Kicking Trump off Twitter is 'problematic' and infringes on free speech, Germany and France say

[Rigby5]

LOL - It ain't free speech unless it's controlled by government. Orwell would be proud.

The advantage of government regulation is that is has to be more transparent and not hidden or subjective.
Government regulation allows for an appeal or review board.
You also at least have the advantage of being able to vote out anyone trying to reduce public influence.
Ending government regulation would give the big companies more freedom, but which is more important, the big companies, or all the individuals of the population of users?

 

[Rigby5]

LOL France and Germany and free speech. LOL

The US is no shining standard either.
We had lynchings and cross burnings into the 1950s.
We had the evils of McCarthyism into the 1960s.
We did not stop murdering Vietnamese until the 1970s.
We lied and murdered Moslems even now, like in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, etc.

No other country is doing any thing nearly as evil as the US.

 

[dblack]

The advantage of government regulation is that is has to be more transparent and not hidden or subjective.

Government regulation of free speech is a contradiction in terms.

The problem is our confused and contradictory conception of "free speech". Free speech doesn't mean other people have to accommodate you. It just means government can't pass laws to silence you.

 

[Rigby5]

No, not that. That's not an abuse of government. It has nothing to do with government. It's social censure - shunning. It carries no force of law.



It's not a loophole. The First Amendment is meant to limit state power. It's not there to force people to accommodate you, or your views. If society doesn't like what you have to say, they don't have to play along. They don't have to listen to you, they don't have to publish your views, they don't have to associate with you at all. That's what's happening now. Many people in our society have decided they've had enough of Trump and they're refusing to accommodate him. It's their right to make that call.

Twitter is controlling access to the government internet.
If this was just about some network created by Twitter, it would not matter because it would be too small to matter.
But the government Internet has access to billions of people, so that what Twitter does matters.
And Twitter is supposed to follow the same 1st amendment regulations the FCC enforces on all other internet providers.
Internet providers DO HAVE to publish your views, even if they do not like them.
Those open for public access do NOT have the right to not accommodate.

And by the way, the 14th amendment started a process called "incorporation", which extended the Bill of Rights as individual protections against all.
It is no longer just a set of restrictions on the federal government, as it was originally.

 

[Rigby5]

Government regulation of free speech is a contradiction in terms.

The problem is our confused and contradictory conception of "free speech". Free speech doesn't mean other people have to accommodate you. It just means government can't pass laws to silence you.

Wrong.
Free speech does mean you are required to accommodate all people and view equally.
If a racists wants to buy commercial air time for some disgusting racial theory, no media is legally allowed to deny them access.

 

[BlindBoo]

Twitter did not create, maintain, or own ANY part of the Internet, so then can't change or violate any of the rules set down by those who did create, maintain, and own the internet.

Twitter has not violated the rules of the internet

Since Trump's beliefs are not inciting violence against innocents, then Twitter has no leg to stand on.

It's not his beliefs that got him banned from twitter. It was his posts. Twitter thinks those violated their TOS. The rules give them wide discretion to make that determination.

 

[dblack]

Twitter is controlling access to the government internet.

Yes, yes. The socialist conceit. "You didn't build that." "Everyone who uses something paid for by taxes owes the government their left nut and all their rights."

And by the way, the 14th amendment started a process called "incorporation", which extended the Bill of Rights as individual protections against all.
It is no longer just a set of restrictions on the federal government, as it was originally.

That's refers to state governments, not individuals or businesses.

 

[dblack]

Wrong.

Yes. This is where we disagree. You're a statist. For you, government is the be-all end-all of human society.

Free speech does mean you are required to accommodate all people and view equally.

That's insane and implies totalitarian government monitoring your every decision

If a racists wants to buy commercial air time for some disgusting racial theory, no media is legally allowed to deny them access.

Again, insane. This violates fundamental freedom of conscience.

 

[BlindBoo]

Twitter is controlling access to the government internet.

No they're not. The government doesn't own the internet. The ex-president still has access to the internet. Twitter is not the internet.

 

[BlindBoo]

Wrong.
Free speech does mean you are required to accommodate all people and view equally.
If a racists wants to buy commercial air time for some disgusting racial theory, no media is legally allowed to deny them access.

Not in this country. When the country only had three nationwide networks, they implemented fairness rules to ensure that one party was not able to broadcast a single political perspective 24/7365, but that went the way of the dinosaurs when Cable TV offer a plethora of news options.

 

[bendog]

Twitter is controlling access to the government internet.
If this was just about some network created by Twitter, it would not matter because it would be too small to matter.
But the government Internet has access to billions of people, so that what Twitter does matters.
And Twitter is supposed to follow the same 1st amendment regulations the FCC enforces on all other internet providers.
Internet providers DO HAVE to publish your views, even if they do not like them.
Those open for public access do NOT have the right to not accommodate.

And by the way, the 14th amendment started a process called "incorporation", which extended the Bill of Rights as individual protections against all.
It is no longer just a set of restrictions on the federal government, as it was originally.

