Trump is set to announce an executive order against social media companies

[coati]

Yea.....it's all "Buh mah private company and freedom of expression!!"

Until some baker tells a gay trans couple no, they won't make a bunch of penis confections for their wedding.

THEN they want God King Obama to swoop in and smite the Nazi with the raw awesome power of the state.

A baker is free to tell the gay couple that the baker does not like gay couples getting married. However, the baker cannot refuse service solely based on the sexual orientation of the two people getting married. There is a difference between civil rights and freedom of expression.

Twitter did not say, "This comment is bad because the author is straight, and he can no longer post on this forum." Twitter did not say, "My religion teaches that being strictly straight is immoral, so it is my religious right to ban Trump from our forum."

 

[Liar]

Tens of thousands of incorrect posts about Russia/Trump.

Most of them by Trump.

Why did Twitter suddenly decide to get busy now?

I dunno. Is there anything special about this year politically?

Don't know, don't care. They didn't censor him. They expressen an opinion next to a Tweet or his. Being their site, they have the privilige of making sure their opinion is presented in a prominent way. That is all.

 

[HisArpy]

Let's make one thing clear: Since the Tweet is still up there, it was not censored.

Twitter expressed their view. If it is protected speech, it should be immune from punitive Government action for it. If Donald Trump as a private citizen wants to sue Twitter for it, he is free to do so.

Freedom of speech (what you're saying is protected speech) DOES NOT MEAN freedom from liability.

You can in fact yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. Saying that you have the right to do that isn't going to help you after you're sued and prosecuted for it. Because freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from liability.

Twitter's tag on the tweet is an attempt to prohibit someone from yelling "fire" even if there really is a fire.

 

[Pookie]

Please do.






Has anyone answered Pookie's original question of whether Twitter, or someplace like Lit, has any right to restrict who uses its service? Because I have literally never heard anyone suggest before that Twitter can't ban users who violate its rules, and they've made some pretty prominent bannings. For example, threatening people is against their rules as it is on Lit.

It's pretty bizarre to argue that banning a user may be allowed, but putting a notation on someone's tweet saying "click here for more information on this subject" is the chilling long arm of Big Brother.

I approve this post.

Seriously, peoples, could Busybody successfully sue Laurel for banning him if this proposed order was eventually upheld.

 

[HisArpy]

A baker is free to tell the gay couple that the baker does not like gay couples getting married. However, the baker cannot refuse service solely based on the sexual orientation of the two people getting married. There is a difference between civil rights and freedom of expression.

Twitter did not say, "This comment is bad because the author is straight, and he can no longer post on this forum." Twitter did not say, "My religion teaches that being strictly straight is immoral, so it is my religious right to ban Trump from our forum."

You need to do a bit more in depth analysis because your analogy is incorrectly postulated.

 

[Liar]

Freedom of speech (what you're saying is protected speech) DOES NOT MEAN freedom from liability.

You can in fact yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. Saying that you have the right to do that isn't going to help you after you're sued and prosecuted for it. Because freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from liability.

Twitter's tag on the tweet is an attempt to prohibit someone from yelling "fire" even if there really is a fire.

"protected speech" was the term you used in the post I replied to.

Like I said, Donald Trump is free to sue them. As Donald Trump. Legislate or regulate against them out of spite? No.

Also no, you are flat out wrong. This is them saying "dude, there is no fire". He was not prohibited. Not one single bit. You repeating that nonsens does not make it so.

 

[Wrong Element]

Another example: Trump asserts something questionable in a press conference; say, "Arsenic rids the body of SARS-CoV-2." The Washington Post runs this quote verbatim in a news story, but also runs an editorial saying that the president said something today that's not true.

Has the Post "censored" Trump? Can the government punish the Post as a result?

 

[Comshaw]

Tens of thousands of incorrect posts about Russia/Trump.

Why did Twitter suddenly decide to get busy now?

I dunno. Is there anything special about this year politically?

In the context of whether or not adding a fact check to a tweet is limiting free speech or is its self covered under that doctrine, it doesn't really matter does it? Perhaps the people who run it are liberal and are tired of the Donald's bullshit. Perhaps their mom's are liberals and took them by the ear and made them do it. Perhaps, just perhaps and I know this is a way out there little green men kind of thing, they decided that as president the Donald needs to be accountable for things he claims, just like any other president and to that end posted a fact check on his alternative "facts". Yea ,I know kinda' weird huh, wanting our leaders to be factually correct.


Comshaw

 

[HisArpy]

I approve this post.

Seriously, peoples, could Busybody successfully sue Laurel for banning him if this proposed order was eventually upheld.

No.

If someone violates the TOS, they are subject to being prohibited from further participation.

That's a LOT different than Laurel inserting something like:

***[This post violates forum guidelines - click here for more information on posting only what the forum believes to be true]***

into the "offending or complained about" post.

 

[Pookie]

No.

If someone violates the TOS, they are subject to being prohibited from further participation.

That's a LOT different than Laurel inserting something like:

***[This post violates forum guidelines - click here for more information on posting only what the forum believes to be true]***

into the "offending or complained about" post.

Agreed.

