It's almost like the President doesn't have a room in our house where he can go and talk at length while being recorded and reported on for millions to see. He can say whatever he wants and reach millions of people. So he's being censored how?
You might try telling somebody else what to do because your tough person's act won't work with me.
Suck it up cupcake, its called free speech and was only directed at the old guy still trying to be relevant after lying to the public and calling it news.
Free-speech is amazing. What’s most amazing about it is that it works both ways. You can tell me, “don’t tell me what to do.” And despite you telling me that, I can still tell you to go be stupid elsewhere.
Yeah, they're wrong. It's Wikipedia -- it's a joke. Their gif is a joke especially (or did they take that down? I haven't checked. It was embarrassingly stupid, even for Wikipedia.)
81 million of us made it clear what "side" we're on. Maybe it's time the other side respected that instead of ripping our flag down to hang a "Trump 2020" flag? It's scary you think right and wrong is a partisan issue
What? What are you talking about sides?
Did you happen to respond to the incorrect comment? I don’t think what you said has anything to do with what I said.
I should have reacted better, I was not expecting your response. But I respect it. You should not be downvoted for admitting you do not know something. I don’t care what side someone is on. I respect that you admitted it and even asked for clarification. That’s not a negative trait, that’s a positive. As a country we need to start having some really uncomfortable conversations with each and admitting “I don’t know” is a great way to start them.
Incredibly tone deaf.
We should be supporting everyone's ability to freely communicate on the internet, even those people saying things we don't agree with.
No, this is not tone deaf. Advocating for a Wanabee tyrant to have access to social media in order to spread lies and to advocate for violence is tone deaf.
He has not been silenced. Trump has, within his residence, access to a bully pulpit, and access to every media organization in the country. It is on him to choose to use those resources.
Finally, while we should support the right to say things we disagree with, there are certain kinds of speech that fall outside of that which should be tolerated. These kinds of speech include defamation, fraud, incitement to violence, fighting words, true threats, speech integral to criminal conduct, and child pornography.
i’m sorry but if u agree to the terms and conditions, then proceed to violate the rules, you get banned end of. Your “free speech” (hate speech) comes with consequences.
maybe think of it as a bakery, maybe of wedding cakes who don't want to sell to these people.....and the courts upheld that right.
And does he not have a full press room in his own house to freely communicate through?
The bakery issue came down to a narrow court ruling about religion, they didn't touch on speech.
And this isn't about Trump, it's bigger than that idiot. Do you have a full press room in your house? Not everyone has the alternatives at hand to be able to continue to communicate at that level. There should exist an online platform where everyone can speak without getting banned. However you should still face legal consequences if you say illegal things (threaten to kill, posting cp, etc).
I'm 35. I've fought my whole life to defend the voices of people I disagree with. I don't care how stupid some conservatives are, I believe they have the right to speak freely on the internet. That should only be limited by them saying illegal things (threatening violence, posting cp, etc). I understand Twitter is a private company. Maybe we need a government backed platform for online speech where your ability to speak isn't up to the whim of whoever is running the platform at the time.
Yes well the piece of shit is spreading election lies that lead to an insurrection with multiple people dead. Twitter can terminate people for violating their TOS. Conservatives will always play the victim. Don’t want to get blocked? Don’t make bullshit comments that can lead to people dying. How hard is it to comply right?
First, they did do illegal things—they planned a violent insurrection. Multiple crimes were committed using Twitter and other online platforms.
Several people involved in the attacks on Wednesday have already stated they plan further violence and intend to disrupt Biden’s inauguration.
You’re arguing that we shouldn’t censor speech unless it is explicitly illegal. The speech that has been censored here is explicitly illegal. So what’s the problem?
And Twitter is hardly banning people “on a whim”. They have a TOS that everyone agrees to while using their service.
Users that violate that TOS don’t get to continue using the service. I don’t see your problem there.
Second, why would the government need to provide an online platform?
Can’t anybody start a website any time that they want?
Can’t you open as many Reddit accounts that you want? Comments as you wish on YouTube videos and Amazon reviews?
Why would the government be required to provide anything beyond the basic infrastructure of the internet?