The US govt does not control who accesses the internet.
The first amend does prohibit the govt from restricting speech on the internet (with child porn being excepted)
If you have link supporting the assertion that twitter (or other internet utilities or boards) may not regulate speech based on their own standards, I'd love to see it.

 

[Rigby5]

Twitter has not violated the rules of the internet



It's not his beliefs that got him banned from twitter. It was his posts. Twitter thinks those violated their TOS. The rules give them wide discretion to make that determination.

Oh yes it has.
I work on network protocols, so I know exactly what all the FCC regulations are, and Twitter most definitely is in total violation.
The internet is federally regulated, has to be federally regulated, and federal regulations do not allow for subjective censorship.

The only legal censorship would be if someone could sue Twitter if they did not censor, and that is not the case with Trump.
The Twitter Terms of Service are completely irrelevant.
They can not be arbitrary.
Like a restaurant can enforce "No shoes, no shirt, no service" because it could effect their business to other people, and is not a burden to any particular customer.
But Twitter has no such defense.
TOS are NOT rules.
They have no legal basis.
A TOS is just a helpful discussion.
It can not even be called a contract because there are no signatures.
Implied contracts, like "shrink wrap contracts", have been ruled illegal, many times.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Let me know when those two countries tender an offer to buy out the private platforms to they can set their rules.

Our constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression is not limited or abridged because Twitter
or Facebook is privately owned and it's odd you would think they would be. Or should be.

As long as Big Tech oligarchs rely on the internet, a public accommodation, to do their business (the way a poodle or a stray dog would do theirs) it seems to me it's only common sense and just that they should
be bound by our laws and founding principles the same way people that drive on public roadways
are bound by laws of the road.

I don't know where people like you get the idea that Twitter is not bound by our laws merely because
Twitter is privately owned. What other product is immune to US laws merely because a business is
owned by an individual or group?

Are Big Tech Oligarchs publishers or merely like electronic bulletin board? The old arguments
have yet to be settled.

 

[Rigby5]

Yes, yes. The socialist conceit. "You didn't build that." "Everyone who uses something paid for by taxes owes the government their left nut and all their rights."

That's refers to state governments, not individuals or businesses.

If everyone has paid for something through taxes, how can you defend their rights except through representative government?

And the process of incorporation does not include individual rights against any violation by anyone.
For example, the McDonald vs Chicago ruling on individual gun rights.

 

[Rigby5]

Yes. This is where we disagree. You're a statist. For you, government is the be-all end-all of human society.

That's insane and implies totalitarian government monitoring your every decision

Again, insane. This violates fundamental freedom of conscience.

If you want to be able to arbitrarily discriminate, then you can't get a license to be open to the public.
You have to operate privately so that you do not harm others.

It should be obvious why political discrimination must always remain illegal.

 

[dblack]

If everyone has paid for something through taxes, how can you defend their rights except through representative government?

And the process of incorporation does not include individual rights against any violation by anyone.
For example, the McDonald vs Chicago ruling on individual gun rights.

I can't really make any sense out of that.

 

[Rigby5]

No they're not. The government doesn't own the internet. The ex-president still has access to the internet. Twitter is not the internet.

Yes, the government owns the Internet.
Twitter signed the FCC rules against discrimination when it accepted use of the Internet.
Twitter use the internet, so then has to abide by FCC rules.

 

[dblack]

It should be obvious why political discrimination must always remain illegal.

Political discrimination isn't currently illegal. Not federally, and not in most states.

Google Search

www.google.com

 

[Rigby5]

Not in this country. When the country only had three nationwide networks, they implemented fairness rules to ensure that one party was not able to broadcast a single political perspective 24/7365, but that went the way of the dinosaurs when Cable TV offer a plethora of news options.

The fact the number of means of public access has increased only means the FCC no longer is keeping up on enforcement, but the rules have never changed.
Political discrimination is completely illegal.
Twitter is absolutely in violation of the law and should be shut down.
Germany and France are absolutely correct.
Anyone thinking about this for even 30 seconds should agree.
Just switch it around in your imagination and have republicans blacking out democrat access to the internet, and it is instantly obvious.

 

[bendog]

Oh yes it has.
I work on network protocols, so I know exactly what all the FCC regulations are, and Twitter most definitely is in total violation.
The internet is federally regulated, has to be federally regulated, and federal regulations do not allow for subjective censorship.

The only legal censorship would be if someone could sue Twitter if they did not censor, and that is not the case with Trump.
The Twitter Terms of Service are completely irrelevant.
They can not be arbitrary.
Like a restaurant can enforce "No shoes, no shirt, no service" because it could effect their business to other people, and is not a burden to any particular customer.
But Twitter has no such defense.
TOS are NOT rules.
They have no legal basis.
A TOS is just a helpful discussion.
It can not even be called a contract because there are no signatures.
Implied contracts, like "shrink wrap contracts", have been ruled illegal, many times.

Again, I'd love to see a link the FCC regulations provide that twitter cannot have content standards