The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
True PATRIOT and SCHOLAR xo jared taylor suing tttwitttttter
Poast new message in this thread
Date: February 21st, 2018 10:53 AM Author: Fighting contagious weed whacker https://youtu.be/CUg5TrWzjzY (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899355&forum_id=2#35451667) |
Date: February 21st, 2018 11:03 AM Author: Fighting contagious weed whacker Full complaint: https://www.scribd.com/document/372035678/Taylor-v-Twitter-Complaint (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899355&forum_id=2#35451721) |
 |
Date: February 21st, 2018 11:25 AM Author: Fighting contagious weed whacker (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899355&forum_id=2#35451867) |
|
Date: February 21st, 2018 11:38 AM Author: Thirsty gold home Randazza is bringing some pretty novel claims here. The only one that looks remotely viable to me is the breach of contract claim against Twitter over the terms of service. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899355&forum_id=2#35451970) |
|
Date: February 21st, 2018 12:50 PM Author: Fighting contagious weed whacker All the claims look viable to me. Whether a shitlib California judge will agree is another story (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899355&forum_id=2#35452513) |
|
Date: February 21st, 2018 3:35 PM Author: Thirsty gold home Did you even read it? The California constitutional claims under Robins v. Pruneyard are interesting, but a YUGE stretch. Same with the Unruh claims. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899355&forum_id=2#35453990) |
|
Date: February 21st, 2018 3:43 PM Author: Fighting contagious weed whacker Yes, and the complaint sets out the grounds for the relief requested quite clearly. I'm sure there's competing case law on the other side and perhaps it's overwhelming against Taylor but I wouldn't describe the claims as a stretch on paper. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899355&forum_id=2#35454064) |
|
Date: February 21st, 2018 11:03 PM Author: grizzly motley hell This legal tactic has been bandied about in conservative legal circles for some time
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/twitters-censorship-may-be-unconstitutional/article/2617261 |
|
Date: February 21st, 2018 11:18 PM Author: Fighting contagious weed whacker (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899355&forum_id=2#35457845) |
|
Date: February 22nd, 2018 8:42 AM Author: Thirsty gold home Just because idiots bandy something about doesn't mean it is valid.
The California Supreme Court has spent 30 years limiting its Pruneyard decision to the point where it literally only applies to facts that are on all fours. Turning Twitter into that kind of public square - even with the U.S. Supreme Court's dicta in Packingham - is going to be a tremendous uphill battle. Not saying it's impossible, just novel and unlikely. |
|
Date: February 22nd, 2018 8:29 AM Author: Fuchsia excitant halford Cal SC had its chance to overturn Pruneyard and - stupidly - affirmed it 4-3.
I don't see how there's any way Twitter avoids a pruneyard claim unless they finally overturn it. |
|
Date: February 22nd, 2018 8:43 AM Author: Thirsty gold home They affirmed it but also narrowed its scope significantly. See above. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899355&forum_id=2#35459424) |
|
Date: February 22nd, 2018 9:21 AM Author: Fuchsia excitant halford Actual lawyer here, yes the Cal SC could always create some results-oriented jurisprudence and decide that Pruneyard doesn't apply to twitter because, mumble mumble mumble, but any honest application of the precedent would hold that Pruneyard either applies to Twitter or should be overturned. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899355&forum_id=2#35459575) |
|
Date: February 22nd, 2018 9:54 AM Author: Thirsty gold home Maybe, except the Cal. Sup. Ct. came back in Ralphs Grocery Co. v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union (2012) and signficantly limited Pruneyard's application to public gathering areas at shopping centers. The principles may be similar, but there are major differences, beginning with the user agreement that one has to enter into in order to use Twitter's services.
Again, they might get there, but it's going to be a big stretch. |
|
Date: February 22nd, 2018 10:21 AM Author: Fuchsia excitant halford going to be upfront here buddy - I'm actually *on* the California Supreme Court and I'm planning on holding that Pruneyard applies. HTMFH (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899355&forum_id=2#35459881) |
|
Date: February 22nd, 2018 10:21 AM Author: Thirsty gold home LOL. Alright then. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899355&forum_id=2#35459884) |
|
Date: February 22nd, 2018 10:15 AM Author: Fighting contagious weed whacker (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899355&forum_id=2#35459851) |
|
Date: February 21st, 2018 11:06 AM Author: Cerebral corn cake garrison tuhhhwhhitter (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899355&forum_id=2#35451737) |
|
Date: February 21st, 2018 3:39 PM Author: titillating brass useless brakes (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899355&forum_id=2#35454017) |
|
Date: February 21st, 2018 11:13 PM Author: Embarrassed To The Bone Mind-boggling Blood Rage Temple (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899355&forum_id=2#35457801) |
|
Date: February 21st, 2018 10:56 PM Author: Fighting contagious weed whacker Are there no scholars on xo to analyze what could be a landmark case? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899355&forum_id=2#35457638) |
|
Date: February 21st, 2018 11:13 PM Author: Embarrassed To The Bone Mind-boggling Blood Rage Temple do you think we're lawyers or something? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899355&forum_id=2#35457804) |
|
Date: February 22nd, 2018 8:27 AM Author: Smoky federal legend stead ??? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899355&forum_id=2#35459337) |
|
Date: February 22nd, 2018 8:46 AM Author: laughsome chocolate dingle berry no (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899355&forum_id=2#35459433) |
|
Date: February 22nd, 2018 8:49 AM Author: laughsome chocolate dingle berry (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899355&forum_id=2#35459444) |
|
Date: February 22nd, 2018 10:55 AM Author: Henna beta hunting ground is there a legal basis for the argument that a private company should be required to associate with white nationalists even if it doesnt want to?
|
|
Date: February 22nd, 2018 11:05 AM Author: Fighting contagious weed whacker Yes (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899355&forum_id=2#35460220) |
|
Date: February 22nd, 2018 11:07 AM Author: Thirsty gold home Not really.
The argument they're making is based on the Pruneyard decision of the Cal. Sup. Ct. that allows private property to be treated as a public forum in limited circumstances, thereby limiting the property owner's ability to limit speech in that place. |
|
Date: February 22nd, 2018 11:08 AM Author: titillating brass useless brakes so you're saying they're making an argument and there is a legal basis for that argument (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899355&forum_id=2#35460249) |
|
Date: February 22nd, 2018 11:10 AM Author: Thirsty gold home I'm saying the argument they're making isn't based on association, which is what the OP of this subthread asked about.
|
|
Date: February 22nd, 2018 12:22 PM Author: Fighting contagious weed whacker There are also contractual and other statutory arguments besides the California constitution made which all have prima facie bases. Obviously there isn't a direct precedent and that's why it could be a landmark case but the foundation to build it is there (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899355&forum_id=2#35460853) |