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

[GrandPapillon]

the funny thing is that the reactions of Twitter, FB etc... will actually re-enforce the sentiments of the Trump supporters that there is a conspiracy against them and their dear leader, that the game is rigged etc... making him a hero in the eyes of many, and eventually expose the double standard of some organisations.

 

The reptilian reflex that is being demonstrated by many here is exactly why "free speech" should be protected at all costs, because it's too easy to be judgmental on certain things and start "banning" ideas and topics just because we don't like them. Where do we draw the line? did Trump went over the line? was he alone? and who draws that line. Do we want FB and Twitter to draw those lines for us because they are providing a very important service for many?

 

and where will Trump supporters go now that they have been silenced. And who will Twitter and FB silence next time?

Edited January 9, 2021 by GrandPapillon

[FritsSikkink]

36 minutes ago, GrandPapillon said:

and where will Trump supporters go now that they have been silenced. And who will Twitter and FB silence next time?

Trump supporters who keep spreading fake news that he didn't incite unrest.

[Puwa]

He lost Twitter, but he still has his ThaiVisa forum account.

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, GrandPapillon said:

the funny thing is that the reactions of Twitter, FB etc... will actually re-enforce the sentiments of the Trump supporters that there is a conspiracy against them and their dear leader, that the game is rigged etc... making him a hero in the eyes of many, and eventually expose the double standard of some organisations.

 

The reptilian reflex that is being demonstrated by many here is exactly why "free speech" should be protected at all costs, because it's too easy to be judgmental on certain things and start "banning" ideas and topics just because we don't like them. Where do we draw the line? did Trump went over the line? was he alone? and who draws that line. Do we want FB and Twitter to draw those lines for us because they are providing a very important service for many?

 

and where will Trump supporters go now that they have been silenced. And who will Twitter and FB silence next time?

Yes, he definitely went over the line (for years already). 

A private citizen would have been banned years ago.

It was understandable that he was cut slack because of his high office but inciting a mob towards a terrorist attack on the U.S. capital was the final straw. Good riddance!

Edited January 9, 2021 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

20 minutes ago, Puwa said:

He lost Twitter, but he still has his ThaiVisa forum account.

I'd welcome the chance to engage with him here but I reckon he would end up on my Ignore List very quickly. 

[BusyB]

18 hours ago, placeholder said:

Parler just got a huge boost.

 

I think Parler's about to be shut down ... others have already been ...

[Tie Dye Samurai]

12 hours ago, GrandPapillon said:

let's see how you guys react when Twitter shutdowns the account of the next "whistle blower", and the freedom of speech rights will be invoked all over the place

 

this is a very dangerous trend, you can't deny it, even if you don't like the Twitter account

 

it's definitely a political statement, quite ironic in some ways since Republicans have been wanting to limit Twitter, Facebook etc... stand on "free speech"

How is this dangerous...twitter is not a right, it is a privilege, Trump does not pay to be on twitter and if Twitter does not want him on their platform that is their choice...Trump acted irresponsibly and he got smacked down for it. You act like twitter or facebook or instagram is a sanctimonious right guaranteed to Trump. He can still bellow the idiotic BS that spews out of his mouth....he just cant do it on twitter anymore. If Walmart bans you because you were inciting violence in their store, does that mean you've lost your American freedom or does that mean Walmart exercised THEIR constitutional rights?

 

MAGA needs to take a civics class when this is all done....

 

By the way....it has been a bad week for MAGA on twitter hasn't it....this might be the cruelest cut of all when even Hillary Clinton starts getting some: https://www.foxnews.com/media/hillary-clinton-dunks-on-trump-following-twitter-ban

 

Oh Snap...Trump are you gonna take that from Crooked Hillary? What did you say Trump? Huh? I cant hear you...Trump?!?!?!?!

Edited January 9, 2021 by Tie Dye Samurai

[scorecard]

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

I'd welcome the chance to engage with him here but I reckon he would end up on my Ignore List very quickly. 