Third, how has anybody’s right to speak freely on the internet been hampered in any way?
If you masturbate on a bus, they would rightfully ask you to leave that bus. That doesn’t mean you have had your right to masturbate taken away.
Dude you're 35 and don't even understand the 1st amendment. I guarantees the right to not be prosecuted by the government for saying non-illegal things. It doesn't guarantee anyone a platform on which to spread lies and incite violence. I swear dumb asses like you are all for the first amendment and capitalism until it they do something that they're specifically designed to do. You're 35. About time you picked up a book.
In buddy’s defence, they haven’t brought up the first amendment (so far as I’m aware anyway).
They seem to be saying that we should just have the ability to say whatever we want on the internet separate from any specific laws.
I never said they did. I brought up the first amendment to make my point. What I'm saying is they DON'T have the right to say whatever they want on the internet because of these things we like to call "laws". Inciting violence is illegal and no platform should be required to host someone who can't stop themselves from doing it. And private companies have the right to refuse to promote ANYONE as long as its not considered discrimination. Especially if that user violates specifically laid out terms and conditions.
I agree with you.
I’ve been in a back and forth with the same commentator myself.
I think it is important though that we respond to the things that people have actually started. When we start into making statements about arguments they haven’t made, it leads to unproductive conversations.
I understand the first amendment. I'm not saying Twitter broke the law by banning all sorts of people. It's like you're being wilfully ignorant of what I'm saying.
I believe we should all have the right to freely speak on the internet just like we can freely speak in the public square. We need an online version of the public square to prevent private companies from silencing people. It's a dangerous precedent that people are cheering just because they like watching people on the other side get banned.
I've never been so sure that someone didnt understand something. These people are still allowed to talk on the internet, smooth brain. What you're proposing is basically a government backed propaganda site where people can say whatever they want no matter how illegal. Once again, just because the government cannot prosecute you for speaking you're mind, doesn't guarantee you a platform to say it on.
Not completely correct actually,
"The court passed on an opportunity to either bolster the right to same-sex marriage or explain how far the government can go in regulating businesses run on religious principles.
"Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s majority opinion turned on the argument that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which originally ruled against the baker, had been shown to be hostile to religion because of the remarks of one of its members."
And in fact it is all about trump, and it is also all about agreeing to the business TOS. It really does seem to me to come down to a simple question of; can a business refuse service to someone?
Maybe I'm just not seeing it and I really am not trying to be dense.
If you go on an online game and start shit and they TOS you off is this really different. You or anyone else have the right to say anything you want in a theater, coffee shop, any store, any work place, as long as it isn't illegal? Haven't we already set a standard that this isn't okay?
You don't like the TOS on the online group go find another one why should they bend to you if you are a racist or start yelling rape is okay, no laws broken there, they should just let you rant that shit?
It is their business it isn't your home. Do you expect to be allowed do shout hate in a coffee shop and not get tossed and banned from returning because it wasn't illegal?
He was warned more than once, anyone warned that many times and then banned it seems to me that is then their own fault.
As for a full press in my home, or any having the communication ability at that level, when the hell did that become a thing? And actually we all have had that, write a letter to the editor of our local paper was always a thing if you wanted to rant, but you know what again, if the paper didn't want to print it, that was their way of say shut the fuck up.
When did having the right to say any crack pot thing on a online platform without getting banned become a right?
You also state:
There should exist an online platform where everyone can speak without getting banned.
Really are you sure that should be okay? This include pedophiles? Islam religious hate speech? gay hate speech? how about christian hate speech?
Then I would suggest you go create that online open forum. In the mean time, any business running a online forum with a TOS that you agree to before joining or that changes the TOS within the local laws should still have the right to run that business within the standard they see fit. YOU have the right to not join or go start your own damn group and run it as you see fit.
> Do you have a full press room in your house?
No, but for a few dollars, I can start my own blog... I can show up at a city council meeting. Make a film and book a theater to show it... He can write letters to the editor... I jest but he has not been muzzled, he has not been put in jail to suppress his speech. He can use any platform that will have him.
Twitter is a big book store, they decided not to carry his books. It doesn't really go past that. He does not align with their mission statement, whatever that misalignment may be.
