...because being able to speak on one of the main social media platforms is not nearly as important as getting a wedding cake made for a gay wedding.

I'm with Snoopy. Sue the hell out of Twitter. Make the Left play by their own rules. The other side has declared war on us; it's time for us to start fighting back.

It turns out someone in France is suing Facebook for an account suspension:

http://fortune.com/2016/02/15/facebook-loses-another-jurisdiction-fight-in-europe/

You can't sue Twitter for this. See First Amendment grounds above.

"Banning Conservatives From Twitter Does Not Violate The First Amendment"

It just makes them lame. If Twitter wants to alienate half their customer base, go for it. Just tone down your bluster about being pro "free speech" and don't be shocked when revenue goes down.

I think there are good arguments on both sides.

On the one hand, Twitter is a private company, a membership-based media platform, meaning anyone who wants to post there must abide by the rules of the medium. And Twitter has the right to determine membership criteria.

On the other hand, Twitter is a widely used social media platform, to the point it has essentially become a public forum. And, like the baker in Snoopy's allusion, operating in the public space binds you to public rules. And freedom of speech is a public rule here in the US (for now).

Twitter, of course, is concerned about its business and revenue. If the Twitterverse is perceived as a mean place (and not a "safe" one) and is open to all (even the meanies), the precious snowflakes will go elsewhere and take their advertiser-coveted eyes with them (which they'll do anyway as soon as their parents follow them in switching from Facebook to Twitter).

You shouldn't be able to sue twitter over this. But you shouldn't be able to sue of the cake thing either. So I agree with Snoopy. Sue them and make them play by the same rules. Even if you lose the lawsuit enough nuisance and publicity may be generated to get the same effect anyway.

Quick thoughts:

I'm a bit appalled at Soave and reason. Yes, it's not a "first amendment" issue, but at what point would Soave leave twitter because their censorship is too much.

It's not first amendment gov't censorship, but it is censorship, and there are "I am Spartacus" and "First They Came" questions Soave should answer.

To the extent that Twitter came to fame by claiming to be the best free speech medium on the net, where they are now should drive Soave and all first amendment supporters OFF of twitter.

To the extent prominent supporters of free speech will not leave twitter when they censor political views, I ask them why? What is it about twitter that makes it critical for them to stay?

Because the more that Twitter is seen as critical the more I think hell, maybe they do have a monopoly, and/or maybe they should be regulated NOT as Section 230, but as a common carrier the way the railroads, Western Union, and phone companies, FedEx, and UPS were and are. (Oddly, UPS insists it is not a common carrier, though many sites claim it certainly formed as a common carrier and many of its subsidiaries are clearly common carriers)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier#Telecommunications

(Though I suspect Soave is not happy about this) ISPs are now common carriers for the purpose of enforcement of net neutrality, and the more that twitter works to suppress, silence, censor speech than perhaps common carrier regulation is what is needed.

Again, if it's not needed, if twitter is not an essential critical part of infrastructure, than why aren't free speech advocates: reason, the EFF, PopeHat, etc. leaving twitter in support of speech and to protest how they censor political views?

Interesting viewpoint on this from the NY Post:

http://nypost.com/2016/02/23/twitter-targets-trolls-but-winds-up-silencing-conservatives/

McCain, the latest high-profile pundit to run afoul of Twitter’s vague prohibitions on abusive behavior, is a controversial figure. Many would find his passionate denunciations of liberals — feminists, in particular — offensive, even vile (I know I do). But there’s a considerable difference between using Twitter to harshly criticize opponents and using it to harass them or incite others to violence. I’ve yet to see a compelling case that McCain crossed that line.

Why did he get the boot, then? Twitter recently formed the Orwellian-named “Trust and Safety Council” to propose changes to the company’s use policies. The goal, according to a press release, was to find a middle ground between permitting broad free speech and restricting actual abuse.

But practically none of the 40 people chosen to be part of the council are all that concerned about free speech. In fact, most of them work for anti-harassment groups and seem likely to recommend further limitations on online expression.

One such council member is Anita Sarkeesian, a feminist blogger and opponent of the GamerGate movement.

[...]

Sarkeesian is exactly the kind of person McCain has spent his life bashing: The fact that he was banned from Twitter mere days after the company chose her for the council doesn’t exactly inspire confidence that such decisions are being made fairly.

...FedEx, and UPS were and are. (Oddly, UPS insists it is not a common carrier, though many sites claim it certainly formed as a common carrier and many of its subsidiaries are clearly common carriers)

FedEx is regulated as an air freight company, while UPS is regulated as a trucking company.

The air freight carrier regulations are lighter, especially when it comes to unions. UPS is lobbying to have themselves declared an air freight company or FedEx declared a trucking company.

FedEx vs. UPS and the Railway Labor Act.

http://www.civilrights.org/publications/fedex-rla-loophole/why-fedex-express-rla.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/

Thanks for the clarification on FedEx. At the same time, FedEx uses common carrier as a defense when it's useful

http://www.wsj.com/articles/fedex-uses-common-carrier-defense-against-doj-drug-shipping-charges-1427395841

The folks at Twitter are pissing on everyone. Its users, the advertisers (social media's TRUE customers BTW), and the stockholders.

And from the looks of it, they don't give a damn about the three of them at all.

IMNHO The only reason this company is still afloat is as a (very expensive) political tool. Once the elections are over, I predict a full bankruptcy.

Don't like Twitter? Easy. Don't use it. Or leave. Or start your own version of Twitter. Or boycott Twitter advertisers.

Many private companies, corporations and websites police what their users post, from newspaper website comments to the Free Republic boards. That's their right.

Blogs became popular and influential when people who felt their voices weren't being heard created their own microphones. Find another mic.

