I provided a link and a passage of the last few tweets…nothing that even raises an eyebrow.
It is called a pretext. Russia was good at it.
Slippery slope arguments are stupid. Private companies can “censor” whatever they want.
The 1st is why Trump is protected here and yes, 230 does need to be addressed in the House. It was created long before those that enacted it, had any idea what it meant to the future.
Don’t incite violence then.
Your GOP leaders:
McConell: Former President Trump’s actions (preceding) the riot were a disgraceful – disgraceful – dereliction of duty," the article quotes McConnell as saying. “The leader of the free world cannot spend weeks thundering that shadowy forces are stealing our country and then feign surprise when people believe him and do reckless things."
McCarthy:
“The president bears responsibility for Wednesday’s attack on Congress by mob rioters,” McCarthy said on the House floor. “He should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding. These facts require immediate action by President Trump."
2 Likes
No, it isn’t. You might need to re-read the Amendment.
It doesn’t, and it probably won’t be - but again, not the point.
Twitter has the right to ban Donald Trump because of the First Amendment, not Section 230.
Until they are spot on.
Your first reaction was to silence the debate.
“My” first reaction?
I don’t work for Twitter. Maybe you’re making this just a little too personal?
Trump did not call for any violence in any form.
That misdirection is how political pretext works.
…and Trump has the right to sue, in spite of 230.
Just discussing your post…
“you don’t get to make that call”
Why not?
Of course he does. Anyone can sue anyone, for pretty much anything. All you have to do is pay the filing fee.
That doesn’t mean his suit has any merit to it. Section 230 just means it’ll be tossed out of court faster than it would be, otherwise.
Because you don’t work for Twitter, either.
It’s called feeding the sheople the narrative they want regurgibleated and it’s been working now quite well for several years. Orange man baaa, baaa, baaad.
1 Like
I don’t have to work for twitter to call out censorship.
Blatant political silencing.
We have had sufficient time to calm down and analyze what went down and it was blatant censorship.
Doesn’t help that Biden has performed like someone who does not deserve to be there.
Of course not. But you do have to work for Twitter for your opinion on whether of not Trump violated their TOS to matter.
I have seen many thousands of posters on message boards, including this one, make this same argument when they get banned.
I am certain my posts do matter and none of those in your second quote were Presidents of the last bastion of free speech.
It is a big deal…censorship.
I have no doubt that they matter to you.
But they do not matter to the Constitution, or the law.
I am not aware that former Presidents are extended any additional rights not common to the general public.
Your GOP leaders:
McConell: Former President Trump’s actions (preceding) the riot were a disgraceful – disgraceful – dereliction of duty," the article quotes McConnell as saying. “The leader of the free world cannot spend weeks thundering that shadowy forces are stealing our country and then feign surprise when people believe him and do reckless things."
McCarthy:
“The president bears responsibility for Wednesday’s attack on Congress by mob rioters,” McCarthy said on the House floor. “He should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding. These facts require immediate action by President Trump."
They get special treatment as far as TOS rules go?