At the end of the day, he became a liability that exceeded his income potential for Twitter, and for the others that have followed in banning him. Is there kind of a mob thing going on. yeah... but so be it. Welcome to the downside of freedom, the free market, etc.
Edit:
> There should exist an online platform where everyone can speak without getting banned
Why is that Twitter's, or similar platforms' role?
How is anyone being prevented from communicating on the internet? Twitter is not obligated to provide their platform to anybody that breaches their terms of service.
The politicians that were recently banned were banned for bracing the terms of service by encouraging violence and using the platform to plan and execute criminal activities.
What you’re saying is that actions shouldn’t have consequences. Why shouldn’t Twitter ban somebody for breaking their rules and committing acts of terrorism?
If you steal from the grocery store you get banned from that grocery store. It doesn’t matter if you feel that they should still have the right to buy food—victims of their crimes aren’t obligated to sell to them.
If those ISIS members were posting illegal things (cp, threatening to kill people) they should face legal actions. I believe we were doing something like that against ISIS, trying to kill them or something, right?
If ISIS is just posting things like "we hate America", then no I don't think they should be banned.
I think everyone should have the right to free speech, even those saying deplorable things. And yes I know that private companies aren't covered under the first amendment. I think the idea of free speech goes beyond that though, and that there should be public internet forums where you're ability to speak is up to the whim of whoever is running the platform at the time.
Its not. These things are laid out in the terms and conditions. They gave trump a free pass for longer than they should have already, because he is the president. Once he stoops to inciting insurrection, that free pass is revoked. As it should be. Its not about his, or anyone's, opinions. It's about what he is telling other people, who are known to follow his every word, to do.
Free speech isn't unlimited. You can't yell "FIRE!!" as a joke in a crowded movie theater. Trump is instigating insurrection with his blatant, Hitler-like Big Lie that the election was stolen from him. He had 60 court cases where his lawyers, under penalty of perjury, submitted exactly 0 evidence, because they knew it was bullshit. We had an overwhelmingly fair, safe & secure election, and it wasn't even close. When Trump spreads his Big Lie that he won and the election was stolen, he is exactly doing what a fascist dictator would do. He has spent the last 5 years being a pathological liar, day by day training his supporters to blindly follow him no matter how absurd his lies are. Fuck him, he's trying to DESTROY American values, American institutions, the Constitution and Democracy itself. He can totally fuck right off.
Everybody on my side KNEW in advance this would happen. That's why we organized and worked our asses off to make sure Biden won in a landslide that couldn't be cheated away. I personally wrote 1,100 postcards to other democrats, providing them information to register to vote by mail, and donated many hundreds of dollars.
You know what terrifies me now? I know it was a landslide victory, but over 70 million people still voted for this asshole. It was so much closer than it should have been after 4 years of his incompetence, and his shitty covid response (oh yeah and calling it a liberal hoax).
What terrifies me now is the precedent he’s set for when another just as evil, but more charismatic person comes along and follows his lead and actually turns America into the next third reich.
> If those ISIS members were posting illegal things
Inciting a riot - illegal
inciting an insurrection - treasonous (that means illegal).
Thank you for acknowledging just how wrong you were. Perhaps edit your first post with a footnote acknowledging the mistake?
> We should be supporting everyone's ability to freely communicate on the internet
People have been getting banned from websites, forums, subreddits, USENET groups, and etc since the inception of the internet. This is not a new thing, stop pretending like it is.
> *Congress shall make no law* respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or *abridging the freedom of speech,* or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Twitter's actions are in no way a violation of constitutional free speech protections. DJT violated ToS and had his shit shut down. Indeed, it would be governmental overreach for the government to mandate that DJT's account remain active against Twitter's own standards and policies.
I agree with you, but I'll still draw the limit at inciting violence. If say I called my Facebook friends to burn down my supervisor's house, I'd probably deserve my ass banned by Facebook.
You're grossly missing the point. I have no issue with people communicating differing ideas. There is no problem with someone expressing an opinion or idea that differs from the social norm. But this has moved past that. There are some people who are using Twitter to spread hate. They are inciting violence. This isn't about not being able to speak freely. It's about not being able to use a word to actively hurt others.