The problem is that twitter has become a sort of common carrier like the telephone, or internet. If the same thing happened with the internet as with twitter, then this site could be banned for saying "hateful" things like that men are being treated unfairly in campus hearings or that rape statistics (1 in 5) are wrong. In Europe that is where they are headed (people arrested for social media comments or jokes) and of course in China the internet is heavily censored by the government. Of course as a private company twitter can do what they want, but just because you CAN act totalitarian doesn't mean you SHOULD.

Don't like a bakery? Easy. Don't use it.

While I agree that Twitter and other platforms should be able to "ban" anyone they please; I would still like to see someone sue and win!

Why? Because, as pointed out above, "progressives" have been doing this and winning. Being force to go out of business because you didn't pander to whatever the left considers to be a "rightful" cause.

Maybe, just maybe, those on the left will see just how harmful they have been to society; most likely they won't, they will think it is just another case of "white male privilege" when they lose.

But, hit back anyway.

Have you noticed something odd?

The owner of a restaurant is FORCED to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act, on the basis that individuals have rights however they may be disabled.

Yet a newspaper is not forced to comply with the 1st Amendment...

When did it become acceptable to force private parties to perform governmental duties w/r/t the application of rights?

Yet a newspaper is not forced to comply with the 1st Amendment...

The First Amendment in its entirety:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

How can a newspaper 'comply' with the First Amendment, which specifically restricts the power of Congress and nothing more?

I posted this in a linkies entry recently (emphasis mine):

https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=231145

The company recently put in a place a "Trust and Safety Council" that they staffed with hard-left social justice nuts. And I do mean real nuts -- one of them includes an Islamic "research center" that makes CAIR look like choir boys.

There is no First Amendment issue here, so don't even bother with it folks. Twitter, while a public company, is not a government agency and thus can make whatever rules it wants, just like I can (and do) here. They can ban anyone, for any reason, at any time.

...

But Twitter might want to think about the fact that about half of the population in this country is conservative, and the other half liberal. It's not quite that simple of a division, but it's close enough.

And unlike a little privately-run place like this, where my first and foremost goal is not to maximize my advertising revenue, that is precisely Twitter's first and foremost goal.

It's only a matter of time before a public company that does this sort of thing winds up like MySpace.

My suspicion is that some smart people will (have?) be shorting TWTR stock, and that at some point in this year, they'll ease @jack out of his position, shit can the Trust and Safety Council and practically beg the people they shadowbanned, banned or voluntarily shuttered their account to please, please come back!

It'll be too late by then. Maybe Adam Baldwin will buy up the service for $0.03 on the $.

And maybe this will get traction: http://www.trsst.com/

Twitter is a corporation organized for profit, and it has a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders. Acting in a way that alienates 50% or so of their potential user base may not be consistent with this responsibility.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see shareholder lawsuits in this and other cases where management is making decisions that could be viewed as causing the corporation to act more like a political PAC than a profit-seeking entity. These would probably be hard for the plaintiffs to win, but at some point the behavior becomes so egregious that they might actually succeed.

And maybe this will get traction: http://www.trsst.com/ ~ Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at February 24, 2016 1:04 PM

An open source network with the access apps acting as voluntary gatekeepers (i.e., don't like liberal tweets, use a conservative app to access the Twitterverse) would work.

The commenting Twitterverse then becomes like the Internet, open to all and [mostly] unregulated.

In such an arrangement, commenting would be open to anyone, but apps could be sold based on their friendliness or hostility to certain viewpoints.

And everyone would then be able to blind themselves to any viewpoint with which they might disagree or that might offend them. Parental controls voluntarily self-applied to [supposed] adults.

"How can a newspaper 'comply' with the First Amendment, which specifically restricts the power of Congress and nothing more?"

The point is that the powers of government have been imposed upon and obliged to be performed by the private sector. If you get on your soapbox somewhere, the fact that the 1st is about Congress isn't even considered by those who would promote free speech.

These issues are fought under the concept of "incorporation", the principle that states, counties and cities should be or are subject to the same limits that the Feds have.

I think that you have missed several cases in which authors were sued for expressing their opinions clearly in newspapers, only to be exonerated under freedom-of-speech principles.

Banning Conservatives From Twitter Does Not Violate The First Amendment

What about banning them from Earth?

"What about banning them from Earth?"

Well, then you would get what some, if not you, apparently want: Government direction as to how you may act, what you may earn, what you must eat, when you may drive.

Perhaps you could point at the obvious paradise created by wholly "liberal" (in quotes because the philosophy is anything but) policies?

Are conservatives in charge of any of the American failures? Detroit? DC? New Orleans?

California?

"Are conservatives in charge of any of the American failures? Detroit? DC? New Orleans?

California?"

I'm sorry, did those places somehow escape the tyrannical rule of Bushitler the Usurper?

/sarc

The interesting thing is that the FCC has maintained since FDR's time, and still maintains today, that electronic communication is not protected by the First Amendment. And for decades no one in Washington has seriously challenged it. The rationale originally was that radio bandwidth was (in theory) a scarce resource, and the FCC took on that it would enforce the "responsible" use of the bandwidth. The bandwidth argument, if it was ever valid, has been obsolete for decades. Yet the FCC continues to assert that it has the authority, just because. So, presumably, if the FCC were so inclined it could compel Twitter to grant "equal time", and the courts have traditionally supported the FCC's authority over content in electronic communications.

(Personally: I think that whole thing is bull and the FCC should not ever have been granted that authority in the first place. But it was, First Amendment be damned, and it's never been seriously challenged. Don't forget that when the Fairness Doctrine was thrown out, that didn't happen because of a court decision, it happened because the FCC, under pressure from Reagan, voted itself to eliminate it. Every court that had ever heard a lawsuit over the Fairness Doctrine upheld it.)