He would probably never listen to any real argument and would just keep adnorsium repeating his well proven lies. 

[tonray]

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

I'd welcome the chance to engage with him here but I reckon he would end up on my Ignore List very quickly. 

I'm not sure it's possible to block this year's 'Poster of the Year'

[Jeffr2]

4 hours ago, Victornoir said:

Comparison is not right.

Trump is not a pedo or Islamic terrorist. His often excessive words remain within the legal limit of any educated nation. We can therefore (we must) criticize his ideas but I formally deny Twitter and other social media the right to censor them.

That's perhaps not 100% true.  Federal prosecutors are looking into possible charges for Trump and his surrogates for inciting violence and calling for the overthrow of the election/government.

 

Trump may get away with it, but Don Jr and Rudy are in hot water.  Charges will probably be brought up.  So no, they perhaps were not within the legal limit.

 

Sadly, many aren't smart enough to research facts from fiction.  Thus, the need to limit freedom of speech.  Which has been going on for a long time.  Luckily.

[animalmagic]

Twitter banning 45 is not an attack on freedom of speech.  Twitter is a private company.  Think of Twitter as a private company and 45 as a gay wedding cake.

 

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, GrandPapillon said:

the funny thing is that the reactions of Twitter, FB etc... will actually re-enforce the sentiments of the Trump supporters that there is a conspiracy against them and their dear leader, that the game is rigged etc... making him a hero in the eyes of many, and eventually expose the double standard of some organisations.

 

The reptilian reflex that is being demonstrated by many here is exactly why "free speech" should be protected at all costs, because it's too easy to be judgmental on certain things and start "banning" ideas and topics just because we don't like them. Where do we draw the line? did Trump went over the line? was he alone? and who draws that line. Do we want FB and Twitter to draw those lines for us because they are providing a very important service for many?

 

and where will Trump supporters go now that they have been silenced. And who will Twitter and FB silence next time?

I don't see how the irrational paranoia of the Trump supporters and conspiracy theorists could be further re-enforced.

 

If they leave mainstream media for fringe media they will simply be agreeing with themselves in echo chambers.  That's fine, it will allow the grown-ups to have discussions without the brats interrupting.  It will also make it more difficult to recruit more simpletons to their alternative reality world.

[TKDfella]

1 hour ago, Jeffr2 said:

That's perhaps not 100% true.  Federal prosecutors are looking into possible charges for Trump and his surrogates for inciting violence and calling for the overthrow of the election/government.

 

Trump may get away with it, but Don Jr and Rudy are in hot water.  Charges will probably be brought up.  So no, they perhaps were not within the legal limit.

 

Sadly, many aren't smart enough to research facts from fiction.  Thus, the need to limit freedom of speech.  Which has been going on for a long time.  Luckily.

IMO it was a mistake for Pres. Trump to have attended the protest rally in the first place let alone address them. His attendance and whatever he said was going to be used against him. However a charge of 'incitement' privately or in Law might be difficult since some will say his words were incitant and others will say they weren't. According to my Oxford English Dictionary, V.1 1961 it is a verb from 1483 both Latin & French sources, meaning to urge, spur on, stir up, instigate, stimulate. The main problem as I see it, would be to prove that Pres. Trump urged the protesters to be violent and enter the building. If it does come to litigation, will be interesting to see how the arguments for and against, go.

Edited January 10, 2021 by TKDfella

[Sujo]

5 minutes ago, TKDfella said:

IMO it was a mistake for Pres. Trump to have attended the protest rally in the first place let alone address them. His attendance and whatever he said was going to be used against him. However a charge of 'incitement' privately or in Law might be difficult since some will say his words were incitant and others will say they weren't. According to my Oxford English Dictionary, V.1 1961 it is a verb from 1483 both Latin & French sources, meaning to urge, spur on, stir up, instigate, stimulate. The main problem as I see it, would be to prove that Pres. Trump urged the protesters to be violent and enter the building. If it does come to litigation, will be interesting to see how the arguments for and against, go.

