Twitter permanently suspends Trump's account, cites 'incitement of violence' risk

[Eloquent pilgrim]

 

 

 

27 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

yet you seem to be ok with Twitter’s first amendment rights being violated by dictating them what they should publish. 

 

 

Ha ha .. so funny, and remarkably uninformed. Please tell me how Twitter’s first Amendment rights have been violated, come on, tell me ?

 

The irony that is devastatingly lost on you, is that Twitter has denied freedom of speech to somebody, albeit, an extremely loose cannon, that they (Twitter) retain all publishing rights and censorship privileges over .

 

You have obviously never read, or at least understood, the first amendment, so for your edification, here is it in brevity

 

“The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects freedom of speech,  freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom the press, and right to petition”

 

Did you see that little bit about the protection of freedom of speech ….. though not

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Salerno]

4 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

You have obviously never read, or at least understood, the first amendment, so for your edification, here is it in brevity

 

And who does it apply to? 

[welovesundaysatspace]

8 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

Please tell me how Twitter’s first Amendment rights have been violated, come on, tell me ?

They haven’t been, fortunately. But you seemed to criticize that Twitter has the right (its first amendment rights) to refuse to publish what the government wants it to publish. 

 

Quote

 

The irony that is devastatingly lost on you, is that Twitter has denied freedom of speech to somebody, albeit, an extremely loose cannon, that they (Twitter) retain all publishing rights and censorship privileges over .

Twitter cannot exercise censorship, because Twitter is a private company. Twitter also has not denied anyone freedom of speech, because freedom of speech is not the right that every Tom, Dick and Harry needs to publish whatever nonsense you want him to publish. Freedom of speech means Twitter as a private company has the right to have its own opinion, and it cannot be dictated anyone else’s opinion. Otherwise Fox News would have to publish my opinion piece on Trump and his Neanderthals, and you would have to let me into your living room to declare my opinion about your wife. 
 

Quote

You have obviously never read, or at least understood, the first amendment, so for your edification, here is it in brevity

It seems you are the one who has never read, or at least understood it. See my explanation above. 

 

Edited January 12, 2021 by welovesundaysatspace

[2530Ubon]

Get rid of Twitter, FaceBook and the rest of them. Stupid people are the problem, and the problem isn't going away anytime soon.

[balo]

Trump will create hos own social platform so all his followers can spread the message there.   I wonder if any programmers are willing to help him ?  But money talks, he can buy a few Indians to do it.  

[Eloquent pilgrim]

3 minutes ago, Salerno said:

 

And who does it apply to? 

American citizens ...... who did you think it applied to .... Tibetan milking goats ?

[2530Ubon]

1 minute ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

American citizens ...... who did you think it applied to .... Tibetan milking goats ?

Is twitter an American citizen? I think not.

[Salerno]

4 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

American citizens ...... who did you think it applied to .... Tibetan milking goats ?

 

Keep digging mate, you may have read it but you sure as <deleted> didn't understand it. Like the vast majority of Trump supporters that you're not one of.

[Eloquent pilgrim]

6 minutes ago, 2530Ubon said:

Is twitter an American citizen? I think not.

What are you talking about ?

 

I was replying to a question asking who the First Amendment to the United States Constitution applied to ….. I replied, unsurprisingly, American Citizens.

 

Do you not actually read comments before replying to them, it would be helpful to everyone if you did ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[2530Ubon]

14 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

What are you talking about ?

 

I was replying to a question asking who the First Amendment to the United States Constitution applied to ….. I replied, unsurprisingly, American Citizens.

 

Do you not actually read comments before replying to them, it would be helpful to everyone if you did ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Oh dear, you still don't get it. Ah well, it was worth a try. Anyway, like I said - too many stupid people is the problem, and that ain't going away. I submit the above as evidence 'A' for getting rid of social media altogether. It's pointless anyway.

[GrandPapillon]

1 hour ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 

 

 

Ha ha .. so funny, and remarkably uninformed. Please tell me how Twitter’s first Amendment rights have been violated, come on, tell me ?

 

The irony that is devastatingly lost on you, is that Twitter has denied freedom of speech to somebody, albeit, an extremely loose cannon, that they (Twitter) retain all publishing rights and censorship privileges over .

 

You have obviously never read, or at least understood, the first amendment, so for your edification, here is it in brevity

 

“The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects freedom of speech,  freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom the press, and right to petition”

 

Did you see that little bit about the protection of freedom of speech ….. though not

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

ah finally someone with a clue ???? 

 

a lot of participants in this thread are not interested in freedom of speech, and don't have a problem with censorship ????

 

[GrandPapillon]

57 minutes ago, 2530Ubon said:

Oh dear, you still don't get it. Ah well, it was worth a try. Anyway, like I said - too many stupid people is the problem, and that ain't going away. I submit the above as evidence 'A' for getting rid of social media altogether. It's pointless anyway.

and like freedom of speech, where do you draw the line for stupidity? is that something that should be made illegal? ????

 

and what happens when that line gets moved by a few and you find yourself into the stupid group because someone said so ????

 

Do you see the problem here?

[welovesundaysatspace]

7 minutes ago, GrandPapillon said:

a lot of participants in this thread are not interested in freedom of speech

I’m counting you and the other guy who seem to advocate violating Twitter’s freedom of speech to give the rogue Fuhrer a propaganda tool. That’s hardly “a lot”. 
 

7 minutes ago, GrandPapillon said:

, and don't have a problem with censorship ????

At least most participants have understood what censorship is and what not. Too bad you aren’t one of them. 