 

[HisArpy]

"protected speech" was the term you used in the post I replied to.

Like I said, Donald Trump is free to sue them. As Donald Trump. Legislate or regulate against them out of spite? No.

Also no, you are flat out wrong. This is them saying "dude, there is no fire". He was not prohibited. Not one single bit. You repeating this flasehood does not make it so.

1. NY Times v. Sullivan says differently.

2. By "correcting" what he tweeted, the result is a chilling of speech.

 

[coati]

You need to do a bit more in depth analysis because your analogy is incorrectly postulated.

I was responding to BotanyBoy's outburst. Do try to keep up.

And by the way, bakers are not required to make penis-shaped party favors, because that is covered under other laws. In real life, the whole issue about bakers had to do with a baker refusing to bake anything for a gay couple's wedding.

 

[FlowersForFun]

However, the baker cannot refuse service solely based on the sexual orientation of the two people getting married.

And if a social media site wants the legal protections of being a "public square" then they have to behave like it.

If they want to censor what they don't like/agree with then they play by publisher rules and no longer get the protections that the "public square" enjoys.

These are your (leftist Democrats) regulations, not to mention beyond this topic you support regulating businesses up to and including for the express purposes of ending the business or destroying the market altogether.

It's the express mission and philosophy of the left (also you coati personally) for the state to micromanage every social and economic to ensure more equity/equitable outcomes for all .........your bed, you fuck in it.

 

[Liar]

1. NY Times v. Sullivan says differently.

2. By "correcting" what he tweeted, the result is a chilling of speech.

Your official position then is that Twitter can not express it's opinions on Twitter's website?

If they can, what makes it chilling? The placement of the text? The font?

 

[HisArpy]

Agreed.

Now, what would be the result if the inserted "correction" was one which promoted discrimination?

***[This post violates forum membership guidelines - Click here to discover more ways in which white people can tell blacks to not participate on this forum]***

Could the government step in to regulate that kind of thing? Should they?

 

[domroger]

If the first magic black president had done this while in office he could have buried Trump in 2016.

At last you have admitted Trump is a lying sack of shit .
When are you going to admit he's also venal ,corrupt and incompetent ?

 

[HisArpy]

Your official position then is that Twitter can not express it's opinions on Twitter's website?

If they can, what makes it chilling? The placement of the text? The font?

When Twitter "expresses it's opinion" it is doing so as the OWNER of the platform, not a participant.

Take a debate for example, when the participants duke it out on stage, that's ok because they're stating their positions. But, then the moderator steps in, they aren't "participating", they're controlling what's allowed to be said and what isn't.

 

[HisArpy]

I was responding to BotanyBoy's outburst. Do try to keep up.

And by the way, bakers are not required to make penis-shaped party favors, because that is covered under other laws. In real life, the whole issue about bakers had to do with a baker refusing to bake anything for a gay couple's wedding.

It's not my fault your thinking processes are stuck in the mud and are just as unclarified.

 

[oggbashan]

If this stops President Trump from tweeting that is a win/win situation.

 

[HisArpy]

If this stops President Trump from tweeting that is a win/win situation.

When they came for the Jews...

 

[Liar]

When Twitter "expresses it's opinion" it is doing so as the OWNER of the platform, not a participant.

Take a debate for example, when the participants duke it out on stage, that's ok because they're stating their positions. But, then the moderator steps in, they aren't "participating", they're controlling what's allowed to be said and what isn't.

Laurel, for reasons of her own, does not partcipate on this board. Are you saying she should be prohibited from doing so?

 

[Comshaw]

Freedom of speech (what you're saying is protected speech) DOES NOT MEAN freedom from liability.

You can in fact yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. Saying that you have the right to do that isn't going to help you after you're sued and prosecuted for it. Because freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from liability.

Twitter's tag on the tweet is an attempt to prohibit someone from yelling "fire" even if there really is a fire.

Twitter's tag prohibited nothing. The Donald's tweet is still there to read and believe if you wish, but it is accompanied by a link and the opinion of Twitter that a fact check should also be read and considered.

It is much more accurate to say Twitter provided an opposing view point, an opposing opinion if you will, that criticized the Donald's tweet as being false. How is one opinion protected and the other not? How can you insist that one should be deleted and the other not? If you delete one and not the other, or both for that matter, it is a violation of free speech, plain and simple.

Edited to add: Used the wrong word so I changed "valid" to "protected".


Comshaw

 

[domroger]

If this stops President Trump from tweeting that is a win/win situation.

^^^^^^
This .

 

[phrodeau]

Sure, no one is forcing you to go eat at the other restaurant. You can continue to try and eat at the white's only restaurant or not, it's your choice... right?

Race card played.

What Trump’s doing is demanding raw pork at room temperature added to the menu.

 

[FlowersForFun]

And by the way, bakers are not required to make penis-shaped party favors

That didn't stop the left across the country and all over this board from screeching artistically for the government to go put a gun to their head and force them to do it.

And they still do.......

However, the baker cannot refuse service solely based on the sexual orientation of the two people getting married.

By forcing this shit....like jackbooted thugs.

Don't like the government telling your how to run your company? How alt-reich of you.