Shouldnt be too difficult when those arrested say they rioted at the behest of trump.

[Jeffr2]

5 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Shouldnt be too difficult when those arrested say they rioted at the behest of trump.

Just like they won't wear a mask because of Trump.  In interviews, when pressed, they'd say they would wear a mask if Trump told them to.

 

The clueless masses....

[TKDfella]

16 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Shouldnt be too difficult when those arrested say they rioted at the behest of trump.

Not necessarily, as it should be about what he actually said to the protesters, being incitant or not, and not their interpretation.

[Walker88]

parler had been hosted by Amazon's AWS platform. They were just kicked off for allowing too much incitement of violence, and now need to find another host.

[Jeffr2]

12 minutes ago, TKDfella said:

Not necessarily, as it should be about what he actually said to the protesters, being incitant or not, and not their interpretation.

Worth a read:

 

https://www.vox.com/22220746/trump-speech-incite-capitol-riot

Just before a MAGA mob descended on the US Capitol on Wednesday and caused a riot that killed five people, including a Capitol police officer who was beaten to death, President Donald Trump delivered a speech to his supporters in which he used the words “fight” or “fighting” at least 20 times.

 

“We’re going to have to fight much harder and Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us,” Trump said at one point, alluding to Pence’s ultimate refusal to attempt to steal the election for him during that day’s hearing where the Electoral College made his loss official.

 

“You’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength. You have to be strong,” he added during the speech in which he pushed long-debunked lies about Joe Biden’s convincing victory over him being the product of fraud.

[Walker88]

33 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Shouldnt be too difficult when those arrested say they rioted at the behest of trump.

 

Also, a grand jury can subpoena White House staff and ask them how 45 was reacting to the insurrection he fomented. Some sources, as revealed by R Sen Ben Sasse, say 45 was surprised other WH staff were not enjoying the mayhem as much as him.

 

That would be used as proof or mens rea, or 45's intent that his words be used to incite the insurrection.

[Jeffr2]

5 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

 

Also, a grand jury can subpoena White House staff and ask them how 45 was reacting to the insurrection he fomented. Some sources, as revealed by R Sen Ben Sasse, say 45 was surprised other WH staff were not enjoying the mayhem as much as him.

 

That would be used as proof or mens rea, or 45's intent that his words be used to incite the insurrection.

They can use his Twitter feed also...

[welovesundaysatspace]

34 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

parler had been hosted by Amazon's AWS platform. They were just kicked off for allowing too much incitement of violence, and now need to find another host.

This is very good news. It means the app will be offline on every device, and for a while so. Moving an app to a new host takes time, especially if it’s poorly coded (from what we know, Parler isn’t a heavily funded tech company that would attract lots of good developers and architects). At least Inauguration Day should be safe. 
 

Worth to note how some of those Republicans who announced with big mouths they would leave Twitter and go to Parler are now crawling back. 

[TKDfella]

17 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Worth a read:

 

https://www.vox.com/22220746/trump-speech-incite-capitol-riot

Just before a MAGA mob descended on the US Capitol on Wednesday and caused a riot that killed five people, including a Capitol police officer who was beaten to death, President Donald Trump delivered a speech to his supporters in which he used the words “fight” or “fighting” at least 20 times.

 

“We’re going to have to fight much harder and Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us,” Trump said at one point, alluding to Pence’s ultimate refusal to attempt to steal the election for him during that day’s hearing where the Electoral College made his loss official.

 

“You’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength. You have to be strong,” he added during the speech in which he pushed long-debunked lies about Joe Biden’s convincing victory over him being the product of fraud.

Thanks for the links.

