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

[Rigby5]

Who told you that? Seriously? It's not true. You're just factually and demonstrably wrong. Have you even looked it up?

That is foolish, are you really going to try to claim the baker was right to deny the gay couple a wedding cake?

 

[dblack]

Wrong.
Never has political discrimination been legal.
It is a basic common law element going back before the revolution.
The particular groups with a history of being discriminated against are specifically listed as protected, in no way implies any other discrimination is legal.
That would obviously be unequal treatment under the law.

You're deeply confused. We're talking about discrimination by business, not the law.

It is inherently illegal to only prevent specific discrimination types or groups.
Anyone with any understanding of the principles of law would know that.

Again, you're deeply confused. The only thing that might possibly backup your claim is that some states and local government prohibit political discrimination, but not many. The notion that it is "inherently illegal" is pure fantasy on your part.

Maybe this will clue you in: https://www.google.com/search?clien...al&cx=partner-pub-4906888937502057:2698513122

Maybe you won't bother reading it Your call.

 

[Rigby5]

You're deeply confused. We're talking about discrimination by business, not the law.

Again, you're deeply confused. The only thing that might possibly backup your claim is that some states and local government prohibit political discrimination, but not many. The notion that it is "inherently illegal" is pure fantasy on your part.

Maybe this will clue you in: https://www.google.com/search?clien...al&cx=partner-pub-4906888937502057:2698513122

Maybe you won't bother reading it Your call.

Sorry, that is ignorant.
What you linked was advertisements for lawyers.
And notoriously lawyers like to apply memorized legislation, and not the actual abstractions legislation has to be based upon in order to be legal.
To understand law, you first have to realize the abstraction has to already exist in order to justify the legislation.
Law can not be self justifying, unless you live in an authoritarian dictatorship.
Go back to the argument the Founders had over the Bill of Rights.
Most were against it, because once you list some rights, many will then assume only listed rights exist, and that is NOT the case.
The argument against the Bill of Rights correctly stated that rights are infinite and can never be explicitly listed.
But anyone who knows anything about law would tell you that the abstractions then are handled through generic wording like "disorderly conduct", "assault" or any number of unspecified infractions.
Have you ever heard of anyone ever even remotely trying to discriminate over political beliefs before?
Even in the early days of the Founders, is was so obvious and apparent, no one would ever try to do that.
It should grossly repugnant to any normal human being.
The fact people would now try such an obviously illegal ploy shows how far we have degenerated into willful, self indulgent, and ignorant narcissists.
If Twitter were to only censor particular posts they could deem as harmful, then they would have a case.
But clearly a blanket ban on an entire political party is absolutely reprehensible.
And again, in case you are confused, I am far left of anyone here, and vastly anti-Trump.
But banning Trump is about the worst crime of the century.

 

[dblack]

Sorry, that is ignorant.
What you linked was advertisements for lawyers.

So you didn't read it? It was a google search on "Is political discrimination legal?"- with several results disproving your fantasy.

You're living in a different reality. That's fine, I guess. Many people are these days. But you should acknowledge that upfront, so people don't waste a lot of time conversing with under the assumption that there is common ground.

 

[White 6]

Wrong.
Kroger and Ford most definitely do NOT get to set their own policies, any more than a cake baker does.
If you are going to be open to the public at all, then you can not discriminate at all, (except illegal things like slander, etc.).

Got you agree with the right wing and the Libertarians. That cake baker case was just wrong. If you don't want somebody's business you shouldn't have to take their business.

 

[Rigby5]

So you didn't read it? It was a google search on "Is political discrimination legal?"- with several results disproving your fantasy.

You're living in a different reality. That's fine, I guess. Many people are these days. But you should acknowledge that upfront, so people don't waste a lot of time conversing with under the assumption that there is common ground.

Of course I read it, and it was advertising intended to make more money for lawyers.
It disproved nothing.

Discrimination has always been illegal in concept.
That is why people stormed the Bastille, did the American Revolution, fought a Civil War, etc.

The whole point of a democratic republic is egalitarian, and you can't allow any discrimination and call it a democratic republic.
You just do not at all have any idea what law even is.
To you its just legislation, it is fine with you no matter what they try to pass off as legislation.

 

[Rigby5]

Got you agree with the right wing and the Libertarians. That cake baker case was just wrong. If you don't want somebody's business you shouldn't have to take their business.

Totally wrong.
Not only is it terribly insulting to deny a customer based on discrimination, but it greatly harms the victims, forcing them to go to different establishments, if they get continually turned down.
And what if the it is the only baker in town?
Does a bigot get to ruin the lives of those they arbitrarily decide to hate?
How is that different they putting Jews into ghettos?