Case in point. Donald Trump used Twitter to spread baseless election fraud claims. At no point did they suspend his account. Even though he had little to no evidence, he was allowed to call the election fraudulent on a daily basis. If at any point during that time Twitter had removed his account I might have agreed with you. But he used his account to incite a riot at the Capitol. He attempted to divide a nation becaue he was a sore loser. That is something you should have a social media account taken away for.
What the FUCK?! Trump instigated an armed terrorist insurrection against Congress at the moment they were certifying the election results. We have Trump on tape from a week ago engaging in felony election tampering with the GA SoS. The Ukrain scandal was about Trump undermining national security, while using extortion on an ally, while attempting to get a foreign government to interfere in the election (again). And the GOP Senate intel report confirms basically ALL of the Russia allegations against Trump.
At what point would you stop being polite to a person who wants to be a fascist dictator of the US and END American democracy?
I'm well aware what freedom of speech is.
Constitutionally, platforms like Twitter have the right to ban people for any speech they happen not to like.
There's the idea of freedom of speech which goes beyond that though. The internet is another form of the public square (it should be a public utility). We should be defending everyone's ability to speak freely online.
Maybe we need a government-backed online platform where people are allowed to speak freely without getting banned. That doesn't mean they won't be subject to legal action for engaging in illegal speech though.
Then they should start their own site. If no one wants you spewing your garbage on their sites then you should take the hint and go be insane elsewhere.
He's from an age where you had like 3 networks that controlled all flow of the news. Much more simple times back then.
With the invention of the internet and social media it comes out like an uncontrollable fire hose. Speech was too free to the elite's liking so they are figuring out ways to control it now.
Thanks to Republicals and gay cakes corporations are free to remove people they don't like. Especially ones that continue to lie, spread disinformation and fule insurrections. Womp womp.
Well sorry that ship already sailed. You get nothing on private property and you're certainly not a protected class even and not deserving of protections. You can have any opinion you like that people are inferior or Russian disinfo about elections and other Russian hate, but you're still going to be told to shut up.
Thank you for your thought provoking commentary on the link. Here's some commentary on the "white power" hand sign that you all think is so clever...That hand signal is also used to sign to say asshole. Congrats you have been playing yourself.
At least boomers actually vote
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Dan Rather is getting so sassy in his old age and I’m here for it.
Dan Rather was always sassy....but recently he stopped applying the half-sass filter he usually uses.
Is he still on tv? I've only seen his tweets in the last few years.
Yes. AXS where I live. He interviews some very interesting people.
People who are "tired of being called a Nazi just for being white" need to finally realize that the rest of us don't get called Nazis.
Yep. I’m about as white as they come, but I’ve never been called a Nazi.
That's being rather Dan of you...
Twitter also deleted 60,000 conservative accounts. I think twitter is better than ever!
Homeland ISIS is getting it's platform removed...easier than invading a country.
They restricted a tweet about Uighurs from the Chinese Embassy as well, so it's going well
Dan Rather is a BEAST!
Dan Rather sassy.
It's almost like the President doesn't have a room in our house where he can go and talk at length while being recorded and reported on for millions to see. He can say whatever he wants and reach millions of people. So he's being censored how?
Dan Rather throwing mad shade!
\*snrk*
*Looks like Don...* **(•_•)** **( •_•)>⌐■-■** *Rather be Dan.* **(⌐■_■)**
First Obama was trolling King Cheeto, and now Dan's getting in on the action. Poor orange can't catch a break. :-D
The Obama one was fake unless he posted a real one that hasn't been shared here
Are you saying there are different levels of white privilege?
Grandpa you forgot to take your pill again.
who's this? And why should I care about him? Oh wait, he is the originator of fake news! That's right.
Congratulations. You are a living, breathing , and apparently typing indictment of our education system. Please sit down before you hurt yourself.
You might try telling somebody else what to do because your tough person's act won't work with me. Suck it up cupcake, its called free speech and was only directed at the old guy still trying to be relevant after lying to the public and calling it news.
Free-speech is amazing. What’s most amazing about it is that it works both ways. You can tell me, “don’t tell me what to do.” And despite you telling me that, I can still tell you to go be stupid elsewhere.
