5 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Freedom of speech is a misnomer.  There are limits, and now, looks like more are needed.  Sadly, some people aren't smart enough to have it.

 

it has deeper implications than that, also for democracy.

it clearly shows that power democratically drawn from manipulable gullible masses is wrong.

in some cases it's dangerous, as with Hitler, Muslim Brotherhood, possibly Trump, and in other cases it damages society (populism, socialism, greenism).

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

Parler just got a huge boost.

Kicked off Google play store.

Trump tried to post on the official potus account. Twitter deleted it.

 

The wont suspend the potus acct because it will pass to biden. But they are closely monitoring trump and his pals.

 

Expect to see a lot more accounts removed.

34 minutes ago, scammed said:

well, to specify, if a link confirm my claim, it will be deleted.

i predict you will never see placeholder post my link,

its going to get taken down

I received the link. As I suspected, your claim was BS. The antifa image that you claimed was in Governor Brown's tweet was actually contained in a right-winger's reply to her. I can't figure out how to embed the link here via my mobile. I guess that will have to wait until I get home. But, in the meantime, I will readily forward your PM to anyone who cares to verify that your claim was false. And what makes your deleted post completely heinous is that you edited the Tweet to make it looked like that image came from her.

2 hours ago, rooster59 said:

Twitter Inc said on Friday that it has permanently suspended U.S. President Donald Trump's account

OMG! That's worse than losing the White housing, Congress and Senate all together! Oh, wait...

27 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Freedom of speech is a misnomer.  There are limits, and now, looks like more are needed.  Sadly, some people aren't smart enough to have it.

Freedom of one ends where it starts limiting freedom of others.

1 minute ago, tomazbodner said:

Freedom of one ends where it starts limiting freedom of others.

Freedom of speech is regarding the govt limiting. Twitter etc can ban whoever they want.

8 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I received the link. As I suspected, your claim was BS. The antifa image that you claimed was in Governor Brown's tweet was actually contained in a right-winger's reply to her. I can't figure out how to embed the link here via my mobile. I guess that will have to wait until I get home. But, in the meantime, I will readily forward your PM to anyone who cares to verify that your claim was false. And what makes your deleted post completely heinous is that you edited the Tweet to make it looked like that image came from her.

And he has the hide to complain that his bogus link is not allowed.

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

Freedom of speech is regarding the govt limiting. Twitter etc can ban whoever they want.

Agree. Though even Twitter has rules set on what constitutes grounds for a ban and what doesn't, just like TVF has. They don't just ban people randomly.

4 minutes ago, Sujo said:

And he has the hide to complain that his bogus link is not allowed.

Actually he posted no link. Just an alleged image. That was why I questioned its veracity. That and the fact that it was obviously ludicrous that the governor would approvingly tweet this alleged antifa image.

26 minutes ago, Sujo said:

And he has the hide to complain that his bogus link is not allowed.

And his excuse really made no sense. Would it actually be OK to post the image of the tweet but not a link to it?

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

Trump tried to post on the official potus account. Twitter deleted it.

 

The wont suspend the potus acct because it will pass to biden. But they are closely monitoring trump and his pals.

 

Expect to see a lot more accounts removed.

 

Have a look at FLOTUS twitter account, she's already whining.

1 hour ago, tgw said:

let's all chant a hymn to freedom and free speech !

United States free speech exceptions
Exceptions to free speech in the United States.

Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial speech such as advertising......

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

 

(His claim of election fraud without evidence is actually the evidence of his own fraud.

The rest should be self explanatory )

     

 

 

 

.

4 minutes ago, Seth1a2a said:

United States free speech exceptions
Exceptions to free speech in the United States.

Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial speech such as advertising......

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

 

(His claim of election fraud without evidence is actually the evidence of his own fraud.

The rest should be self explanatory )

     

 

 

 

.

But it's not fraud in a legal sense.

5 minutes ago, placeholder said:

But it's not fraud in a legal sense.

Your clutching at straws.

12 minutes ago, placeholder said:

But it's not fraud in a legal sense.

 

18 minutes ago, Seth1a2a said:

the evidence of his own fraud.

Should anyone decide to sue it could be used as evidence but he never really names anyone in particular just " The Democrats " 

It's was more of a point on why twitter would have a reason to shut down his account without bowing to a protest.

7 minutes ago, scorecard said:

Your clutching at straws.

How so. For one thing  you would have to prove that Trump didn't believe the falsehoods he was promoting. As his niece remarked, he believes whatever is in his interest to believe.

 

For another, what exactly is he defrauding people who believe him out of? Not money. So what, exactly?

3 hours ago, Credo said:

Here's Twitter's official statement:

 

After close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them — specifically how they are being received and interpreted on and off Twitter — we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence. 

 

https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html

 

 

"Former First Lady Michelle Obama urged social media companies on Thursday to permanently ban President Trump from using their platforms."

Michelle Obama calls on Twitter and Facebook to permanently ban Trump - Axios

1 minute ago, Opl said:

 

"Former First Lady Michelle Obama urged social media companies on Thursday to permanently ban President Trump from using their platforms."