 

[White 6]

Totally wrong.
Not only is it terribly insulting to deny a customer based on discrimination, but it greatly harms the victims, forcing them to go to different establishments, if they get continually turned down.
And what if the it is the only baker in town?
Does a bigot get to ruin the lives of those they arbitrarily decide to hate?
How is that different they putting Jews into ghettos?

That is extreme, as choices in modern day are usually available. When it comes to genuine religious convictions, why choose to harm the seller, rather than the buyer, when the buyer can go somewhere else, but the seller cannot. In these modern days, sometimes people actually seek out the opportunity to force people to do their bidding, just to prove a point.
Not talking about turning somebody down because of color, only talking of turning somebody down that would put the seller participating in what religious convictions say is a sin.
The rub is when those convictions are not genuine and being used prop to get away with rank discrimination.

 

[Rigby5]

That is extreme, as choices in modern day are usually available. When it comes to genuine religious convictions, why choose to harm the seller, rather than the buyer, when the buyer can go somewhere else, but the seller cannot. In these modern days, sometimes people actually seek out the opportunity to force people to do their bidding, just to prove a point.
Not talking about turning somebody down because of color, only talking of turning somebody down that would put the seller participating in what religious convictions say is a sin.
The rub is when those convictions are not genuine and being used prop to get away with rank discrimination.

There is zero religious convictions involved.
With all religions, it is clearly recognized that one is supposed to follow civil law on Earth, and religious consequences are for the after life.
It is wrong and immoral for anyone of any religion to attempt to punish someone who is not hurting anyone else.
A religion that would do that is to be criminalized, as it is totally against all social norms.
It is essentially playing God.
While there are religions like Judaism that say being gay is bad, there is not a word hinting that a Jewish person should shun gays.

 

[White 6]

There is zero religious convictions involved.
With all religions, it is clearly recognized that one is supposed to follow civil law on Earth, and religious consequences are for the after life.
It is wrong and immoral for anyone of any religion to attempt to punish someone who is not hurting anyone else.
A religion that would do that is to be criminalized, as it is totally against all social norms.
It is essentially playing God.
While there are religions like Judaism that say being gay is bad, there is not a word hinting that a Jewish person should shun gays.

So, you are saying civil law, trumps all religious convictions, and that it will and should every time. I take it, you are not bound by any religious convictions.

 

[Rigby5]

So, you are saying civil law, trumps all religious convictions, and that it will and should every time. I take it, you are not bound by any religious convictions.

Wrong.
What I am saying is that no real religion could possibly require a human to play God and punish someone else for an ethereal offense.
Any human pretending to know what God wants exactly, when it is not also necessary for practical reasons, is just lying.
No one gets to pretend they speak for God.

I am not saying that there are not religious convictions people are not bound by.
I am claiming the baker is deliberately lying because he was not bound by anything, and just wanted to harm someone else for no practical or religious reason.
No God would ever want any human to play God and punish for an ethereal offence that harms no one else.

 

[White 6]

Wrong.
What I am saying is that no real religion could possibly require a human to play God and punish someone else for an ethereal offense.
Any human pretending to know what God wants exactly, when it is not also necessary for practical reasons, is just lying.
No one gets to pretend they speak for God.

I am not saying that there are not religious convictions people are not bound by.
I am claiming the baker is deliberately lying because he was not bound by anything, and just wanted to harm someone else for no practical or religious reason.
No God would ever want any human to play God and punish for an ethereal offence that harms no one else.

Not playing God and not punishing. Some people actually do attack people for their religious belief in order to punish them for having them. The rub religious side is sincerity, something very difficult to ascertain, sometimes, as it is a judgement call. Other times, not hard at all, easy for all the word to see.

 

[Rigby5]

Not playing God and not punishing. Some people actually do attack people for their religious belief in order to punish them for having them. The rub religious side is sincerity, something very difficult to ascertain, sometimes, as it is a judgement call. Other times, not hard at all, easy for all the word to see.

I think it is obvious if the religious claim is valid or not.
And that is if it harms someone else or not.
If it harms someone else, then all religions should punish the action that harms.
If is harms no one, than no valid religion should even consider punishing an action that harms no one.
A religion could still contravene the action, but no valid religion should want a human to play God over something that harms no one.
When something harms no one else, then punishment is supposed to wait for the after life.

 

[Colin norris]

The alt-left bastards have pushed your allies into Chinas arms and they have single handedly allowed America to lose their influence. These moron CEOs have now cut off their noses to spite their faces. Stupid, son of b____s. Now Europe has the perfect excuse they need to regulate, punish and control these networks. Good job political party boot lickers. You did well. Dumb asses.

