for that now than his pillows.  lol 

[Northcountryman]

9 hours ago, DirtTime said:

Again I say what did we all do before the interactive age? If there were no internet then this problem wouldn't be here. See my point? Much ado about nothing in a purist form of reality.

 

Also, see my last post before this one. Their house their rules. Don't like the rules don't go to the house. 

Yes, I did and it has no basis in reality as per todays world IMHO.   Youre arguing from a purist point of view and that of an absolutist but thats not too realistic cuz it never could be achieved. Is freedom of speech absolute? Clearly not (Shouting fire in a crowded theater example has held for a LONG TIME demonstrating whty it is not). If thats your position, then Dorsey and his boys at Twitter could start banning people because theyre white straight guys and also, because theyre hunters but hey, its their perogative, right? Private businesses operating without government interference is a pilar of free-market capitalist beliefs, but it is not absolute, nor should it be.  I dont think too many would argue against that truth. Especially, considering they currently hold a monoply on the social media market.  Nope, no way.  This cannot be allowed to continue.

[Bolt action]

I think this is less of a legal issue and more of a cultural issue. "We don't agree with you, so we're cancelling you..."