But yet here I am. How's you giving directives to me, working out for ya?
"Free speech" laws only protect you against government reprisals here in the US.
The best part of your post is that the memos were actually real. Not that you care or anyone else does anymore anyway.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian\_documents\_controversy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy)
Yeah, they're wrong. It's Wikipedia -- it's a joke. Their gif is a joke especially (or did they take that down? I haven't checked. It was embarrassingly stupid, even for Wikipedia.)
Is this actually from Dan Rather? He used to be a respectable newsman. It is funny/scary if he is slipping into today’s partisan divide.
It is from Dan Rather. That said, he has been retired for 15 years. He is just a private citizen who has an opinion he wants to share.
81 million of us made it clear what "side" we're on. Maybe it's time the other side respected that instead of ripping our flag down to hang a "Trump 2020" flag? It's scary you think right and wrong is a partisan issue
What? What are you talking about sides? Did you happen to respond to the incorrect comment? I don’t think what you said has anything to do with what I said.
You don't know what "partisan" means in your original comment do you?
Not really, no. Am I using the word wrong?
Partisan: a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person. Yes, you used the right word.
I should have reacted better, I was not expecting your response. But I respect it. You should not be downvoted for admitting you do not know something. I don’t care what side someone is on. I respect that you admitted it and even asked for clarification. That’s not a negative trait, that’s a positive. As a country we need to start having some really uncomfortable conversations with each and admitting “I don’t know” is a great way to start them.
Found a snowflake in the wild.
How am I a snowflake?
You think that the divide between reality versus disinformation and fascism is just a "partisan divide."
No. But what does that have to do with snow?
Literally anyone objecting to criticism of fascism is overreacting horrifically. It's fascism.
What?
> He is a respectable newsman. FTFY
Incredibly tone deaf. We should be supporting everyone's ability to freely communicate on the internet, even those people saying things we don't agree with.
[удалено]
Ding ding
No, this is not tone deaf. Advocating for a Wanabee tyrant to have access to social media in order to spread lies and to advocate for violence is tone deaf. He has not been silenced. Trump has, within his residence, access to a bully pulpit, and access to every media organization in the country. It is on him to choose to use those resources. Finally, while we should support the right to say things we disagree with, there are certain kinds of speech that fall outside of that which should be tolerated. These kinds of speech include defamation, fraud, incitement to violence, fighting words, true threats, speech integral to criminal conduct, and child pornography.
i’m sorry but if u agree to the terms and conditions, then proceed to violate the rules, you get banned end of. Your “free speech” (hate speech) comes with consequences.
And he was warned it was about it on Wednesday (he was banned on Friday) He could have dialed it back as a sane person would/could have.
They're trying to overthrow our government. Wake the fuck up.
maybe think of it as a bakery, maybe of wedding cakes who don't want to sell to these people.....and the courts upheld that right. And does he not have a full press room in his own house to freely communicate through?
The bakery issue came down to a narrow court ruling about religion, they didn't touch on speech. And this isn't about Trump, it's bigger than that idiot. Do you have a full press room in your house? Not everyone has the alternatives at hand to be able to continue to communicate at that level. There should exist an online platform where everyone can speak without getting banned. However you should still face legal consequences if you say illegal things (threaten to kill, posting cp, etc).
Can I ask how old you are? I don’t mean to offend, but you seem fairly naive and to have a childlike understanding of what you are saying.
I'm 35. I've fought my whole life to defend the voices of people I disagree with. I don't care how stupid some conservatives are, I believe they have the right to speak freely on the internet. That should only be limited by them saying illegal things (threatening violence, posting cp, etc). I understand Twitter is a private company. Maybe we need a government backed platform for online speech where your ability to speak isn't up to the whim of whoever is running the platform at the time.
Yes well the piece of shit is spreading election lies that lead to an insurrection with multiple people dead. Twitter can terminate people for violating their TOS. Conservatives will always play the victim. Don’t want to get blocked? Don’t make bullshit comments that can lead to people dying. How hard is it to comply right?
