GOP working on legislation to strip Twitter of federal liability protections

[easyt65]

Isn't that a little strong....I mean, your calling out Twitter "like they thugs they are"?

I don't think so. Suppression of free speech, refusing to allow the fair and equal exchange of ideas because they don't fit 'your' agenda?

Nah, I'm good with 'thugs'.

 

[Care4all]

Isn't that a little strong....I mean, your calling out Twitter "like they thugs they are"?

I don't think so. Suppression of free speech, refusing to allow the fair and equal exchange of ideas because they don't fit 'your' agenda?

Nah, I'm good with 'thugs'.

Where will Trump tweet, if he makes twitter libel for the lies he posts, they will have no choice but to ban him???

 

[Sunsettommy]

so, is it okay for the govt to tell the USMB Moderators and site owners what rules they make for this site or to hold USMB owners libel for what their posters, post?

They won't since this forum is a PLATFORM, Mods delete when certain debate rules are violated. I had THREE postings deleted (Reported them) yesterday because it violated the forum rule of attacking family members (No Attacks on family members) , my wife in this case, he was very insulting and completely off topic.

 

[Care4all]

this is simply a ploy by Trump, to use his government power to squash twitter's free speech....

but mainly to distract from the 100,000 covid deaths under his watch.....

 

[Sunsettommy]

this is simply a ploy by Trump, to use his government power to squash twitter's free speech....

but mainly to distract from the 100,000 covid deaths under his watch.....

You are clueless on this, here is what I posted about it:

POST 95

 

[Care4all]

so, is it okay for the govt to tell the USMB Moderators and site owners what rules they make for this site or to hold USMB owners libel for what their posters, post?

They won't since this forum is a PLATFORM, Mods delete when certain debate rules are violated. I had THREE postings deleted (Reported them) yesterday because it violated the forum rule of attacking family members (No Attacks on family members) , my wife in this case, he was very insulting and completely off topic.

Moderators can delete or ban or permaban any message or members they want on USMB, at their discretion....it does not have to break the rules....

..............................................

Did Trump's tweet, violate twitter's rules, as they claim??

 

[Sunsettommy]

so, is it okay for the govt to tell the USMB Moderators and site owners what rules they make for this site or to hold USMB owners libel for what their posters, post?

They won't since this forum is a PLATFORM, Mods delete when certain debate rules are violated. I had THREE postings deleted (Reported them) yesterday because it violated the forum rule of attacking family members (No Attacks on family members) , my wife in this case, he was very insulting and completely off topic.

Moderators can delete or ban or permaban any message or members they want on USMB, at their discretion....it does not have to break the rules....

..............................................

Did Trump's tweet, violate twitter's rules, as they claim??

But they aren't publishing inside, against your comments. They react to rule breaking nothing more.

You ignored post 95 that explains why Twitter made a huge mistake in their reaction to one of his NON Rule breaking comments.

 

[Care4all]

so, is it okay for the govt to tell the USMB Moderators and site owners what rules they make for this site or to hold USMB owners libel for what their posters, post?

They won't since this forum is a PLATFORM, Mods delete when certain debate rules are violated. I had THREE postings deleted (Reported them) yesterday because it violated the forum rule of attacking family members (No Attacks on family members) , my wife in this case, he was very insulting and completely off topic.

Moderators can delete or ban or permaban any message or members they want on USMB, at their discretion....it does not have to break the rules....

..............................................

Did Trump's tweet, violate twitter's rules, as they claim??

But they aren't publishing inside, against your comments. They react to rule breaking nothing more.

You ignored post 95 that explains why Twitter made a huge mistake in their reaction to one of his NON Rule breaking comments.

HAVENT READ 95 YET, but the news reported that the tweet of trump's did break their rules?

my problem is why haven't they corrected or added information to ALL of his fake news and lies? Or ban him for his lies and threats before?

 

[Care4all]

Twitter censored statements made by President Trump, it was a stupid decision they made. Heck it was a BLUNDER!

American Thinker

With his tweets about Scarborough's intern, Trump set a trap for Twitter
By Andrea Widburg
May 28, 2020

Excerpt:

Even Trump-supporters have wondered about Trump's tweets implying that MSNBC's Joe Scarborough had something to do with a young intern's death in his office when he was still a Florida congressman. It's true that Scarborough and his co-host and wife Mika Brzezinksi have spent three years accusing Trump of treasonous collusion with the Russians, but Trump's venom still seemed strange.

