LIT's "- Free Speech -" Fraud

[eyerphobia]

Twitter Loses First Bid To Dismiss White Nationalists’ Lawsuit

California Superior Court Judge Harold E. Kahn ruled on Thursday against Twitter’s petition to dismiss a lawsuit that white nationalist Jared Taylor filed after Twitter banned him from the social media platform.

Kahn ruled that Twitter did not violate Taylor’s First Amendment rights for permanently suspending his account in December, but instead that Twitter may have fraudulently advertised itself as a site that is devoted to free speech. Taylor’s complaint was “very eloquent” and that “it goes to the heart of free speech principles that long precede our constitution,” Khan said, according to a court transcript.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/15/t...lycaller&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social

All know that literotica.com is most definitely not a free speech site either, so why does its owners continue to fraudulently advertise it as such, too?

 

[EternalFantasies]

Twitter, Facebook, Youtube are sites I know for a fact, that are banning right wingers and supporting left wing thought.

Facebook is just ridiculous... I wish an alternatives takes over, and one that has a tool to import your facebook stuff into.

 

[hobbit.]

Not really an accurate measure here, but you know this after 50 posts?

 

[hobbit.]

Twitter, Facebook, Youtube are sites I know for a fact, that are banning right wingers and supporting left wing thought.

Facebook is just ridiculous... I wish an alternatives takes over, and one that has a tool to import your facebook stuff into.

Just a thought here, but why not becoame eeh next mark zuxkerberg and start your own rival to facebook etc?

 

[rae121452]

Just a thought here, but why not becoame eeh next mark zuxkerberg and start your own rival to facebook etc?

or even better, start your own literotica. it would solve everyone's problems.

 

[Oblimo]

All know that literotica.com is most definitely not a free speech site either, so why does its owners continue to fraudulently advertise it as such, too?

The judge did not rule that Twitter fraudently advertised it was dedicated to free speech. The judge ruled against Twitter’s motion to dismiss. Typically, you get dismissed when you fail to state a claim. Looks like the white nationalist claimed that Twitter had fraudulently advertised, and the judge decided that if the nationalist’s claim ‪was true, it might actually mean something in court (apparently, because of this CA statute the article mentioned). Basically the judge said plaintiff’s claims passed the smell test, but the plaintiff has not actually substantiated any of his claims yet.

Why do you think that Literotica is fraudulently advertising? First, what is the advertisement? Second, what makes it a fraud?

 

[Stain_mAnn]

Eyer is a whiny homo.

 

[FGB]

What did he or she do now?

 

[nowisthetime]

At first, I thought this thread originated in 2014 or something, then I looked at the date. Damn! His whiny, moaning ass is back. They always somehow come back.

 

[KeithD]

All know that literotica.com is most definitely not a free speech site either, so why does its owners continue to fraudulently advertise it as such, too?

The answer to that may be simply that this Web site is littered with obsolete stuff that hasn't been updated in well over a decade. Yes, the claims of being a free speech site (keeping in mind that there's no requirement that it be so) are out of date--if they ever were relevant.

 

[pointless]

At first, I thought this thread originated in 2014 or something, then I looked at the date. Damn! His whiny, moaning ass is back. They always somehow come back.

all you need is an email address. they're not exactly hard to get.

 

[OldJourno]

All know that literotica.com is most definitely not a free speech site either, so why does its owners continue to fraudulently advertise it as such, too?

Lit owners boast of the site's "free speech" in order to qualify for the First Amendment federal tax break.

 

[Hypoxia]

Lit owners boast of the site's "free speech" in order to qualify for the First Amendment federal tax break.

Citation?

Meanwhile, if you bother reading fine print, you'll learn LIT is a private site whose owners permit you to post here at their pleasure, at no cost to you. They can ban anyone at any time for any reason. A ban here deprives you of nothing. Pick an alt and start over, without breaking rules or bothering owners.

Gov't may not limit your speech (except when it does). Common carriers may not limit your speech (but can limit your baudrate). Private free sites can do whatever the fuck the owners want. Everyone is free to start their own site.

 

[OldJourno]

Citation?

Meanwhile, if you bother reading fine print, you'll learn LIT is a private site whose owners permit you to post here at their pleasure, at no cost to you. They can ban anyone at any time for any reason. A ban here deprives you of nothing. Pick an alt and start over, without breaking rules or bothering owners.

Gov't may not limit your speech (except when it does). Common carriers may not limit your speech (but can limit your baudrate). Private free sites can do whatever the fuck the owners want. Everyone is free to start their own site.

Citation? The "free speech" tax break is in the Constitution. First Amendment. Right after the part that says it's OK to have pancake dinners at church.
And you call yourself a scholar?

 

[KeithD]

OJ was just joking. Ha, ha.

But the OP is right. There still is wording on the site indicating that this is a free speech site and they won't erase posts they (or their moderators for specific sections) don't like. They've been erasing posts for over a decade, though. The OP is right that the claims the Web site make on this don't match practice and haven't for over a decade.

But that's true with Web site claims across the board on what happens here. The site just doesn't clean any of its claims up when they go obsolete. It isn't just a free speech issue (and, as noted, free speech doesn't apply here--the legitimate complaint is that wording still exists that claims free speech is supported here).