Michelle Obama calls on Twitter and Facebook to permanently ban Trump - Axios

Americans urge Biden to permanently ban more nut jobs from using their platforms!!!

So sad, Twitter doesn’t want him, Facebook doesn’t want him, his neighbours at Mar a Lago don’t want him,   Vlad and Kim won’t want him now that he’s a LOSER, perhaps he could move in to the new mansion with Ivanka and Jared there should be plenty of mirrors for all.

1 hour ago, tomazbodner said:

Freedom of one ends where it starts limiting freedom of others.

It is a very.very difficult balance to strike.

 

Leaving aside the bizarre idea of using Twitter as a means of announcing policy, announcing dismissal of senior government  officials and effectively turning it into an official government communication channel; and whilst much (most) of Trump's outpourings on Twitter have been distasteful, at times abusive and certainly (considering the office he holds) very undignified, under the circumstances (who he is) it was probably right to to let them stand, albeit with a warning label attached. But in his actions leading up to Wednesdays attempt to storm the capitol, both in the speech he made effectively telling his crowd to go and do just that, and the twitter posts confirming and commenting on that, he has without a doubt moved to incitements to violence. Therefore I think that to ban him is now the right thing to do. He was tolerated before, because of the regard for freedom of speech, but now he directly caused a violent assault on the Capitol, whilst (because) Congress was in session, an assault which led to two deaths.

4 hours ago, rooster59 said:

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

By Elizabeth Culliford, David Shepardson and Katie Paul

 

 

Twitter: Making America Great Again

Final secret transmission within the Presidential device to it's own keyboard ..

 

FULL CAP'S characters you've said a lot the last 4 yrs and we know you didn't mean it but you're not going to be needed anything like before so a lot of you are stood down .. 

 

Exclamation marks ! You will only be required in double configuration at most from now on .. no more being assembled in rows like matches to emphasise ridiculousness .. 

 

Small letters and characters get yourselves ready for you are now on standbye for assembly into recognised words of more than 8 characters and 2 syllables .. 

 

And Keyboard said " Amen " .. 

 

5 hours ago, darksidedog said:

Oh dear! I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall to watch his reaction when he found out.

 

It is inhumane to take away a pacifier from a baby

Long overdue and late in coming. But well-deserved and appropriate, nonetheless.

 

It's a depressingly pathetic chapter in U.S. political history that the country's major social media platforms are forced to ban a sitting U.S. president for committing incitement to violence (and other misdeeds) against his own country/government.

 

But that's what you get when the country has blindly and stupidly elected a pathetic, lying, wanna-be dictator as president.

I think it's a dangerous path to choose, no matter who they ban from their platform. 

 

I'm not a big fan of censorship and when platforms start to ban politicians, they are taking side and that's not their job. 

 

It's important that noone are silenced no matter how much we may disagree with those individuals. 

 

After the latest scandals I started to look into some of the background of Those Q people and holy <deleted> what a bunch of messed up ideas , but I still wouldn't want them banned from various platforms. 

 

So yeah, I think Twitter made a wrong decision. 

16 minutes ago, Virt said:

So yeah, I think Twitter made a wrong decision. 

 

In the U.S., people generally have freedom of speech at large (though not necessarily on privately run commercial platforms like Facebook and Twitter).

 

But even at large, that legally protected freedom of speech doesn't include the right to, as the legal history illustrates, yell "fire" in a crowded theater.  When a person starts inciting armed insurrection against the U.S. government, they're going to (or should) end up having their free speech in prison.

 

2 minutes ago, Virt said:

I think it's a dangerous path to choose, no matter who they ban from their platform. 

 

I'm not a big fan of censorship and when platforms start to ban politicians, they are taking side and that's not their job. 

 

It's important that noone are silenced no matter how much we may disagree with those individuals. 

 

After the latest scandals I started to look into some of the background of Those Q people and holy <deleted> what a bunch of messed up ideas , but I still wouldn't want them banned from various platforms. 

 

So yeah, I think Twitter made a wrong decision. 

 

Wrong decision? 

"Donald Trump has fired a shot across the bows of “big tech” companies by signing an executive order that aims to narrow their protections from liability over the content posted on their services."

Trump signs executive order to narrow protections for social media platforms | Donald Trump | The Guardian

I'm not 100% up on Trump's executive order (which presumably will be rescinded by the Biden administration) and the further legislation he wanted from Congress but didn't get... But I gather the gist of it would be...

 

For example, if Trump went on social media and incited crowds of followers to violence that led to let's say 5 people being killed, and the social media platforms allowed that to occur, then the social media platforms could be held legally liable for damages???

 

And then anyone here wonders or questions why they've just proceeded to ban Trump???? Hahahahahahaha.....

 

From the above linked news article:

 

"Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, tech companies currently enjoy broad immunity from civil lawsuits stemming from what users post because they are treated as “platforms” rather than “publishers”.

Trump’s executive order is designed to pressure regulators, including the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission, to come up with new rules that would curtail that immunity. It is likely to face legal challenges."

 

 

 

28 minutes ago, fvw53 said:

 

It is inhumane to take away a pacifier from a baby

I think the "just desserts" clause trumps your argument.