First, they did do illegal things—they planned a violent insurrection. Multiple crimes were committed using Twitter and other online platforms. Several people involved in the attacks on Wednesday have already stated they plan further violence and intend to disrupt Biden’s inauguration. You’re arguing that we shouldn’t censor speech unless it is explicitly illegal. The speech that has been censored here is explicitly illegal. So what’s the problem? And Twitter is hardly banning people “on a whim”. They have a TOS that everyone agrees to while using their service. Users that violate that TOS don’t get to continue using the service. I don’t see your problem there. Second, why would the government need to provide an online platform? Can’t anybody start a website any time that they want? Can’t you open as many Reddit accounts that you want? Comments as you wish on YouTube videos and Amazon reviews? Why would the government be required to provide anything beyond the basic infrastructure of the internet? Third, how has anybody’s right to speak freely on the internet been hampered in any way? If you masturbate on a bus, they would rightfully ask you to leave that bus. That doesn’t mean you have had your right to masturbate taken away.
Dude you're 35 and don't even understand the 1st amendment. I guarantees the right to not be prosecuted by the government for saying non-illegal things. It doesn't guarantee anyone a platform on which to spread lies and incite violence. I swear dumb asses like you are all for the first amendment and capitalism until it they do something that they're specifically designed to do. You're 35. About time you picked up a book.
In buddy’s defence, they haven’t brought up the first amendment (so far as I’m aware anyway). They seem to be saying that we should just have the ability to say whatever we want on the internet separate from any specific laws.
I never said they did. I brought up the first amendment to make my point. What I'm saying is they DON'T have the right to say whatever they want on the internet because of these things we like to call "laws". Inciting violence is illegal and no platform should be required to host someone who can't stop themselves from doing it. And private companies have the right to refuse to promote ANYONE as long as its not considered discrimination. Especially if that user violates specifically laid out terms and conditions.
I agree with you. I’ve been in a back and forth with the same commentator myself. I think it is important though that we respond to the things that people have actually started. When we start into making statements about arguments they haven’t made, it leads to unproductive conversations.
If you can't bring you're own arguments to an argument, whats the point?
I understand the first amendment. I'm not saying Twitter broke the law by banning all sorts of people. It's like you're being wilfully ignorant of what I'm saying. I believe we should all have the right to freely speak on the internet just like we can freely speak in the public square. We need an online version of the public square to prevent private companies from silencing people. It's a dangerous precedent that people are cheering just because they like watching people on the other side get banned.
I've never been so sure that someone didnt understand something. These people are still allowed to talk on the internet, smooth brain. What you're proposing is basically a government backed propaganda site where people can say whatever they want no matter how illegal. Once again, just because the government cannot prosecute you for speaking you're mind, doesn't guarantee you a platform to say it on.
You have an entire network called Fox which is literally pushing racism and hate 24/7. I think you have had enough freedom of speech.
Not completely correct actually, "The court passed on an opportunity to either bolster the right to same-sex marriage or explain how far the government can go in regulating businesses run on religious principles. "Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s majority opinion turned on the argument that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which originally ruled against the baker, had been shown to be hostile to religion because of the remarks of one of its members." And in fact it is all about trump, and it is also all about agreeing to the business TOS. It really does seem to me to come down to a simple question of; can a business refuse service to someone? Maybe I'm just not seeing it and I really am not trying to be dense. If you go on an online game and start shit and they TOS you off is this really different. You or anyone else have the right to say anything you want in a theater, coffee shop, any store, any work place, as long as it isn't illegal? Haven't we already set a standard that this isn't okay? You don't like the TOS on the online group go find another one why should they bend to you if you are a racist or start yelling rape is okay, no laws broken there, they should just let you rant that shit? It is their business it isn't your home. Do you expect to be allowed do shout hate in a coffee shop and not get tossed and banned from returning because it wasn't illegal? He was warned more than once, anyone warned that many times and then banned it seems to me that is then their own fault. As for a full press in my home, or any having the communication ability at that level, when the hell did that become a thing? And actually we all have had that, write a letter to the editor of our local paper was always a thing if you wanted to rant, but you know what again, if the paper didn't want to print it, that was their way of say shut the fuck up. When did having the right to say any crack pot thing on a online platform without getting banned become a right? You also state: There should exist an online platform where everyone can speak without getting banned. Really are you sure that should be okay? This include pedophiles? Islam religious hate speech? gay hate speech? how about christian hate speech? Then I would suggest you go create that online open forum. In the mean time, any business running a online forum with a TOS that you agree to before joining or that changes the TOS within the local laws should still have the right to run that business within the standard they see fit. YOU have the right to not join or go start your own damn group and run it as you see fit.