I, however, don't think it was strange at all. Trump is one of the most calculating, rational people ever to occupy the White House. He's been faced with a serious problem, which is the fact that the immensely powerful social media giants, which are the gateway to most information nowadays, have already begun trying to sway the election to Biden. Legislatively, thanks to three years of Russiagate and the current hostile House, Trump has been powerless.

So Trump set a trap. On Wednesday, the Twitter mouse took the bait.

LINK

=====

Twitter was supposed to be a PLATFORM, but they acted like a publisher with Trumps twitter comments about Mail in Balloting., that was a gigantic mistake!

social media was challenged by congress and the Senate to keep the election crap clean, on their sites due to all the Russian propaganda posted in 2016 to influence the election..... I don't know if because the tweets had to do with the election process, they posted links to articles explaining absentee ballot voting, and not stop him from his lies about Scarborough???

 

[Sunsettommy]

so, is it okay for the govt to tell the USMB Moderators and site owners what rules they make for this site or to hold USMB owners libel for what their posters, post?

They won't since this forum is a PLATFORM, Mods delete when certain debate rules are violated. I had THREE postings deleted (Reported them) yesterday because it violated the forum rule of attacking family members (No Attacks on family members) , my wife in this case, he was very insulting and completely off topic.

Moderators can delete or ban or permaban any message or members they want on USMB, at their discretion....it does not have to break the rules....

..............................................

Did Trump's tweet, violate twitter's rules, as they claim??

But they aren't publishing inside, against your comments. They react to rule breaking nothing more.

You ignored post 95 that explains why Twitter made a huge mistake in their reaction to one of his NON Rule breaking comments.

HAVENT READ 95 YET, but the news reported that the tweet of trump's did break their rules?

my problem is why haven't they corrected or added information to ALL of his fake news and lies? Or ban him for his lies and threats before?

No they didn't say he broke a rule, go look at the link in post 95, they show ALL of the relevant twitter posts in it. Here is a teaser from the LINK

"On Wednesday, Twitter took the bait. As I’m sure Trump had calculated, Twitter didn't do something as obvious as responding to Mika's demands. Instead, it flagged two of Trump's tweets as false:"

bolding mine

======

No mention of rule breaking on the twitter board.

 

[sartre play]

Interesting, not versed on the legalities But...Trump Chose twitter if he doesn't like the way they do business he can Chose to not use them & go back to the way past presidents have communicated with the people, press briefings, and official statements.

 

[Care4all]

so, is it okay for the govt to tell the USMB Moderators and site owners what rules they make for this site or to hold USMB owners libel for what their posters, post?

They won't since this forum is a PLATFORM, Mods delete when certain debate rules are violated. I had THREE postings deleted (Reported them) yesterday because it violated the forum rule of attacking family members (No Attacks on family members) , my wife in this case, he was very insulting and completely off topic.

Moderators can delete or ban or permaban any message or members they want on USMB, at their discretion....it does not have to break the rules....

..............................................

Did Trump's tweet, violate twitter's rules, as they claim??

But they aren't publishing inside, against your comments. They react to rule breaking nothing more.

You ignored post 95 that explains why Twitter made a huge mistake in their reaction to one of his NON Rule breaking comments.

That's not true, they have the discretion to do anything they like... it says so, in the rules I believe....? at least that is how it was when I was a mod here...... the rules are simply a guideline..... it is inconsistent all over the place with mods on this site and posts removed or bans on posters, some get no punishment for rule breaking and some do.... shit hapens.... it could be because they don't see all the posts or threads started, since there is so many of them, or it could be who the moderator is that sees the post, but it certainly varies.....

 

[Sunsettommy]

Interesting, not versed on the legalities But...Trump Chose twitter if he doesn't like the way they do business he can Chose to not use them & go back to the way past presidents have communicated with the people, press briefings, and official statements.

LOL, Trump does numerous press briefings every week.

Many times before he board the Helicopter or Airplane, he stops to chat with reporters.

He is far more accessible than Obama ever was.

 

[Sunsettommy]

so, is it okay for the govt to tell the USMB Moderators and site owners what rules they make for this site or to hold USMB owners libel for what their posters, post?

They won't since this forum is a PLATFORM, Mods delete when certain debate rules are violated. I had THREE postings deleted (Reported them) yesterday because it violated the forum rule of attacking family members (No Attacks on family members) , my wife in this case, he was very insulting and completely off topic.

