Will ANYONE in the government be held accountable for violations of the first amendment via Twitter?

[Coyote]

And to amend: not "disagree with me"

Think that the govt should work to suppress free speech it doesn't like?

Um YEAH. That's about as unamerican as it gets

According to Taibbi, who cite, administrations, including Trump’s, make requests to remove content. This is routine. If they coerce then that is different.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The FBI, DHS & DNI all met repeatedly with Twitter.
Not to discuss or ban terrorists or leaders of communist countries.
They met to discuss conservatives and concerned parents.

Our government is BROKEN

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

According to Taibbi, who cite, administrations, including Trump’s, make requests to remove content. This is routine. If they coerce then that is different.

So infringing is OK as long as there aren't threats behind it?

WTF

 

[SweetSue92]

From: Twitter granted requests from both the Trump White House and the Biden campaign to remove content in 2020, report says

But Taibbi also touched on other content moderation actions, writing that by 2020 it was "routine" for Twitter to receive requests to remove content from third-party actors.

"Both parties had access to these tools. For instance, in 2020, requests from both the Trump White House and the Biden campaign were received and honored," he said, adding that "celebrities and unknowns alike could be removed or reviewed at the behest of a political party."…

….
Taibbi did not provide evidence the White House — or the Biden campaign — "ordered" or coerced Twitter into removing content. The government asking a private company to do something and the company agreeing is not inherently a violation of the First Amendment, as David French wrote in The Atlantic.

Taibbi did not include any additional details or an example of a request from the White House.

Taibbi wrote that the request and remove system "wasn't balanced" and favored Democrats, citing campaign donations made by Twitter staff. He did not provide evidence the system favored Democrats or that tweets were removed that did not violate the terms of service.


Noteworthy:
The only thing that appears to be badly handled was suppressing the laptop story, which Twitter eventually backtracked. Biden was not in office then and nothing is provided showing his campaign was involved.

did you even read the last installment, last night?

The TOS were thrown on the window, just for starters. They were making up rules on the fly, which they are allowed to do, as long as the govt wasn't intefering.

But AGAIN--they were having meetings with the FBI that Yoel Roth wanted to keep "generic" on his calendar. And guess what? If it was all above board, don't you think he would take great pains to say "meeting with FBI to discuss foreign election interference" and make the meeting notes etc PUBLIC

Come on. Stop defending this.

 

[miketx]

Whatever you say. Just ignore what I actually say, because you're you.

You're so boring.

Traitor coward

 

[SweetSue92]

According to Taibbi, who cite, administrations, including Trump’s, make requests to remove content. This is routine. If they coerce then that is different.

Uh it is okay MAYBE--or at least "legal"--when it was the Biden campaign. Legal, certainly not ethical. But NOT legal when ANY administration did it, and that includes Trump. If you are expecting me to say, "oh yeah, Trump did it, nevermind" you'll never get that from me.

But then---I'm American see. Not just blindly partisan.

Wow.

 

[Mac1958]

Entirely wrong.

This is not about political correctness. About liberals being liberals or about "Trumpism".

This is about THE GOVT shutting down free speech. Not about the tender sensibilities of Leftists.

You're trying to equivocate and it's not working

No, I used PC as a separate example.

I'm done now. You have zero (0) intellectual elasticity. Boring.

 

[SweetSue92]

No, I used PC as a separate example.

I'm done now. You have zero (0) intellectual elasticity. Boring.

PC is wrong, annoying and politically stupid, but you can't take it to the Supreme Court.

The FBI/Twitter meetings are absolutely going to the Supreme Court.

Since you seem to only type in projection and opposites, I will take your last swipe to mean you consider me one of the brightest posters on the board.

 

[DBA]

Read the First Amendment.

Or don't. I don't care.

You don’t care that the FBI was conspiring with a private company to censor the speech of one political party prior to an election? Somehow I think that if Trump would have been the beneficiary, you would feel much different.

 

[Coyote]

did you even read the last installment, last night?

The TOS were thrown on the window, just for starters. They were making up rules on the fly, which they are allowed to do, as long as the govt wasn't intefering.

But AGAIN--they were having meetings with the FBI that Yoel Roth wanted to keep "generic" on his calendar. And guess what? If it was all above board, don't you think he would take great pains to say "meeting with FBI to discuss foreign election interference" and make the meeting notes etc PUBLIC

Come on. Stop defending this.

When they are all released in one dump instead of selectively.

 

[Mac1958]

Not sure I agree here either Mac. Unless it’s a public utility or there are issues of anti trust a private company should not be required or expected to allow unregulated free speech nor are they. It’s no different than a loud, disruptive patron at a bar being asked to leave.

Two different things. Should they be forced? No. Do I wish they would just choose to adhere to the spirit of American freedom of expression? Definitely.

And again, band aids don't work. They create other problems. They create backlash, they create resentments on which people then act in response. That's largely what the election of 2016 was about.

Twitter is free to do what it wants. But if it's using band aids, particularly band aids that limit speech, I'll disagree. But I won't slap handcuffs on them.

 

[Mac1958]

You don’t care that the FBI was conspiring with a private company to censor the speech of one political party prior to an election? Somehow I think that if Trump would have been the beneficiary, you would feel much different.

But I do. You didn't ask.

You guys just lie and lie and lie about my positions, and you prove my opinion of you. Every day. Constantly.

So, for that, thanks.

 

[SweetSue92]

When they are all released in one dump instead of selectively.

Discredited. Process rather than content.

You have lost--big. I have to admit I did actually think you at least held to American principles. Disappointed to find I am wrong.

 

[Coyote]

So infringing is OK as long as there aren't threats behind it?

WTF

So the government can’t in any way make requests of a private entity?

Apparently threats are ok with you righties. Look at what DeSantis did to Disney, or threatening the free speech of teachers.

 

[SweetSue92]

But I do. You didn't ask.

You guys just lie and lie and lie about my positions, and you prove my opinion of you. Every day. Constantly.

So, for that, thanks.

Stop playing the victim. Read through your posts in this thread.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

The federal government COLLUDED with business to stifle speech of American citizens to criticize the federal government. HALF the American population approves of this -- the Biden voting half

 

[SweetSue92]

So the government can’t in any way make requests of a private entity?

Apparently threats are ok with you righties. Look at what DeSantis did to Disney, or threatening the free speech of teachers.

In the case of teachers---you realize the govt is giving directions to--the govt. And your employer absolutely has a right to tell you that you cannot tell a customer or another worker to, say, eff off or whatever. Again. THE GOVT cannot infringe on this right.

Why is this so difficult?

 

[SweetSue92]

The federal government COLLUDED with business to stifle speech of American citizens to criticize the federal government. HALF the American population approves of this -- the Biden voting half

It shouldn't shock me

I just keep on being disappointed

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

So the government can’t in any way make requests of a private entity?

Apparently threats are ok with you righties. Look at what DeSantis did to Disney, or threatening the free speech of teachers.

Public schools are government institutions and the teachers are essentially government officials. It is not their job to teach sexual perversions to children.
You support grooming now do you?

And lol at the Disney reference. Taking tax exempt statuses is within the rights of DeSantis and his administration.

Stop fucking deflecting like a child and STAY ON TOPIC

 

[DBA]

But I do. You didn't ask.

You guys just lie and lie and lie about my positions, and you prove my opinion of you. Every day. Constantly.

So, for that, thanks.

It sure seems like you seem to want to give the FBI and other agencies a pass for working with Twitter to censor stories that have since been proven to be true. Maybe we are all misinterpreting your position here.