Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: "I’ve seen a sworn affidavit from Yoel Roth, the former head of Twitter’s trust and safety. He was meeting every week before the election with FBI and other intelligence officials." -

Miranda Devine on @FoxNews

That IS a violation of the 1st

No it isn’t.

Yes it is The FIB and government intelligence officials are (wait for it) government agencies.

Where in the constitution does it say that employees of private businesses can’t meet with government officials?

First paragraph:

“or abridge the freedom of speech”

When government officials tell twitter to ban a user or delete a post because they don’t like what’s said.

That does not say that meetings are prohibited.

You also left out the part about "Congress shall make no law". Can you point me to the law that you believes violates the 1st Amendment in this case?

Enjoy the read. No matter how you spin in or try to parse it, you are incorrect.

The ‘no law’ clause has nothing to do with this. Congress didn’t try to make a law. They bypassed any judicial review as well.

https://www.fox-news.com/politics/fbi-weekly-big-tech-ahead-2020-election-agent-testifies

Let me help a bit:

“ "Since filing our lawsuit, we've uncovered troves of discovery that show a massive 'censorship enterprise,'" Attorney General Eric Schmitt told Fox News Digital. "Now, we're deposing top government officials, and we're one of the first to get a look under the hood — the information we've uncovered through those depositions has been shocking to say the least. It's clear from Tuesday's deposition that the FBI has an extremely close role in working to censor freedom of speech."

Let's see how well this lawsuit does in the court system. I would not put a lot of faith in the plaintiff's attorney. But, let me give a real life example of the type of thing being described here.

A couple of years ago I was contacted by an individual who asked me to remove a thread on DCUM. The individual said that the thread involved an issue in which the police were involved and that the police had warned them that the DCUM thread could put people in danger. I said that I wanted to hear that from the police directly and was subsequently contacted by a police officer. The officer confirmed that it was their opinion that the thread could in fact present a threat to the safety of those involved. I was still reluctant to remove the thread and explained my position and the officer left it at that. I followed up with the original person who contacted me and we agreed upon a solution that did not involve removing the entire thread, but did require removing two or three specific posts.

In this case, I was clearly influenced by a governmental actor to censor a DCUM thread. It was within my rights to ignore the police. I later chose to remove posts but did so due to my own determinations about the appropriateness of the posts rather than by governmental order. As such, there was no First Amendment issue involved here. I suspect that you will find out that the same is true in the legal procedure you are referencing.

Thank you for admitting you choose what gets posted. Unfortunately you have become rather heavy handed with your censorship and it has lowered the quality of conversation on the forum. I posted something the other day and thought my post was thoughtful and respectful but it did argue the opposing view of establishment Democrats. It was removed. Now it seems like if a post doesn’t tow your personal line it gets deleted. I guess maybe you should just get rid of the political forum altogether because it is so heavily edited.

+1. Jeff’s MO is to be extremely biased, while claiming factual and moral superiority. He can never be incorrect, and if you post anything that disagrees with him you are subject to deletion. Some of the stuff he deletes is truly bizarre and not always political. For instance, I’ve seen him delete posts that claim that hormonal birth control shrinks ovaries by up to 50%. I was utterly puzzled as to why he would care about that, but he cleaned out a whole thread even deleted posts linking studies on pubmed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: "I’ve seen a sworn affidavit from Yoel Roth, the former head of Twitter’s trust and safety. He was meeting every week before the election with FBI and other intelligence officials." -

Miranda Devine on @FoxNews

That IS a violation of the 1st

No it isn’t.

Yes it is The FIB and government intelligence officials are (wait for it) government agencies.

Where in the constitution does it say that employees of private businesses can’t meet with government officials?

First paragraph:

“or abridge the freedom of speech”

When government officials tell twitter to ban a user or delete a post because they don’t like what’s said.

That does not say that meetings are prohibited.

You also left out the part about "Congress shall make no law". Can you point me to the law that you believes violates the 1st Amendment in this case?

Enjoy the read. No matter how you spin in or try to parse it, you are incorrect.