Moderators can delete or ban or permaban any message or members they want on USMB, at their discretion....it does not have to break the rules....

..............................................

Did Trump's tweet, violate twitter's rules, as they claim??

But they aren't publishing inside, against your comments. They react to rule breaking nothing more.

You ignored post 95 that explains why Twitter made a huge mistake in their reaction to one of his NON Rule breaking comments.

That's not true, they have the discretion to do anything they like... it says so, in the rules I believe....? at least that is how it was when I was a mod here...... the rules are simply a guideline..... it is inconsistent all over the place with mods on this site and posts removed or bans on posters, some get no punishment for rule breaking and some do.... shit hapens.... it could be because they don't see all the posts or threads started, since there is so many of them, or it could be who the moderator is that sees the post, but it certainly varies.....

You have completely missed the point, go read the link at post 95, it should help you understand that THIS forum (100% platform) isn't going to be a target.

 

[colfax_m]

Gaetz is virtue signaling. His little hissy fit has no chance at doing anything.

Second, if his bill did pass, the result would be the immediate removal of Trump from the platform.

The sole intention of this episode is to intimidate Twitter like the thugs they are.

Like what LGBTQRSTUVs do with bakeries? Intimidate them like the thugs they are?

This has nothing to do with that

So legislation has nothing to do with other legislation built off the same premise?
Lol ok

The rationale for public accommodation laws does not apply to social media websites.

This is not the same premise.

The argument is Twitter owns this site to Twitter can do what the **** they want.

That argument doesn't also apply to other businesses wanting to do what they want?

Just like every other commie leftist out there, you have played both sides of the issue. How perfect.
.

Every business retains the right to toss out people based on a multitude of factors, especially individual behavior. That’s no different than what Twitter is doing. People have attempted to sue Twitter on grounds of title 2 of the Civil Rights Act and I believe they’ve always failed.

The only reason you support twitter in this is you know they only seem to gun for views you disagree with.

******* fascist.

If your side wasn't posting so many lies and so much hate they wouldn't be getting banned.

Follow the rules.

Yes, because progressive losers like you never post "hateful" or "lying" tweets.

**** off.

Twitter removes an enormous amount of tweets for being hateful. No one removed Trump’s lying tweet. They just posted a link below it stating why they thought it wasn’t true. What’s ironic is that you’re all outraged that Twitter is using their freedom of expression to reply to Trump’s tweet.

Fascist.

They claim to be an open forum, accepting all viewpoints, and yet the only viewpoints they seem to delete with any consistency are those from the right.

If they want to take a side, they should have to say it, in writing. If they want to be a forum for open exchange they shouldn't be banning people for content based on their politics.

Twitter has never stated there are no limits to what you can post. You’re either lying or just making shut up.

Being an open forum and having no limits on what you can post are two different things, and you know that.

Twitter's own missions statement:

Twitter's purpose is to serve the public conversation. Violence, harassment and other similar types of behavior discourage people from expressing themselves, and ultimately diminish the value of global public conversation. Our rules are to ensure all people can participate in the public conversation freely and safely.

As their statement says, moderation is essential to keeping the platform viable.

That’s precisely why they wrote section 230 in the first place. That’s why these websites even exist.

"Moderation".

So that's how you explain content based bans and filtering.

Uh, yes. That’s exactly what it means. If someone posts something with content that is unacceptable, the moderators remove it. It’s how it works on this forum too.

And of course, to you, unacceptable means "anything I disagree with politically"

Just admit it, you favor banning speech of people you don't like.

Twitter has a ton of speech on it that I disagree with. I have no desire to see it banned.

Have you ever seen a platform with the lack of moderation that you desire? They’re cesspools of racism, anti-semitism and generally fringe nonsense. No one wants that.

Bullshit.

You are a censoring lying ****. FOAD.

And you’re a fascist thug. Nice to meet you.

Twitter has no obligation to pay to propagate idiots speech.

What am i doing to stop you from spreading your idiocy?

Twitter claims to be a discussion forum, and then takes sides in the discussion.

You don't care because it takes your side, filth.

You’re supporting a government action for force Twitter to support your dear leader.

Right now government action gives them immunity from liability because they claim people's posts are not "their content".

They then claim the right to moderate content based on whatever they feel like because it is 'their site", and thus their content.

