Trump tries to force Twitter to let him tweet again

[task0778]

how can he show a denial of his freedom of speech when he is doing rallies at least once a month and has his own website where he put out official statements on a weekly or more often basis and gives interviews on TV shows pretty regularly.

Oh, so now we should quantify somebody's freedom of speech? You tell me, how many people does Trump reach at a rally? And then how many does he reach with one tweet? It's thousands vs millions, right? Are you saying it's okay to censor Trump on Twitter cuz he has other avenues of speaking? Would it make a difference if he had none? What kind of crap is that, and who gets to decide that? "Well he can talk to the people at a rally so we can cancel his Twitter account?" Should twitter have that power?

 

[Cellblock2429]

The Gay guy is a protected class...and if he can prove that his denial was about his sexuality--he will get paid~
This has nothing to do with the OP though>Ex-Presidents are not a protected or named class.
BTW..that's about as far as I've seen anyone stretch to get to a false equivalency! I pay no attention to the screeching on either side..but in this case..the law is quite clear.

/——/ And religious freedom isn’t protected? What about Islamic discrimination on gays and women? Why y to be double standard?

 

[Cellblock2429]

Well....first you have to prove that his account was pulled for political reasons. Twitter banned Trump after Jan. 6--they said that Trump was spreading lies, and he was, and that they were worried that this would inflame some of his supporters, leading to RW violence.
This after he had had numerous posts deleted, and numerous warnings--it did not come out of the blue.

As I sad in an earlier post, those you named are mostly protected classes..and if they can prove that they were denied because of that, they have a case.

/——-/ Here are the political posts that got Trump banned:
In his final tweets, Trump stated he will not be attending the inauguration and referred to his “75,000,000” supporters as "great American Patriots", saying they will “MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN” and will have "a GIANT VOICE long into the future".

“They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” Trump wrote.

Now read this:
Twitter will not suspend controversial Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan for a tweet comparing Jews to insects, the company said in a statement to BuzzFeed News.

Farrakhan, who has been dogged by accusations of anti-Semitism throughout his career, yesterday tweeted a video clip of a speech in which he denied that he was anti-Semitic, with the caption, “I’m not an anti-Semite. I’m anti-Termite.”

 

[dblack]

Should twitter have that power?

No way. Only government should have that power!

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Oh, so now we should quantify somebody's freedom of speech?

Nothing I said even came close to saying we should quantify somebody's freedom of speech. I merely showed that he still have the freedom of speech.

Are you saying it's okay to censor Trump on Twitter cuz he has other avenues of speaking?

I am saying it is ok to censor Trump on Twitter because Twitter is a private company. There is no guarantee you get to "speak" anywhere you choose. I hold the power to censor waht is said on my property.

Well he can talk to the people at a rally so we can cancel his Twitter account?" Should twitter have that power?

Yes, they should. It is their fucking company, they should get to decide who uses it and who does not. I have been banned from a few forums, does that mean my freedom of speech has been removed? Of course not, unless I use your logic.

 

[task0778]

first you have to prove that his account was pulled for political reasons

How does a person do that? Is that even possible? Do I have to produce every single tweet I ever did and ask the court to find the one that got me banned? Full disclosure: I'm not on Twitter, never have been, and know nothing about that software. OR - maybe the burden of proof should be on the social media company to show why they kicked me off. Where's the tweet that indicates an incitement to riot? Are we innocent until proven guilty or not? According to you, it's the other way around, I gotta prove my innocence. And Twitter or whoever can decide I'm guilty without oversight, and kick me off their platform? I'll ask again: how do I prove my innocence? And should I have to?

 

[task0778]

Nothing I said even came close to saying we should quantify somebody's freedom of speech. I merely showed that he still have the freedom of speech.



I am saying it is ok to censor Trump on Twitter because Twitter is a private company. There is no guarantee you get to "speak" anywhere you choose. I hold the power to censor waht is said on my property.



Yes, they should. It is their fucking company, they should get to decide who uses it and who does not. I have been banned from a few forums, does that mean my freedom of speech has been removed? Of course not, unless I use your logic.

So, Twitter or any other social media company can boot you off their platform for political reasons and you're okay with that? Anybody at all who says something contrary tot heir political views can arbitrarily be removed, and that's okay? You do realize the immense power that twitter and other media companies have over our politics, right?

 

[dblack]

You do realize the immense power that twitter and other media companies have over our politics, right?

Of course it's a lot of power. That's why the government wants to control it.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

How does a person do that? Is that even possible? Do I have to produce every single tweet I ever did and ask the court to find the one that got me banned? Full disclosure: I'm not on Twitter, never have been, and know nothing about that software. OR - maybe the burden of proof should be on the social media company to show why they kicked me off. Where's the tweet that indicates an incitement to riot? Are we innocent until proven guilty or not? According to you, it's the other way around, I gotta prove my innocence. And Twitter or whoever can decide I'm guilty without oversight, and kick me off their platform? I'll ask again: how do I prove my innocence? And should I have to?