 

[Colonel Hogan]

OJ was just joking. Ha, ha.

But the OP is right. There still is wording on the site indicating that this is a free speech site and they won't erase posts they (or their moderators for specific sections) don't like. They've been erasing posts for over a decade, though. The OP is right that the claims the Web site make on this don't match practice and haven't for over a decade.

But that's true with Web site claims across the board on what happens here. The site just doesn't clean any of its claims up when they go obsolete. It isn't just a free speech issue (and, as noted, free speech doesn't apply here--the legitimate complaint is that wording still exists that claims free speech is supported here).

The OP is monstrously full of shit, as are you. A web site that boasts a commitment to free speech and then bans people for violation of "terms of service" for posting prohibited material, including specific speech or subject matter, may well be arguably "guilty" of a philosophical contradiction, but they are most certainly NOT guilty of fraud. There is nothing even slightly sneaky, much less illegal, for banning people for the very reasons for which they were warned they could be banned.

 

[ThatsTheGuy]

The OP is monstrously full of shit, as are you. A web site that boasts a commitment to free speech and then bans people for violation of "terms of service" for posting prohibited material, including specific speech or subject matter, may well be arguably "guilty" of a philosophical contradiction, but they are most certainly NOT guilty of fraud. There is nothing even slightly sneaky, much less illegal, for banning people for the very reasons for which they were warned they could be banned.

^^^^^^^^^Yeah. What he said ^^^^^^^^^

 

[Wrong Element]

Hmmm, I've been here over 16 years, and not only have I never been banned, to the best of my knowledge I've never had a post taken down, unless it was in a thread that got zapped for unrelated reasons.

Obeying the minuscule number of rules that apply to the GB is actually pretty easy, as it turns out. But America's jails are similarly filled with people bitching about "how can it be 'the land of the free' when I'm behind bars?"

 

[pointless]

hell, i've never been, either.

and i'm kind of a dick at times.

can't be that hard.

 

[KeithD]

The OP is monstrously full of shit, as are you. A web site that boasts a commitment to free speech and then bans people for violation of "terms of service" for posting prohibited material, including specific speech or subject matter, may well be arguably "guilty" of a philosophical contradiction, but they are most certainly NOT guilty of fraud. There is nothing even slightly sneaky, much less illegal, for banning people for the very reasons for which they were warned they could be banned.

You don't read anyone but your own precious prose, do you? I haven't posted a damn thing on this thread about fraud nor anything about banning anybody. Point out where I have. In the meantime, you need to get over yourself. Your shit stinks like anyone elses. Sometimes your arrogant posts smell even more.

 

[ThatsTheGuy]

You don't read anyone but your own precious prose, do you? I haven't posted a damn thing on this thread about fraud nor anything about banning anybody. Point out where I have. In the meantime, you need to get over yourself. Your shit stinks like anyone elses. Sometimes your arrogant posts smell even more.

^^^^^^^^^Just WOW!^^^^^^^^^

 

[KeithD]

OK, hotshot, maybe YOU can point out where I posted a damn thing about banning people and fraud on this thread and thus deserve the shit Hogan posted.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

You don't read anyone but your own precious prose, do you? I haven't posted a damn thing on this thread about fraud nor anything about banning anybody. Point out where I have. In the meantime, you need to get over yourself. Your shit stinks like anyone elses. Sometimes your arrogant posts smell even more.

Well, gee, since you specifically said "the OP was right..." and the OP made the following statement about fraud:

All know that literotica.com is most definitely not a free speech site either, so why does its owners continue to fraudulently advertise it as such, too?

...and that the OP made that reference in comparison to a court ruling ABOUT a potential legal fraud....

I guess I jumped to the wild conclusion that you were supporting the OP's accusation that owners of this site are guilty of fraud.

Yeah.....


Not sure how I made that mistake....

 

[KeithD]

As I noted, you didn't bother to read the two posts I posted to this thread before jumping in with a nasty attack on something I didn't post.

A while ago a poster said you didn't get nasty with people. That clearly is wrong. You do. You are fast with the "know it all" and the name calling. You did it here.


And I know how you made that mistake--it's because you need to get over yourself.

Do you actually contribute to the product of this story site--stories--or are you just a drone here assuming we all need your wisdom to function? I guess I'll go check out your story file at Literotica.

---

Yep, as I thought. Just a drone living for free on the Web site:


https://www.literotica.com/stories/memberpage.php?uid=569967&page=submissions

 

[Que]

The OP is monstrously full of shit, as are you. A web site that boasts a commitment to free speech and then bans people for violation of "terms of service" for posting prohibited material, including specific speech or subject matter, may well be arguably "guilty" of a philosophical contradiction, but they are most certainly NOT guilty of fraud. There is nothing even slightly sneaky, much less illegal, for banning people for the very reasons for which they were warned they could be banned.

. . .assuming that the TOS is universally, rather than selectively enforced. If selectively enforced and it can be shown that such enforcement correlates with undesired viewpoints, he has a point.

That, quite obviously, happens here, but I don't see that as a top down occurrence, rather it is a function of the fact that one "side" is far more dilligent in reporting infractions.