Since about year 3 of Trumps admin, I never believed that allies hated him as much as the media tried to present. Canada and England might have felt they lost out, that's because they were all in for Hillary. The rest, probably understood the message Trump and U.S intel were giving them. Notice silence from Canada and England on the issue of censorship. That's because THEY want to do the same here in Canada, as an example.

Now, what do they think? How will they react? I give Germany and France some credit. The French have a history of liberty, the Germans have been slower adopters, but it's good to see them all speak out.

Kicking Trump off Twitter is 'problematic' and infringes on free speech, Germany and France say
Angela Merkel said the free speech should be governed by lawmakers, not private technology companies

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

Angela Merkel said the free speech should be governed by lawmakers, not private technology companies

nationalpost.com

Germany and France attacked Twitter Inc. and Facebook Inc. after U.S. President Donald Trump was shut off from the social media platforms, in an extension of Europe’s battle with big tech.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel objected to the decisions, saying on Monday that lawmakers should set the rules governing free speech and not private technology companies.

“The chancellor sees the complete closing down of the account of an elected president as problematic,” Steffen Seibert, her chief spokesman, said at a regular news conference in Berlin. Rights like the freedom of speech “can be interfered with, but by law and within the framework defined by the legislature — not according to a corporate decision.”

The German leader’s stance is echoed by the French government. Junior Minister for European Union Affairs Clement Beaune said he was “shocked” to see a private company make such an important decision. “This should be decided by citizens, not by a CEO,” he told Bloomberg TV on Monday. “There needs to be public regulation of big online platforms.” Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire earlier said that the state should be responsible for regulations, rather than “the digital oligarchy,” and called big tech “one of the threats” to democracy.

Europe is increasingly pushing back against the growing influence of big technology companies. The EU is currently in the process of setting up regulation that could give the bloc power to split up platforms if they don’t comply with rules.

Twitter permanently banned Trump last week after it decided the outgoing president’s tweets breached its rules against glorifying violence. It cited his posts on the riots in the U.S. capital.

What you call free speech doesn't come free. Trump was an.idiot and proven to be so by the election.
Twitter is a privately owned company and do not have to post anything they don't like. Do you understand that?

Trump was posting blatant lies and was thrown off because if it. If you believed him, you're a buffoon like him.

The rest of the world was right. The world will a better place when he goes to hell.

 

[Batcat]

Mitch and Pence would have shut Trump down also.

Many of the career politicians we have elected to represent us in our Congress in Washington D.C. have decided they are the ruling class and are far superior to the average citizen.

This ruling class does not appreciate a total outsider to the political game like Trump becoming President of our nation. They especially dislike outsiders who threaten to do timings like drain the Swamp.

 

[pknopp]

Many of the career politicians we have elected to represent us in our Congress in Washington D.C. have decided they are the ruling class and are far superior to the average citizen.

This ruling class does not appreciate a total outsider to the political game like Trump becoming President of our nation. They especially dislike outsiders who threaten to do timings like drain the Swamp.

It's too bad it was an outsider with the mind of a 12 year old.

 

[White 6]

I think it is obvious if the religious claim is valid or not.
And that is if it harms someone else or not.
If it harms someone else, then all religions should punish the action that harms.
If is harms no one, than no valid religion should even consider punishing an action that harms no one.
A religion could still contravene the action, but no valid religion should want a human to play God over something that harms no one.
When something harms no one else, then punishment is supposed to wait for the after life.

Sometimes without inside knowledge, you cannot tell.

 

[Batcat]

It's too bad it was an outsider with the mind of a 12 year old.

Trump may not be mature in your opinion but he was better than Joe Biden who is in the early stages of dementia.

Joe is a little too mature.

 

[Rigby5]

Sometimes without inside knowledge, you cannot tell.

Yes you can always tell.
Anytime a religious claim is made that someone has to be punished when it is not in defense of someone else, then it is bogus.
The only time a person has to punish someone else is when it is necessary to prevent harm to others.
If one punishes others without it being immediately necessary in order to protect others, it always MUST be a bogus and fake religious claim.

The sins that do not harm others should be left to God to punish in the after life.
There is zero reason to punish sins that harm no one else, while the person is alive.
And that pretty much proves the one insisting on punishing does not really belief in God.

 

[Rigby5]

Trump may not be mature in your opinion but he was better than Joe Biden who is in the early stages of dementia.

Joe is a little too mature.

I do not mind someone being old and slow.
It is Biden in the 1990s I hate.
Did you ever hear his hateful and illegal speech pushing the federal war on drugs in the 1994 federal crime bill?
Totally disgusting.