Boils down to..their site, their rules. Simple as that~

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So, Twitter or any other social media company can boot you off their platform for political reasons and you're okay with that?

yes. it is their platform, I am a big proponent of the rights of private companies. I have been booted off of forms for political reasons. I just go to the next one.

 

[task0778]

Boils down to..their site, their rules. Simple as that~

yes. it is their platform, I am a big proponent of the rights of private companies. I have been booted off of forms for political reasons. I just go to the next one.

Do you both realize what you're accepting? In collusion with big money corps and people, the gov't can control what you hear, read, and see? Not just the social media platforms, but radio, TV, print media, internet, publishers, and literally everything you get your news from? If every private company can dictate what you are told, isn't that too much influence over the public? I am amazed that you are so willing to allow any private company that kind of power.

 

[dblack]

Do you both realize what you're accepting? In collusion with big money corps and people, the gov't can control what you hear, read, and see?

This is dumb. And paranoid. Just because some businesses agree with the government, doesn't mean they are controlled by the government. It just means they're fed up with Trumpsters. Them's the breaks.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Do you both realize what you're accepting? In collusion with big money corps and people, the gov't can control what you hear, read, and see? Not just the social media platforms, but radio, TV, print media, internet, publishers, and literally everything you get your news from? If every private company can dictate what you are told, isn't that too much influence over the public? I am amazed that you are so willing to allow any private company that kind of power.

What is the alternative, the Govt decides what we can hear and see and be told?

are you pushing for the fairness doctrine to come back? Should OAN be forced to give equal time to far left Dems and should Daily Kos be forced to Tucker each night?

 

[colfax_m]

Do you both realize what you're accepting? In collusion with big money corps and people, the gov't can control what you hear, read, and see? Not just the social media platforms, but radio, TV, print media, internet, publishers, and literally everything you get your news from? If every private company can dictate what you are told, isn't that too much influence over the public? I am amazed that you are so willing to allow any private company that kind of power.

A private company doesn't have that kind of power.

There is no company that controls media. There are dozens, hundreds maybe thousands of companies that do so. It's the free market.

 

[dblack]

What is the alternative, the Govt decides what we can hear and see and be told?

That's the plan.

are you pushing for the fairness doctrine to come back? Should OAN be forced to give equal time to far left Dems and should Daily Kos be forced to Tucker each night?

Whatever it takes for Trump to "win".

 

[dblack]

A private company doesn't have that kind of power.

There is no company that controls media. There are dozens, hundreds maybe thousands of companies that do so. It's the free market.

Nope - in the mind of a dedicated Trumpster, they are all in a secret cabal of pedophiles. Get with the program.

 

[colfax_m]

Nope - in the mind of a dedicated Trumpster, they are all in a secret cabal of pedophiles. Get with the program.

They can be completely captured and submerged in right wing media and still claim at the same time that media is all left wing.

The self contradiction is bizarre.

 

[task0778]

What is the alternative, the Govt decides what we can hear and see and be told?

are you pushing for the fairness doctrine to come back? Should OAN be forced to give equal time to far left Dems and should Daily Kos be forced to Tucker each night?

No, the gov't should NOT get to decide what we can hear, and see, and be told. That is not the same as deciding whether or not a social media company can deny you access so that you can't say something that they don't like. Every right that we have does have certain limits, right? Like speech, there are some things you are restricted from saying, and a judge somewhere rules on whatever you said to be worthy of censorship, slander, public safety, etc. And I think we should have the right to protest the social media's decision before a judge who can determine whether or not the censorship is justified.

I do not support the fairness doctrine, which is about requiring a media company to provide equal time to views that are diametrically opposed to their own. But if you're a social media company that purports to offer a platform for an exchange of ideas, then picking and choosing what they will allow and what they won't is tantamount to censorship and I do have a problem with that. IMHO, it is the right of the viewers and tweeters, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.

 

[dblack]

No, the gov't should NOT get to decide what we can hear, and see, and be told. That is not the same as deciding whether or not a social media company can deny you access so that you can't say something that they don't like.

So, it's just gov't deciding what they MUST say. That's very different. Nevermind.

Every right that we have does have certain limits, right?

Ahh, the statists refrain..

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Do you both realize what you're accepting? In collusion with big money corps and people, the gov't can control what you hear, read, and see? Not just the social media platforms, but radio, TV, print media, internet, publishers, and literally everything you get your news from? If every private company can dictate what you are told, isn't that too much influence over the public? I am amazed that you are so willing to allow any private company that kind of power.

The Govt. cannot control those things you are worrying about, at least not for me. What I read? I have a library just around the corner. This is a big world and get info from many places..always filtered with a skeptical mindset. Facebook, Twitter and all those sorts are dependent on their users...collectively we have given them that power.

This is all about access to the public..to serve some agenda. In the OP's case....to give a Populist figure a wider audience. Twitter is not going to buy into it...and as far as there being some ban only for Conservatives--I dunno man...they're all over FB and Twitter, according to my savvy friends~