The ‘no law’ clause has nothing to do with this. Congress didn’t try to make a law. They bypassed any judicial review as well.

https://www.fox-news.com/politics/fbi-weekly-big-tech-ahead-2020-election-agent-testifies

Let me help a bit:

“ "Since filing our lawsuit, we've uncovered troves of discovery that show a massive 'censorship enterprise,'" Attorney General Eric Schmitt told Fox News Digital. "Now, we're deposing top government officials, and we're one of the first to get a look under the hood — the information we've uncovered through those depositions has been shocking to say the least. It's clear from Tuesday's deposition that the FBI has an extremely close role in working to censor freedom of speech."

Let's see how well this lawsuit does in the court system. I would not put a lot of faith in the plaintiff's attorney. But, let me give a real life example of the type of thing being described here.

A couple of years ago I was contacted by an individual who asked me to remove a thread on DCUM. The individual said that the thread involved an issue in which the police were involved and that the police had warned them that the DCUM thread could put people in danger. I said that I wanted to hear that from the police directly and was subsequently contacted by a police officer. The officer confirmed that it was their opinion that the thread could in fact present a threat to the safety of those involved. I was still reluctant to remove the thread and explained my position and the officer left it at that. I followed up with the original person who contacted me and we agreed upon a solution that did not involve removing the entire thread, but did require removing two or three specific posts.

In this case, I was clearly influenced by a governmental actor to censor a DCUM thread. It was within my rights to ignore the police. I later chose to remove posts but did so due to my own determinations about the appropriateness of the posts rather than by governmental order. As such, there was no First Amendment issue involved here. I suspect that you will find out that the same is true in the legal procedure you are referencing.

Thank you for admitting you choose what gets posted. Unfortunately you have become rather heavy handed with your censorship and it has lowered the quality of conversation on the forum. I posted something the other day and thought my post was thoughtful and respectful but it did argue the opposing view of establishment Democrats. It was removed. Now it seems like if a post doesn’t tow your personal line it gets deleted. I guess maybe you should just get rid of the political forum altogether because it is so heavily edited.

+1. Jeff’s MO is to be extremely biased, while claiming factual and moral superiority. He can never be incorrect, and if you post anything that disagrees with him you are subject to deletion. Some of the stuff he deletes is truly bizarre and not always political. For instance, I’ve seen him delete posts that claim that hormonal birth control shrinks ovaries by up to 50%. I was utterly puzzled as to why he would care about that, but he cleaned out a whole thread even deleted posts linking studies on pubmed.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: "I’ve seen a sworn affidavit from Yoel Roth, the former head of Twitter’s trust and safety. He was meeting every week before the election with FBI and other intelligence officials." -

Miranda Devine on @FoxNews

That IS a violation of the 1st

No it isn’t.

Yes it is The FIB and government intelligence officials are (wait for it) government agencies.

Where in the constitution does it say that employees of private businesses can’t meet with government officials?

First paragraph:

“or abridge the freedom of speech”

When government officials tell twitter to ban a user or delete a post because they don’t like what’s said.

That does not say that meetings are prohibited.

You also left out the part about "Congress shall make no law". Can you point me to the law that you believes violates the 1st Amendment in this case?

Enjoy the read. No matter how you spin in or try to parse it, you are incorrect.

The ‘no law’ clause has nothing to do with this. Congress didn’t try to make a law. They bypassed any judicial review as well.

https://www.fox-news.com/politics/fbi-weekly-big-tech-ahead-2020-election-agent-testifies

Let me help a bit:

“ "Since filing our lawsuit, we've uncovered troves of discovery that show a massive 'censorship enterprise,'" Attorney General Eric Schmitt told Fox News Digital. "Now, we're deposing top government officials, and we're one of the first to get a look under the hood — the information we've uncovered through those depositions has been shocking to say the least. It's clear from Tuesday's deposition that the FBI has an extremely close role in working to censor freedom of speech."

Let's see how well this lawsuit does in the court system. I would not put a lot of faith in the plaintiff's attorney. But, let me give a real life example of the type of thing being described here.

A couple of years ago I was contacted by an individual who asked me to remove a thread on DCUM. The individual said that the thread involved an issue in which the police were involved and that the police had warned them that the DCUM thread could put people in danger. I said that I wanted to hear that from the police directly and was subsequently contacted by a police officer. The officer confirmed that it was their opinion that the thread could in fact present a threat to the safety of those involved. I was still reluctant to remove the thread and explained my position and the officer left it at that. I followed up with the original person who contacted me and we agreed upon a solution that did not involve removing the entire thread, but did require removing two or three specific posts.

