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: Light useless hall jewess 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: Light useless hall jewess 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: Light useless hall jewess (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899355&forum_id=2#35451867) |
|
Date: February 21st, 2018 11:38 AM Author: Copper Spot Cumskin 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: Light useless hall jewess 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: Copper Spot Cumskin 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: Light useless hall jewess 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: Underhanded state hominid 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: Light useless hall jewess (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899355&forum_id=2#35457845) |
|
Date: February 22nd, 2018 8:42 AM Author: Copper Spot Cumskin 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: gay vigorous really tough guy 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: Copper Spot Cumskin 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: gay vigorous really tough guy 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: Copper Spot Cumskin 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: gay vigorous really tough guy 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: Copper Spot Cumskin LOL. Alright then. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899355&forum_id=2#35459884) |
|
Date: February 22nd, 2018 10:15 AM Author: Light useless hall jewess (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899355&forum_id=2#35459851) |
|
Date: February 21st, 2018 11:06 AM Author: tan coldplay fan tuhhhwhhitter (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899355&forum_id=2#35451737) |
|
Date: February 21st, 2018 3:39 PM Author: wild amber haunted graveyard nowag (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899355&forum_id=2#35454017) |
|
Date: February 21st, 2018 11:13 PM Author: Navy Laughsome Community Account (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899355&forum_id=2#35457801) |
|
Date: February 21st, 2018 10:56 PM Author: Light useless hall jewess 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: Navy Laughsome Community Account 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: Flatulent Arousing Partner ??? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899355&forum_id=2#35459337) |
|
Date: February 22nd, 2018 8:46 AM Author: onyx dilemma no (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899355&forum_id=2#35459433) |
|
Date: February 22nd, 2018 8:49 AM Author: onyx dilemma (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899355&forum_id=2#35459444) |
|
Date: February 22nd, 2018 10:55 AM Author: Coiffed indian lodge 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: Light useless hall jewess Yes (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899355&forum_id=2#35460220) |
|
Date: February 22nd, 2018 11:07 AM Author: Copper Spot Cumskin 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: wild amber haunted graveyard nowag 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: Copper Spot Cumskin 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: Light useless hall jewess 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) |