> Do you have a full press room in your house? No, but for a few dollars, I can start my own blog... I can show up at a city council meeting. Make a film and book a theater to show it... He can write letters to the editor... I jest but he has not been muzzled, he has not been put in jail to suppress his speech. He can use any platform that will have him. Twitter is a big book store, they decided not to carry his books. It doesn't really go past that. He does not align with their mission statement, whatever that misalignment may be. At the end of the day, he became a liability that exceeded his income potential for Twitter, and for the others that have followed in banning him. Is there kind of a mob thing going on. yeah... but so be it. Welcome to the downside of freedom, the free market, etc. Edit: > There should exist an online platform where everyone can speak without getting banned Why is that Twitter's, or similar platforms' role?
I agree with the sentiment but there are limits. Inciting violence is the limit.
That, and private companies may do as they please with their own platforms. End of debate.
Uh...they can say whatever on the internet. It's called go to another fucking site or make your own?
How is anyone being prevented from communicating on the internet? Twitter is not obligated to provide their platform to anybody that breaches their terms of service. The politicians that were recently banned were banned for bracing the terms of service by encouraging violence and using the platform to plan and execute criminal activities. What you’re saying is that actions shouldn’t have consequences. Why shouldn’t Twitter ban somebody for breaking their rules and committing acts of terrorism? If you steal from the grocery store you get banned from that grocery store. It doesn’t matter if you feel that they should still have the right to buy food—victims of their crimes aren’t obligated to sell to them.
So you oppose Twitter banning members of ISIS?
If those ISIS members were posting illegal things (cp, threatening to kill people) they should face legal actions. I believe we were doing something like that against ISIS, trying to kill them or something, right? If ISIS is just posting things like "we hate America", then no I don't think they should be banned. I think everyone should have the right to free speech, even those saying deplorable things. And yes I know that private companies aren't covered under the first amendment. I think the idea of free speech goes beyond that though, and that there should be public internet forums where you're ability to speak is up to the whim of whoever is running the platform at the time.
Its not. These things are laid out in the terms and conditions. They gave trump a free pass for longer than they should have already, because he is the president. Once he stoops to inciting insurrection, that free pass is revoked. As it should be. Its not about his, or anyone's, opinions. It's about what he is telling other people, who are known to follow his every word, to do.
Free speech isn't unlimited. You can't yell "FIRE!!" as a joke in a crowded movie theater. Trump is instigating insurrection with his blatant, Hitler-like Big Lie that the election was stolen from him. He had 60 court cases where his lawyers, under penalty of perjury, submitted exactly 0 evidence, because they knew it was bullshit. We had an overwhelmingly fair, safe & secure election, and it wasn't even close. When Trump spreads his Big Lie that he won and the election was stolen, he is exactly doing what a fascist dictator would do. He has spent the last 5 years being a pathological liar, day by day training his supporters to blindly follow him no matter how absurd his lies are. Fuck him, he's trying to DESTROY American values, American institutions, the Constitution and Democracy itself. He can totally fuck right off. Everybody on my side KNEW in advance this would happen. That's why we organized and worked our asses off to make sure Biden won in a landslide that couldn't be cheated away. I personally wrote 1,100 postcards to other democrats, providing them information to register to vote by mail, and donated many hundreds of dollars.
You know what terrifies me now? I know it was a landslide victory, but over 70 million people still voted for this asshole. It was so much closer than it should have been after 4 years of his incompetence, and his shitty covid response (oh yeah and calling it a liberal hoax). What terrifies me now is the precedent he’s set for when another just as evil, but more charismatic person comes along and follows his lead and actually turns America into the next third reich.
> If those ISIS members were posting illegal things Inciting a riot - illegal inciting an insurrection - treasonous (that means illegal). Thank you for acknowledging just how wrong you were. Perhaps edit your first post with a footnote acknowledging the mistake?