In this case, I was clearly influenced by a governmental actor to censor a DCUM thread. It was within my rights to ignore the police. I later chose to remove posts but did so due to my own determinations about the appropriateness of the posts rather than by governmental order. As such, there was no First Amendment issue involved here. I suspect that you will find out that the same is true in the legal procedure you are referencing.

Thank you for admitting you choose what gets posted. Unfortunately you have become rather heavy handed with your censorship and it has lowered the quality of conversation on the forum. I posted something the other day and thought my post was thoughtful and respectful but it did argue the opposing view of establishment Democrats. It was removed. Now it seems like if a post doesn’t tow your personal line it gets deleted. I guess maybe you should just get rid of the political forum altogether because it is so heavily edited.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: "I’ve seen a sworn affidavit from Yoel Roth, the former head of Twitter’s trust and safety. He was meeting every week before the election with FBI and other intelligence officials." -

Miranda Devine on @FoxNews

That IS a violation of the 1st

No it isn’t.

Yes it is The FIB and government intelligence officials are (wait for it) government agencies.

Where in the constitution does it say that employees of private businesses can’t meet with government officials?

First paragraph:

“or abridge the freedom of speech”

When government officials tell twitter to ban a user or delete a post because they don’t like what’s said.

That does not say that meetings are prohibited.

You also left out the part about "Congress shall make no law". Can you point me to the law that you believes violates the 1st Amendment in this case?

Enjoy the read. No matter how you spin in or try to parse it, you are incorrect.

The ‘no law’ clause has nothing to do with this. Congress didn’t try to make a law. They bypassed any judicial review as well.

https://www.fox-news.com/politics/fbi-weekly-big-tech-ahead-2020-election-agent-testifies

Let me help a bit:

“ "Since filing our lawsuit, we've uncovered troves of discovery that show a massive 'censorship enterprise,'" Attorney General Eric Schmitt told Fox News Digital. "Now, we're deposing top government officials, and we're one of the first to get a look under the hood — the information we've uncovered through those depositions has been shocking to say the least. It's clear from Tuesday's deposition that the FBI has an extremely close role in working to censor freedom of speech."

Let's see how well this lawsuit does in the court system. I would not put a lot of faith in the plaintiff's attorney. But, let me give a real life example of the type of thing being described here.

A couple of years ago I was contacted by an individual who asked me to remove a thread on DCUM. The individual said that the thread involved an issue in which the police were involved and that the police had warned them that the DCUM thread could put people in danger. I said that I wanted to hear that from the police directly and was subsequently contacted by a police officer. The officer confirmed that it was their opinion that the thread could in fact present a threat to the safety of those involved. I was still reluctant to remove the thread and explained my position and the officer left it at that. I followed up with the original person who contacted me and we agreed upon a solution that did not involve removing the entire thread, but did require removing two or three specific posts.

In this case, I was clearly influenced by a governmental actor to censor a DCUM thread. It was within my rights to ignore the police. I later chose to remove posts but did so due to my own determinations about the appropriateness of the posts rather than by governmental order. As such, there was no First Amendment issue involved here. I suspect that you will find out that the same is true in the legal procedure you are referencing.

Thank you for admitting you choose what gets posted. Unfortunately you have become rather heavy handed with your censorship and it has lowered the quality of conversation on the forum. I posted something the other day and thought my post was thoughtful and respectful but it did argue the opposing view of establishment Democrats. It was removed. Now it seems like if a post doesn’t tow your personal line it gets deleted. I guess maybe you should just get rid of the political forum altogether because it is so heavily edited.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: "I’ve seen a sworn affidavit from Yoel Roth, the former head of Twitter’s trust and safety. He was meeting every week before the election with FBI and other intelligence officials." -

Miranda Devine on @FoxNews

That IS a violation of the 1st

No it isn’t.

Yes it is The FIB and government intelligence officials are (wait for it) government agencies.

Where in the constitution does it say that employees of private businesses can’t meet with government officials?