They want the best of both worlds, and they should have to choose. Claim all content as theirs, moderate as they see fit, and then be liable for whatever they let through, or keep their protections as "not their content" and not moderate based on political, cultural, or moral viewpoints of their own.

That’s exactly the point of section 230 as I’ve been trying to tell you.

You don’t want to take away their ability to moderate. You really don’t want that. Go to an unmoderated forum. It’s garbage. It’s an absolute cesspool.

Section 230 was to prevent something like someone tweeting "I am going to blow up a bridge" and then twitter being sued because they didn't do anything about it.

It wasn't designed for Twitter to take sides in political debates and still claim the content isn't theirs.

That doesn’t make any sense. Why would the goal be to allow internet companies immunity from reporting specific identifiable threats?

You don’t really know what you’re talking about.

 

[martybegan]

Gaetz is virtue signaling. His little hissy fit has no chance at doing anything.

Second, if his bill did pass, the result would be the immediate removal of Trump from the platform.

The sole intention of this episode is to intimidate Twitter like the thugs they are.

Like what LGBTQRSTUVs do with bakeries? Intimidate them like the thugs they are?

This has nothing to do with that

So legislation has nothing to do with other legislation built off the same premise?
Lol ok

The rationale for public accommodation laws does not apply to social media websites.

This is not the same premise.

The argument is Twitter owns this site to Twitter can do what the **** they want.

That argument doesn't also apply to other businesses wanting to do what they want?

Just like every other commie leftist out there, you have played both sides of the issue. How perfect.
.

Every business retains the right to toss out people based on a multitude of factors, especially individual behavior. That’s no different than what Twitter is doing. People have attempted to sue Twitter on grounds of title 2 of the Civil Rights Act and I believe they’ve always failed.

The only reason you support twitter in this is you know they only seem to gun for views you disagree with.

******* fascist.

If your side wasn't posting so many lies and so much hate they wouldn't be getting banned.

Follow the rules.

Yes, because progressive losers like you never post "hateful" or "lying" tweets.

**** off.

Twitter removes an enormous amount of tweets for being hateful. No one removed Trump’s lying tweet. They just posted a link below it stating why they thought it wasn’t true. What’s ironic is that you’re all outraged that Twitter is using their freedom of expression to reply to Trump’s tweet.

Fascist.

They claim to be an open forum, accepting all viewpoints, and yet the only viewpoints they seem to delete with any consistency are those from the right.

If they want to take a side, they should have to say it, in writing. If they want to be a forum for open exchange they shouldn't be banning people for content based on their politics.

Twitter has never stated there are no limits to what you can post. You’re either lying or just making shut up.

Being an open forum and having no limits on what you can post are two different things, and you know that.

Twitter's own missions statement:

Twitter's purpose is to serve the public conversation. Violence, harassment and other similar types of behavior discourage people from expressing themselves, and ultimately diminish the value of global public conversation. Our rules are to ensure all people can participate in the public conversation freely and safely.

As their statement says, moderation is essential to keeping the platform viable.

That’s precisely why they wrote section 230 in the first place. That’s why these websites even exist.

"Moderation".

So that's how you explain content based bans and filtering.

Uh, yes. That’s exactly what it means. If someone posts something with content that is unacceptable, the moderators remove it. It’s how it works on this forum too.

And of course, to you, unacceptable means "anything I disagree with politically"

Just admit it, you favor banning speech of people you don't like.

Twitter has a ton of speech on it that I disagree with. I have no desire to see it banned.

Have you ever seen a platform with the lack of moderation that you desire? They’re cesspools of racism, anti-semitism and generally fringe nonsense. No one wants that.

Bullshit.

You are a censoring lying ****. FOAD.

And you’re a fascist thug. Nice to meet you.

Twitter has no obligation to pay to propagate idiots speech.

What am i doing to stop you from spreading your idiocy?

Twitter claims to be a discussion forum, and then takes sides in the discussion.

You don't care because it takes your side, filth.

You’re supporting a government action for force Twitter to support your dear leader.

Right now government action gives them immunity from liability because they claim people's posts are not "their content".

They then claim the right to moderate content based on whatever they feel like because it is 'their site", and thus their content.

They want the best of both worlds, and they should have to choose. Claim all content as theirs, moderate as they see fit, and then be liable for whatever they let through, or keep their protections as "not their content" and not moderate based on political, cultural, or moral viewpoints of their own.

