[FoxNews] The high-profile attorney for Kyle Rittenhouse, the 17-year-old charged with fatally shooting two people in Kenosha, said he was locked out of his Twitter account Tuesday after posting about raising money for Rittenhouse's legal defense.
L. Lin Wood argued the action against his account is the latest example of Twitter censorship of conservative voices and he intends to file a lawsuit against the social media giant and its CEO Jack Dorsey.
"I'm going to take Jack Dorsey's ass down," Wood told Fox News. "He has been abusing the First Amendment of this country for his own agenda."
Wood was blocked from tweeting for several hours on Tuesday for violating Twitter rules. Wood said he's been careful to abide by Twitter's terms of service. But he got a notice that his account was locked for "glorifying violence."
"I knew they were going to censor me because I'm sending a message of hope," Wood, who posts regularly to his nearly 138,000 followers, told Fox News. "I'm sending a message of truth. And I'm sending a message that Kyle Rittenhouse is innocent."
Hours after the account had been suspended, Twitter said lied it made a mistake in a statement to Fox News. In response Lin Wood threatened to sue Jack Dorsey and take his "a** down" for censoring conservatives.
Man, if Trump is reelected, how would Wood like to be Attorney General? Helluva pay cut, but we can hope.
Posted by Woodrow 2020-09-03 00:00||
||
Front Page|| [7 views ]
Top
#1 Man, if Trump is reelected, how would Wood like to be Attorney General? Helluva pay cut, but we can hope.
It sure would be tempting to tie his pay to results.
Posted by gorb 2020-09-03 01:59||
2020-09-03 01:59||
Front PageTop
#2 $1 mil for every Deep State conviction
$100k for every BLM / Antifa-supporting Democrat capo or financier
$1k for every BLM / Antifa foot soldier
Posted by Thrererong Unaimble4551 2020-09-03 02:05||
2020-09-03 02:05||
Front PageTop
#3 When you look at it through the lens of Critical Theory, they think he *was* inciting violence. Simply by existing and defending an innocent man, he is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Thus, he is inspiring violence.
The fact that they themselves are committing violence is irrelevant. When the righteous do it, it's OK. When anyone else does it, it's wrong. Just think of barbarian tribes and you'll get the idea. It is literally pre-Enlightenment thinking.
Posted by Mr Obvious 2020-09-03 07:47||
2020-09-03 07:47||
Front PageTop
#4 Amazing how many "mistakes" Twitter and Farcebook make.
Posted by Clem 2020-09-03 07:50||
2020-09-03 07:50||
Front PageTop
#5 He has been abusing the First Amendment
I thought that only applied to censorship by the government - how does it prohibit a private corporation from blocking anyone?
Posted by Glenmore 2020-09-03 10:30||
2020-09-03 10:30||
Front PageTop
#6 What is difference between publisher and platform?
A platform is not responsible (legally) for the content that is posted. Publisher: a company or person that qurates and distributes content. You can think of all the news and media outlets out there as prime examples. A publisher is legally responsible for the posted content and the source.
Posted by Frank G 2020-09-03 10:44||
2020-09-03 10:44||
Front PageTop
#7 Been wondering about that myself, Glenmore. The solution is I think, the same as for other communications platforms, like AT&T. Make them subject to the FCC and designate them as a critical communications infrastructure, making them quasi-governmental utilities, thereby requiring them to adhere the Constitution.
Posted by Mercutio 2020-09-03 11:40||
2020-09-03 11:40||
Front PageTop
#8 You're going after it wrong. Its not first amendment, its Anti-Trust. Disassemble Google, rip apart Facebook, Force Google to spinoff Youtube back to being independent, and go after Twatter as a monopoly. Same as they did to Ma Bell decades ago.
Twatter is the most easily fixed: Simply have the President choose an alternative platform like Parler, and do "exclusives" there, forcing the press and the public to come over to a more free and open plaform.
Posted by Theager Borgia1057 2020-09-03 12:48||
2020-09-03 12:48||
Front PageTop
#9 #8 You're going after it wrong. Its not first amendment, its Anti-Trust. Disassemble Google, rip apart Facebook, Force Google to spinoff Youtube back to being independent, and go after Twatter as a monopoly. Same as they did to Ma Bell decades ago.
Yes, although all the "free market" whores of Conservatism, Inc. will squeal like stuck pigs if it happens.
All the more reason to do it, of course.
But Trump needs more of his own people at the levers, and McConnell is still standing athwart history and yelling "But muh donorz!"
Posted by charger 2020-09-03 13:10||
2020-09-03 13:10||
Front PageTop
#10 ...how does it prohibit a private corporation from blocking anyone?
To start with, Twitter is not a "private corporation". It IS, a publicly held/traded corporation. If you do not understand the difference you might want to do some reading.
Posted by H-T-A 2020-09-03 14:30||
2020-09-03 14:30||
Front PageTop