First paragraph:

“or abridge the freedom of speech”

When government officials tell twitter to ban a user or delete a post because they don’t like what’s said.

That does not say that meetings are prohibited.

You also left out the part about "Congress shall make no law". Can you point me to the law that you believes violates the 1st Amendment in this case?

Enjoy the read. No matter how you spin in or try to parse it, you are incorrect.

The ‘no law’ clause has nothing to do with this. Congress didn’t try to make a law. They bypassed any judicial review as well.

https://www.fox-news.com/politics/fbi-weekly-big-tech-ahead-2020-election-agent-testifies

Let me help a bit:

“ "Since filing our lawsuit, we've uncovered troves of discovery that show a massive 'censorship enterprise,'" Attorney General Eric Schmitt told Fox News Digital. "Now, we're deposing top government officials, and we're one of the first to get a look under the hood — the information we've uncovered through those depositions has been shocking to say the least. It's clear from Tuesday's deposition that the FBI has an extremely close role in working to censor freedom of speech."

Let's see how well this lawsuit does in the court system. I would not put a lot of faith in the plaintiff's attorney. But, let me give a real life example of the type of thing being described here.

A couple of years ago I was contacted by an individual who asked me to remove a thread on DCUM. The individual said that the thread involved an issue in which the police were involved and that the police had warned them that the DCUM thread could put people in danger. I said that I wanted to hear that from the police directly and was subsequently contacted by a police officer. The officer confirmed that it was their opinion that the thread could in fact present a threat to the safety of those involved. I was still reluctant to remove the thread and explained my position and the officer left it at that. I followed up with the original person who contacted me and we agreed upon a solution that did not involve removing the entire thread, but did require removing two or three specific posts.

In this case, I was clearly influenced by a governmental actor to censor a DCUM thread. It was within my rights to ignore the police. I later chose to remove posts but did so due to my own determinations about the appropriateness of the posts rather than by governmental order. As such, there was no First Amendment issue involved here. I suspect that you will find out that the same is true in the legal procedure you are referencing.

Thank you for admitting you choose what gets posted. Unfortunately you have become rather heavy handed with your censorship and it has lowered the quality of conversation on the forum. I posted something the other day and thought my post was thoughtful and respectful but it did argue the opposing view of establishment Democrats. It was removed. Now it seems like if a post doesn’t tow your personal line it gets deleted. I guess maybe you should just get rid of the political forum altogether because it is so heavily edited.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: "I’ve seen a sworn affidavit from Yoel Roth, the former head of Twitter’s trust and safety. He was meeting every week before the election with FBI and other intelligence officials." -

Miranda Devine on @FoxNews

That IS a violation of the 1st

No it isn’t.

Yes it is The FIB and government intelligence officials are (wait for it) government agencies.

Where in the constitution does it say that employees of private businesses can’t meet with government officials?

First paragraph:

“or abridge the freedom of speech”

When government officials tell twitter to ban a user or delete a post because they don’t like what’s said.

That does not say that meetings are prohibited.

You also left out the part about "Congress shall make no law". Can you point me to the law that you believes violates the 1st Amendment in this case?

Enjoy the read. No matter how you spin in or try to parse it, you are incorrect.

The ‘no law’ clause has nothing to do with this. Congress didn’t try to make a law. They bypassed any judicial review as well.

https://www.fox-news.com/politics/fbi-weekly-big-tech-ahead-2020-election-agent-testifies

Let me help a bit:

“ "Since filing our lawsuit, we've uncovered troves of discovery that show a massive 'censorship enterprise,'" Attorney General Eric Schmitt told Fox News Digital. "Now, we're deposing top government officials, and we're one of the first to get a look under the hood — the information we've uncovered through those depositions has been shocking to say the least. It's clear from Tuesday's deposition that the FBI has an extremely close role in working to censor freedom of speech."

Let's see how well this lawsuit does in the court system. I would not put a lot of faith in the plaintiff's attorney. But, let me give a real life example of the type of thing being described here.