That’s exactly the point of section 230 as I’ve been trying to tell you.

You don’t want to take away their ability to moderate. You really don’t want that. Go to an unmoderated forum. It’s garbage. It’s an absolute cesspool.

Section 230 was to prevent something like someone tweeting "I am going to blow up a bridge" and then twitter being sued because they didn't do anything about it.

It wasn't designed for Twitter to take sides in political debates and still claim the content isn't theirs.

That doesn’t make any sense. Why would the goal be to allow internet companies immunity from reporting specific identifiable threats?

You don’t really know what you’re talking about.

It's to stop someone from suing twitter for the threat made by another person.

Tweeter: "I am going to kill X"
20 min later, person X is killed by said tweeter.

230 stops the victim's family from suing twitter because they didn't call the cops.

 

[Care4all]

so, is it okay for the govt to tell the USMB Moderators and site owners what rules they make for this site or to hold USMB owners libel for what their posters, post?

They won't since this forum is a PLATFORM, Mods delete when certain debate rules are violated. I had THREE postings deleted (Reported them) yesterday because it violated the forum rule of attacking family members (No Attacks on family members) , my wife in this case, he was very insulting and completely off topic.

Moderators can delete or ban or permaban any message or members they want on USMB, at their discretion....it does not have to break the rules....

..............................................

Did Trump's tweet, violate twitter's rules, as they claim??

But they aren't publishing inside, against your comments. They react to rule breaking nothing more.

You ignored post 95 that explains why Twitter made a huge mistake in their reaction to one of his NON Rule breaking comments.

HAVENT READ 95 YET, but the news reported that the tweet of trump's did break their rules?

my problem is why haven't they corrected or added information to ALL of his fake news and lies? Or ban him for his lies and threats before?

No they didn't say he broke a rule, go look at the link in post 95, they show ALL of the relevant twitter posts in it. Here is a teaser from the LINK

"On Wednesday, Twitter took the bait. As I’m sure Trump had calculated, Twitter didn't do something as obvious as responding to Mika's demands. Instead, it flagged two of Trump's tweets as false:"

bolding mine

======

No mention of rule breaking on the twitter board.

Is it their policy to flag and post tweets when disinformation about the election is being spread?
Has anyone else ever been flagged with links to more information? Or not?

Only 1 in 05 Americans have a twitter account, and I am not one of them, so I am unfamiliar with the joint?

 

[colfax_m]

Interesting, not versed on the legalities But...Trump Chose twitter if he doesn't like the way they do business he can Chose to not use them & go back to the way past presidents have communicated with the people, press briefings, and official statements.

LOL, Trump does numerous press briefings every week.

Many times before he board the Helicopter or Airplane, he stops to chat with reporters.

He is far more accessible than Obama ever was.

The vast majority of what comes out of Trump’s mouth is useless. He talks a lot. He says very little.

 

[colfax_m]

Gaetz is virtue signaling. His little hissy fit has no chance at doing anything.

Second, if his bill did pass, the result would be the immediate removal of Trump from the platform.

The sole intention of this episode is to intimidate Twitter like the thugs they are.

Like what LGBTQRSTUVs do with bakeries? Intimidate them like the thugs they are?

This has nothing to do with that

So legislation has nothing to do with other legislation built off the same premise?
Lol ok

The rationale for public accommodation laws does not apply to social media websites.

This is not the same premise.

The argument is Twitter owns this site to Twitter can do what the **** they want.

That argument doesn't also apply to other businesses wanting to do what they want?

Just like every other commie leftist out there, you have played both sides of the issue. How perfect.
.

Every business retains the right to toss out people based on a multitude of factors, especially individual behavior. That’s no different than what Twitter is doing. People have attempted to sue Twitter on grounds of title 2 of the Civil Rights Act and I believe they’ve always failed.

The only reason you support twitter in this is you know they only seem to gun for views you disagree with.

******* fascist.

If your side wasn't posting so many lies and so much hate they wouldn't be getting banned.

Follow the rules.

Yes, because progressive losers like you never post "hateful" or "lying" tweets.

**** off.

Twitter removes an enormous amount of tweets for being hateful. No one removed Trump’s lying tweet. They just posted a link below it stating why they thought it wasn’t true. What’s ironic is that you’re all outraged that Twitter is using their freedom of expression to reply to Trump’s tweet.

