This is not how the First Amendment works

[hwyflier]

@Jezcoe

I am also unsure as to what about the President’s speech was infringed upon?

Where was he not allowed to say what he wanted to say?

It wasn’t. Trump can’t even get that part right.

I think the real point of this is to rally up the oppressed republican victims.

[zantax]

@Jezcoe

@zantax

@ImRightYoureWrong

@zantax

The US doesn’t have jurisdiction for one.

The US most definitely has jurisdiction over telecommunications that take place on US soil. Welcome to the real world

No sorry, this country has no right to keep me from reading whatever is on the internet. What do you think this is, China? Do you want government filters excluding us from parts of the web?

I have never before thought that someone would be arguing in favor of a hostile foreign intelligence service being able to run a signals Intelligence operation on the American people unhindered.

Please, this was all hashed out when good little democrats were getting mail from the soviets. I have the right to hear what any nation wants to say. The US has zero right to censor foreign governments speech. Unless we are at war.

[LucyLou]

@conan

Twitter uses information highway which is heavy subsidized buy federal dollars.

Wait. You mean they didn’t build that?

[zantax]

@ImRightYoureWrong

@zantax

No it isn’t. we don’t have jurisdiction, our campaign laws are not global. Jeesh.

We have jurisdiction over the internet providers and networks in this country. Do you not know how the internet works? Where do you think interney cables are buried? Who owns the satellites you buy internet from?

Could care less, my government has no power or right to censor what I read, whether in book, film or internet. If that’s the government you want, I sugg4st you move to china/

[ImRightYoureWrong]

@zantax

Please, this was all hashed out when good little democrats were getting mail from the soviets. I have the right to hear what any nation wants to say. The US has zero right to censor foreign governments speech. Unless we are at war.

Unbelievable. Secret foreign interference by unregistered agents to affect our election was not “hashed out”

Incredible

[Scratch]

Seems no one wants to answer…What was censored?

[zantax]

@ImRightYoureWrong

@zantax

Please, this was all hashed out when good little democrats were getting mail from the soviets. I have the right to hear what any nation wants to say. The US has zero right to censor foreign governments speech. Unless we are at war.

Unbelievable. Secret foreign interference by unregistered agents to affect our election was not “hashed out”

Incredible

Spare me, Clapper voted for a soviet agent to be President. And became the DNI.

[ImRightYoureWrong]

@zantax

Could care less, my government has no power or right to censor what I read, whether in book, film or internet. If that’s the government you want, I sugg4st you move to china/

Yes they do. It’s why you can’t view child porn. It’s why you can’t view other’s health information. It’s why we can’t view Trump’s tax returns. It’s why an unregistered foreign agent cannot act on behalf of a foreign government to secretly run an operation to affect our election.

[Jezcoe]

@zantax

@Jezcoe

@zantax

@ImRightYoureWrong

@zantax

The US doesn’t have jurisdiction for one.

The US most definitely has jurisdiction over telecommunications that take place on US soil. Welcome to the real world

No sorry, this country has no right to keep me from reading whatever is on the internet. What do you think this is, China? Do you want government filters excluding us from parts of the web?

I have never before thought that someone would be arguing in favor of a hostile foreign intelligence service being able to run a signals Intelligence operation on the American people unhindered.

Please, this was all hashed out when good little democrats were getting mail from the soviets. I have the right to hear what any nation wants to say. The US has zero right to censor foreign governments speech. Unless we are at war.

The US Government has a right to stop a foreign intelligence running a signals intelligence operation on the American People.

If a foreign government is disseminating information and is up front that they are disseminating that information… that is fine.

When they hide behind shell corporations and bot nets to propagate disinformation in order to effect the free and fair elections here… hell yes the US government has the duty to make transparent those efforts.

It is bonkers that the same guy who argued so hard against Net Neutrality would argue that a foreign government should be able to secretly operate a disinformation campaign unhindered.

[ImRightYoureWrong]

@zantax

Spare me, Clapper voted for a soviet agent to be President. And became the DNI.

Donald Trump has convinced people that secret foreign intelligence operations by Russia to meddle in our elections is both legal and ok.

God help us

[JimmyC]

You don’t have the right to hear it on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc. if those companies don’t want it posted. It’s a strawman anyways, you can still read what the president tweeted.

[ImRightYoureWrong]

@Jezcoe

The US Government has a right to stop a foreign intelligence running a signals intelligence operation on the American People.

If a foreign government is disseminating information and is up front that they are disseminating that information… that is fine.

When they hide behind shell corporations and bot nets to propagate disinformation in order to effect the free and fair elections here… hell yes the US government has the duty to make transparent those efforts.

It is bonkers that the same guy who argued so hard against Net Neutrality would argue that a foreign government should be able to secretly operate a disinformation campaign unhindered

It’s bizarre. Trump has convinced these people to trust Russia over virtually every major news network in America.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

Well, that’s the thing -

The whole point of 230 is that internet hosts could be platforms, without having to sacrifice editorial control.

You’ve got it all backwards.

[JimmyC]

Ironically, if Trump did not allow Twitter to post a fact check link that would be a 1st amendment violation.

[ImRightYoureWrong]

@zantax

Could care less, my government has no power or right to censor what I read, whether in book, film or internet. If that’s the government you want, I sugg4st you move to china/

Hey guys. If you believe foreign governments and their unregistered agents/operatives don’t have a right to run secret disinformation campaigns to meddle in our elections, then YoU ArE jUSt LiKE ChINa

[Paul_Thomson]

@ImRightYoureWrong

Donald Trump has convinced people that secret foreign intelligence operations by Russia to meddle in our elections is both legal and ok.

God help us

I think you’ve confused DJ Trump with Alec Baldwin.

[SottoVoce]

As expected, more uninformed lashing out. No matter, his base will use it as yet another rallying point to decry his perceived persecution. Poor guy. Can’t understand why he isn’t immune to the terms of service of a private company, just like everyone else. Or why this isn’t a first amendment issue. Sadly, neither do his disciples.

[Paul_Thomson]

[quote=“ImRightYoureWrong, post:72, topic:231606”]
It’s bizarre. Trump has convinced these people to trust Russia over virtually every major news network in America.[/quote]

Now that may be true on several levels.

[SottoVoce]

@TheDoctorIsIn

Well, that’s the thing -

The whole point of 230 is that internet hosts could be platforms, without having to sacrifice editorial control.

You’ve got it all backwards.

Yeah. To be specific…

(2) Civil liability: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).

Literally says the provider can do what it wants if acting in good faith, despite any perceived constitutional protections. Pretty plainly worded. Good luck proving what twitter did wasn’t in good faith.

[zantax]

@ImRightYoureWrong

@zantax

Could care less, my government has no power or right to censor what I read, whether in book, film or internet. If that’s the government you want, I sugg4st you move to china/

Yes they do. It’s why you can’t view child porn. It’s why you can’t view other’s health information. It’s why we can’t view Trump’s tax returns. It’s why an unregistered foreign agent cannot act on behalf of a foreign government to secretly run an operation to affect our election.

Political speech and child porn, hmm, no, one of these things is not like the other, constitutionally speaking.