A couple of years ago I was contacted by an individual who asked me to remove a thread on DCUM. The individual said that the thread involved an issue in which the police were involved and that the police had warned them that the DCUM thread could put people in danger. I said that I wanted to hear that from the police directly and was subsequently contacted by a police officer. The officer confirmed that it was their opinion that the thread could in fact present a threat to the safety of those involved. I was still reluctant to remove the thread and explained my position and the officer left it at that. I followed up with the original person who contacted me and we agreed upon a solution that did not involve removing the entire thread, but did require removing two or three specific posts.

In this case, I was clearly influenced by a governmental actor to censor a DCUM thread. It was within my rights to ignore the police. I later chose to remove posts but did so due to my own determinations about the appropriateness of the posts rather than by governmental order. As such, there was no First Amendment issue involved here. I suspect that you will find out that the same is true in the legal procedure you are referencing.

Thank you for admitting you choose what gets posted. Unfortunately you have become rather heavy handed with your censorship and it has lowered the quality of conversation on the forum. I posted something the other day and thought my post was thoughtful and respectful but it did argue the opposing view of establishment Democrats. It was removed. Now it seems like if a post doesn’t tow your personal line it gets deleted. I guess maybe you should just get rid of the political forum altogether because it is so heavily edited.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: "I’ve seen a sworn affidavit from Yoel Roth, the former head of Twitter’s trust and safety. He was meeting every week before the election with FBI and other intelligence officials." -

Miranda Devine on @FoxNews

That IS a violation of the 1st

No it isn’t.

Yes it is The FIB and government intelligence officials are (wait for it) government agencies.

Where in the constitution does it say that employees of private businesses can’t meet with government officials?

First paragraph:

“or abridge the freedom of speech”

When government officials tell twitter to ban a user or delete a post because they don’t like what’s said.

That does not say that meetings are prohibited.

You also left out the part about "Congress shall make no law". Can you point me to the law that you believes violates the 1st Amendment in this case?

Enjoy the read. No matter how you spin in or try to parse it, you are incorrect.

The ‘no law’ clause has nothing to do with this. Congress didn’t try to make a law. They bypassed any judicial review as well.

https://www.fox-news.com/politics/fbi-weekly-big-tech-ahead-2020-election-agent-testifies

Let me help a bit:

“ "Since filing our lawsuit, we've uncovered troves of discovery that show a massive 'censorship enterprise,'" Attorney General Eric Schmitt told Fox News Digital. "Now, we're deposing top government officials, and we're one of the first to get a look under the hood — the information we've uncovered through those depositions has been shocking to say the least. It's clear from Tuesday's deposition that the FBI has an extremely close role in working to censor freedom of speech."

Let's see how well this lawsuit does in the court system. I would not put a lot of faith in the plaintiff's attorney. But, let me give a real life example of the type of thing being described here.

A couple of years ago I was contacted by an individual who asked me to remove a thread on DCUM. The individual said that the thread involved an issue in which the police were involved and that the police had warned them that the DCUM thread could put people in danger. I said that I wanted to hear that from the police directly and was subsequently contacted by a police officer. The officer confirmed that it was their opinion that the thread could in fact present a threat to the safety of those involved. I was still reluctant to remove the thread and explained my position and the officer left it at that. I followed up with the original person who contacted me and we agreed upon a solution that did not involve removing the entire thread, but did require removing two or three specific posts.

In this case, I was clearly influenced by a governmental actor to censor a DCUM thread. It was within my rights to ignore the police. I later chose to remove posts but did so due to my own determinations about the appropriateness of the posts rather than by governmental order. As such, there was no First Amendment issue involved here. I suspect that you will find out that the same is true in the legal procedure you are referencing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: "I’ve seen a sworn affidavit from Yoel Roth, the former head of Twitter’s trust and safety. He was meeting every week before the election with FBI and other intelligence officials." -

Miranda Devine on @FoxNews

That IS a violation of the 1st

No it isn’t.

Yes it is The FIB and government intelligence officials are (wait for it) government agencies.

Where in the constitution does it say that employees of private businesses can’t meet with government officials?

First paragraph:

“or abridge the freedom of speech”

When government officials tell twitter to ban a user or delete a post because they don’t like what’s said.

That does not say that meetings are prohibited.

You also left out the part about "Congress shall make no law". Can you point me to the law that you believes violates the 1st Amendment in this case?

Enjoy the read. No matter how you spin in or try to parse it, you are incorrect.