Fascist.

They claim to be an open forum, accepting all viewpoints, and yet the only viewpoints they seem to delete with any consistency are those from the right.

If they want to take a side, they should have to say it, in writing. If they want to be a forum for open exchange they shouldn't be banning people for content based on their politics.

Twitter has never stated there are no limits to what you can post. You’re either lying or just making shut up.

Being an open forum and having no limits on what you can post are two different things, and you know that.

Twitter's own missions statement:

Twitter's purpose is to serve the public conversation. Violence, harassment and other similar types of behavior discourage people from expressing themselves, and ultimately diminish the value of global public conversation. Our rules are to ensure all people can participate in the public conversation freely and safely.

As their statement says, moderation is essential to keeping the platform viable.

That’s precisely why they wrote section 230 in the first place. That’s why these websites even exist.

"Moderation".

So that's how you explain content based bans and filtering.

Uh, yes. That’s exactly what it means. If someone posts something with content that is unacceptable, the moderators remove it. It’s how it works on this forum too.

And of course, to you, unacceptable means "anything I disagree with politically"

Just admit it, you favor banning speech of people you don't like.

Twitter has a ton of speech on it that I disagree with. I have no desire to see it banned.

Have you ever seen a platform with the lack of moderation that you desire? They’re cesspools of racism, anti-semitism and generally fringe nonsense. No one wants that.

Bullshit.

You are a censoring lying ****. FOAD.

And you’re a fascist thug. Nice to meet you.

Twitter has no obligation to pay to propagate idiots speech.

What am i doing to stop you from spreading your idiocy?

Twitter claims to be a discussion forum, and then takes sides in the discussion.

You don't care because it takes your side, filth.

You’re supporting a government action for force Twitter to support your dear leader.

Right now government action gives them immunity from liability because they claim people's posts are not "their content".

They then claim the right to moderate content based on whatever they feel like because it is 'their site", and thus their content.

They want the best of both worlds, and they should have to choose. Claim all content as theirs, moderate as they see fit, and then be liable for whatever they let through, or keep their protections as "not their content" and not moderate based on political, cultural, or moral viewpoints of their own.

That’s exactly the point of section 230 as I’ve been trying to tell you.

You don’t want to take away their ability to moderate. You really don’t want that. Go to an unmoderated forum. It’s garbage. It’s an absolute cesspool.

Section 230 was to prevent something like someone tweeting "I am going to blow up a bridge" and then twitter being sued because they didn't do anything about it.

It wasn't designed for Twitter to take sides in political debates and still claim the content isn't theirs.

That doesn’t make any sense. Why would the goal be to allow internet companies immunity from reporting specific identifiable threats?

You don’t really know what you’re talking about.

It's to stop someone from suing twitter for the threat made by another person.

Tweeter: "I am going to kill X"
20 min later, person X is killed by said tweeter.

230 stops the victim's family from suing twitter because they didn't call the cops.

You really think that the government wrote legislation that permitted internet companies to ignore individual specific threats?

That makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Sandy Shanks]

We are in the midst of a pandemic. The U.S. has nearly a third of the world's confirmed cases. The U.S. has nearly a third of the world's deaths from the virus.

What is our President doing?

He is attacking Twitter.

Trump got hostile when Twitter attempted to correct Trump's outright lies in a tweet.

Trump on Thursday is set to sign an executive order that could open the door for federal regulators to punish Facebook, Google and Twitter for the way they police content online.

Trump prefers Twitter allow his lies to stand unchallenged.

The Post writes, "Trump has portrayed the expected order, the early details of which were first reported by The Washington Post late Wednesday, as an attempt to stamp out political bias on the part of the country’s largest social media platforms. His directive comes days after Twitter steered viewers of some of the president’s tweets to news articles that fact-checked his claims, a move Trump said was a form of censorship.

"But advocates for the tech sector, lawmakers in Congress and a variety of legal experts from across the political spectrum Thursday doubted the legality of Trump’s draft proposal and feared its implications for free speech. Others questioned whether the U.S. government even could carry out the order as the president intended."

Trump has been stupid enough to make the news media the enemy, calling it "fake news." That is beyond stupid because the media always has the last word, and it can pick and chose how it covers Trump, his statements and his deeds.

Now the fool is taking on the tech sector, which may have even more influence on how Americans think.

In the meantime, over 100,000 Americans have died from the coronavirus.