[Opl]

13 minutes ago, GrandPapillon said:

ah finally someone with a clue ???? 

 

a lot of participants in this thread are not interested in freedom of speech, and don't have a problem with censorship ????

 

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, J Town said:

No. 45 is not an "incumbent spaceman." He was the leader of the free world. His words carried enormous weight. People have died because of his words.

 

Sure, I've been suspended from Facebook. Try typing in the words "Men are pigs." You'll get at least 3 days on the beach. I find those words inoffensive, particularly in the context I used them in. I tried appealing, it fell on deaf ears.

 

Twitter et al showed enormous restraint not banning him years ago out of deference to the office of the president. As well, they broadcast their punch. They gave the loser-in-chief plenty of warning, but his enormous ego didn't care.

 

Yes, we live in a world where we have to be concerned of Orwellian Big Brother killing free speech, but when it comes to saving lives, I'd rather err on the side of caution.

I agree up to the point where you suggest a similarity between Twitter and Big Brother.  Twitter isn't the government.  You don't have to belong to Twitter, and I don't.  If Twitter bans you there are still many other ways to get your message out.

 

In "1984" people didn't have the choice ignoring the Big Brother government and finding alternatives.

[shdmn]

I give you the Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient.

 

 

[placeholder]

4 hours ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 

 

 

Ha ha .. so funny, and remarkably uninformed. Please tell me how Twitter’s first Amendment rights have been violated, come on, tell me ?

 

The irony that is devastatingly lost on you, is that Twitter has denied freedom of speech to somebody, albeit, an extremely loose cannon, that they (Twitter) retain all publishing rights and censorship privileges over .

 

You have obviously never read, or at least understood, the first amendment, so for your edification, here is it in brevity

 

“The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects freedom of speech,  freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom the press, and right to petition”

 

Did you see that little bit about the protection of freedom of speech ….. though not

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Apparently you believe that the sentence you quoted is the Bill of Rights or an accurate summary thereof. What's bizarre and a bit sad is that you don't actually quote the First Amendment to prove your point. Which it doesn't.  Given your contentions, it's clear that you haven't even read it. Here it is in its entirety:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Do you see anything there about privately owned organizations being restricted in their right to restrict speech? It's about restraining the government's right to restrict speech. And that's all it's about.

 

Edited January 12, 2021 by placeholder

[Sujo]

6 hours ago, GrandPapillon said:

and like freedom of speech, where do you draw the line for stupidity? is that something that should be made illegal? ????

 

and what happens when that line gets moved by a few and you find yourself into the stupid group because someone said so ????

 

Do you see the problem here?

Whoever owns the platform decides.

 

Who doesnt decide is the govt. Thats freedom of speech.

[shdmn]

49 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Whoever owns the platform decides.

 

Who doesnt decide is the govt. Thats freedom of speech.

It's funny how these people, who supposedly believe in letting the free market decide, suddenly don't like it anymore. ???? 

[J Town]

10 hours ago, 2530Ubon said:

Get rid of Twitter, FaceBook and the rest of them. Stupid people are the problem, and the problem isn't going away anytime soon.

Keep Twitter, FaceBook and the rest of them and get rid of stupid people.

[Jeffr2]

2 hours ago, Sujo said:

Whoever owns the platform decides.

 

Who doesnt decide is the govt. Thats freedom of speech.

As I posted before, we don't really have freedom of speech. There are some things that just can't be done.  Like falsely claiming voting machines are counting ballots improperly.  That's a billion dollar lawsuit! LOL

[mikebike]

On 1/9/2021 at 11:14 PM, GrandPapillon said:

they could sit outside someone else church and preach when people get out, seen it happened before. They don't get arrested, they keep their rants, and nobody cares.

So here you are advocating for Trump to go outside Twitter and preach. Exactly what we are saying. Funny how your logic is pretzel-shaped...

Edited January 13, 2021 by mikebike

[mikebike]

17 hours ago, Susco said:

 

Maybe you are confused?

 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/

Please don't move the goalposts. You said congress was discussing it. An executive order is pretty much anti-congessional.

[mikebike]

17 hours ago, Virt said:

Turn it around and ask yourself if this chaos would have started in the first place, if we didn't have social media.

Are you trying to imply that insurrection never happened prior to social media? May I be the one to introduce you to a thing called "history".

[Jeffr2]

6 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Please don't move the goalposts. You said congress was discussing it. An executive order is pretty much anti-congessional.

And sometimes, just worth the paper it's written on.  Nothing else.

[Eric Loh]

3 hours ago, J Town said:

Keep Twitter, FaceBook and the rest of them and get rid of stupid people.

Review the 1st Amendment and expand of the limitation of political speech to include mitigating online radicalization and hate speech. 

Edited January 13, 2021 by Eric Loh

[Sujo]

Youtube has now banned trump.   Good job.

[J Town]

4 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Youtube has now banned trump.   Good job.

He could turn to using US Postal Service but he screwed them over so his messages would take forever to get delivered.

 

Mwuhahahaha!!!

[welovesundaysatspace]

13 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Youtube has now banned trump.   Good job.

And Facebook is deleting everything that has “stoptheblah” in it. Better late than never. 

[Jeffr2]

6 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

And Facebook is deleting everything that has “stoptheblah” in it. Better late than never. 

Not sure better late than never is OK.  Without facebook allowing these nuts to spew their conspiracy theories and propaganda, we might not have had domestic terrorists break into the capitol.  Or, might not have had as many deaths from covid as the BS stuff about it being like the flu, masks don't work, blah, blah, blah, would have been banned. 

 

Facebook is totally to blame for a lot of this.