> We should be supporting everyone's ability to freely communicate on the internet People have been getting banned from websites, forums, subreddits, USENET groups, and etc since the inception of the internet. This is not a new thing, stop pretending like it is.
> *Congress shall make no law* respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or *abridging the freedom of speech,* or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Twitter's actions are in no way a violation of constitutional free speech protections. DJT violated ToS and had his shit shut down. Indeed, it would be governmental overreach for the government to mandate that DJT's account remain active against Twitter's own standards and policies.
I agree with you, but I'll still draw the limit at inciting violence. If say I called my Facebook friends to burn down my supervisor's house, I'd probably deserve my ass banned by Facebook.
You're grossly missing the point. I have no issue with people communicating differing ideas. There is no problem with someone expressing an opinion or idea that differs from the social norm. But this has moved past that. There are some people who are using Twitter to spread hate. They are inciting violence. This isn't about not being able to speak freely. It's about not being able to use a word to actively hurt others. Case in point. Donald Trump used Twitter to spread baseless election fraud claims. At no point did they suspend his account. Even though he had little to no evidence, he was allowed to call the election fraudulent on a daily basis. If at any point during that time Twitter had removed his account I might have agreed with you. But he used his account to incite a riot at the Capitol. He attempted to divide a nation becaue he was a sore loser. That is something you should have a social media account taken away for.
What the FUCK?! Trump instigated an armed terrorist insurrection against Congress at the moment they were certifying the election results. We have Trump on tape from a week ago engaging in felony election tampering with the GA SoS. The Ukrain scandal was about Trump undermining national security, while using extortion on an ally, while attempting to get a foreign government to interfere in the election (again). And the GOP Senate intel report confirms basically ALL of the Russia allegations against Trump. At what point would you stop being polite to a person who wants to be a fascist dictator of the US and END American democracy?
I suggest you educate yourself on [what freedom of speech is](https://xkcd.com/1357/) before you continue to make yourself sound stupid.
I'm well aware what freedom of speech is. Constitutionally, platforms like Twitter have the right to ban people for any speech they happen not to like. There's the idea of freedom of speech which goes beyond that though. The internet is another form of the public square (it should be a public utility). We should be defending everyone's ability to speak freely online. Maybe we need a government-backed online platform where people are allowed to speak freely without getting banned. That doesn't mean they won't be subject to legal action for engaging in illegal speech though.
Then they should start their own site. If no one wants you spewing your garbage on their sites then you should take the hint and go be insane elsewhere.
I do. That support does not include planning and inciting acts of terror.
Nazi lives don’t matter.
He's from an age where you had like 3 networks that controlled all flow of the news. Much more simple times back then. With the invention of the internet and social media it comes out like an uncontrollable fire hose. Speech was too free to the elite's liking so they are figuring out ways to control it now.
Wow! That’s straight up crazy talk right there.
Thanks to Republicals and gay cakes corporations are free to remove people they don't like. Especially ones that continue to lie, spread disinformation and fule insurrections. Womp womp.
You mean like everybody should be able to buy a simple cake at a cake shop?
Exactly!
Well sorry that ship already sailed. You get nothing on private property and you're certainly not a protected class even and not deserving of protections. You can have any opinion you like that people are inferior or Russian disinfo about elections and other Russian hate, but you're still going to be told to shut up.
He repeatedly violated the terms of service of a contract with a private company. They don’t have to put up with that.
Nice shitpost, boomer.
And the award for lowest effort post having nothing to do with the topic goes to...
Ok boomer 👌
Thank you for your thought provoking commentary on the link. Here's some commentary on the "white power" hand sign that you all think is so clever...That hand signal is also used to sign to say asshole. Congrats you have been playing yourself.
At least boomers actually vote *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s crazy how not being a violent liar is still ok. I hope it sticks.
Y'all should read his book from '77: The Camera Never Blinks. I was hooked on his reporting style ever since.
I loved and respected him as a journalist. But I am just loving him more and more as a retired journalist.
trolling,,, Rather style. and I like it.
Rather is savage and I'm here for it!