The ‘no law’ clause has nothing to do with this. Congress didn’t try to make a law. They bypassed any judicial review as well.

https://www.fox-news.com/politics/fbi-weekly-big-tech-ahead-2020-election-agent-testifies

Let me help a bit:

“ "Since filing our lawsuit, we've uncovered troves of discovery that show a massive 'censorship enterprise,'" Attorney General Eric Schmitt told Fox News Digital. "Now, we're deposing top government officials, and we're one of the first to get a look under the hood — the information we've uncovered through those depositions has been shocking to say the least. It's clear from Tuesday's deposition that the FBI has an extremely close role in working to censor freedom of speech."

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: "I’ve seen a sworn affidavit from Yoel Roth, the former head of Twitter’s trust and safety. He was meeting every week before the election with FBI and other intelligence officials." -

Miranda Devine on @FoxNews

That IS a violation of the 1st

No it isn’t.

Yes it is The FIB and government intelligence officials are (wait for it) government agencies.

Where in the constitution does it say that employees of private businesses can’t meet with government officials?

First paragraph:

“or abridge the freedom of speech”

When government officials tell twitter to ban a user or delete a post because they don’t like what’s said.

That does not say that meetings are prohibited.

You also left out the part about "Congress shall make no law". Can you point me to the law that you believes violates the 1st Amendment in this case?

Enjoy the read. No matter how you spin in or try to parse it, you are incorrect.

The ‘no law’ clause has nothing to do with this. Congress didn’t try to make a law. They bypassed any judicial review as well.

https://www.fox-news.com/politics/fbi-weekly-big-tech-ahead-2020-election-agent-testifies

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: "I’ve seen a sworn affidavit from Yoel Roth, the former head of Twitter’s trust and safety. He was meeting every week before the election with FBI and other intelligence officials." -

Miranda Devine on @FoxNews

That IS a violation of the 1st

No it isn’t.

Yes it is The FIB and government intelligence officials are (wait for it) government agencies.

Where in the constitution does it say that employees of private businesses can’t meet with government officials?

First paragraph:

“or abridge the freedom of speech”

When government officials tell twitter to ban a user or delete a post because they don’t like what’s said.

That does not say that meetings are prohibited.

You also left out the part about "Congress shall make no law". Can you point me to the law that you believes violates the 1st Amendment in this case?

Enjoy the read. No matter how you spin in or try to parse it, you are incorrect.

The ‘no law’ clause has nothing to do with this. Congress didn’t try to make a law. They bypassed any judicial review as well.

https://www.fox-news.com/politics/fbi-weekly-big-tech-ahead-2020-election-agent-testifies

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: "I’ve seen a sworn affidavit from Yoel Roth, the former head of Twitter’s trust and safety. He was meeting every week before the election with FBI and other intelligence officials." -

Miranda Devine on @FoxNews

That IS a violation of the 1st

No it isn’t.

Yes it is The FIB and government intelligence officials are (wait for it) government agencies.

Where in the constitution does it say that employees of private businesses can’t meet with government officials?

First paragraph:

“or abridge the freedom of speech”

When government officials tell twitter to ban a user or delete a post because they don’t like what’s said.

That does not say that meetings are prohibited.

You also left out the part about "Congress shall make no law". Can you point me to the law that you believes violates the 1st Amendment in this case?

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: "I’ve seen a sworn affidavit from Yoel Roth, the former head of Twitter’s trust and safety. He was meeting every week before the election with FBI and other intelligence officials." -

Miranda Devine on @FoxNews

That IS a violation of the 1st

No it isn’t.

Yes it is The FIB and government intelligence officials are (wait for it) government agencies.

Where in the constitution does it say that employees of private businesses can’t meet with government officials?

First paragraph:

“or abridge the freedom of speech”

When government officials tell twitter to ban a user or delete a post because they don’t like what’s said.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: "I’ve seen a sworn affidavit from Yoel Roth, the former head of Twitter’s trust and safety. He was meeting every week before the election with FBI and other intelligence officials." -

Miranda Devine on @FoxNews

That IS a violation of the 1st

No it isn’t.

Yes it is The FIB and government intelligence officials are (wait for it) government agencies.

Where in the constitution does it say that employees of private businesses can’t meet with government officials?