(note, listed times are from the transcript "fight(ing) and then compared to video on Rev.) With regard to What Pres. Trump says about 'Rudy' that he 'fights' (after 07:11) can be construed as similar to someone who says 'I will fight you in court' or I will 'fight the case' and after 12:34 speaks of J. Jordan (+others) of 'fighting'. But the interpretation here is not fighting in the physical sense. After 13:45 is more contentious but could still be referring to context of the previous occurrences of 'fight(ing)'.  Similarly for after 16:25. After 21:24 '...and now we're out here fighting...', This could be interpreted simply as being there in attendance was 'fighting' for whatever. Obviously it could not refer to any physical fight as none had occurred yet. Again, after 27:57 Pres. Trump does not refer to physical fights with Democrats but about the verbal debates ('points of view'). After 01:06:37 once again the fight refers to 'big tech' and 'media' and is not about physical violence. After 01:11:44 is contentious because it isn't clear here whether he referring to the people in previous conversations or talking to the protesters. We could argue till 'the cows come home' about other contents of the speech and probably not worth your or my time to do so...mainly because of my next comment.

jeffr2, you may be and American but I am not, I am Englishman with more or less Conservative (Party) views. (As you will know the systems of elections are totally different where I would simply vote for the MP candidate whose policies I favour, and, where the Party having won the most seats becomes the gov. and its leader, the PM.) I do not have the emotional involvement that has gripped Americans over the previous year and I have to recognise that direct emotional involvement can affect any interpretation(s) given to events. That is why I wrote previously that it was inappropriate for Pres. Trump to have attended and addressed the rally because any element(s) within that were easily ignited could feel encouragement to do so.

[Jeffr2]

3 minutes ago, TKDfella said:

Thanks for the links.

(note, listed times are from the transcript "fight(ing) and then compared to video on Rev.) With regard to What Pres. Trump says about 'Rudy' that he 'fights' (after 07:11) can be construed as similar to someone who says 'I will fight you in court' or I will 'fight the case' and after 12:34 speaks of J. Jordan (+others) of 'fighting'. But the interpretation here is not fighting in the physical sense. After 13:45 is more contentious but could still be referring to context of the previous occurrences of 'fight(ing)'.  Similarly for after 16:25. After 21:24 '...and now we're out here fighting...', This could be interpreted simply as being there in attendance was 'fighting' for whatever. Obviously it could not refer to any physical fight as none had occurred yet. Again, after 27:57 Pres. Trump does not refer to physical fights with Democrats but about the verbal debates ('points of view'). After 01:06:37 once again the fight refers to 'big tech' and 'media' and is not about physical violence. After 01:11:44 is contentious because it isn't clear here whether he referring to the people in previous conversations or talking to the protesters. We could argue till 'the cows come home' about other contents of the speech and probably not worth your or my time to do so...mainly because of my next comment.

jeffr2, you may be and American but I am not, I am Englishman with more or less Conservative (Party) views. (As you will know the systems of elections are totally different where I would simply vote for the MP candidate whose policies I favour, and, where the Party having won the most seats becomes the gov. and its leader, the PM.) I do not have the emotional involvement that has gripped Americans over the previous year and I have to recognise that direct emotional involvement can affect any interpretation(s) given to events. That is why I wrote previously that it was inappropriate for Pres. Trump to have attended and addressed the rally because any element(s) within that were easily ignited could feel encouragement to do so.

His calls to come to DC and fight to stop the steal have been going on for a few months.  And his enablers were worse.  Like Rudy.  He's going down for sure.

 

Another good article. In the end, the blood and damage are on Trump's hands.  Along with his enablers and those who allow hateful speech on social media sites and news outlets.  they should be held accountable.

[jcsmith]

Social Media has every right to ban anyone they want. You are using a service. You accept the End User License Agreement when you sign up for an account. If you violate their terms of service they can remove you. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech. They have the right to refuse you service if you violated those agreements, so long as they aren't unfairly discriminating. Banning a madman from using his platform to incite insurrection (which is a crime) is perfectly within their rights. The truth is Trump had violated so many of their policies for so long that any other person would have been banned years ago.

[Opl]

3 hours ago, TKDfella said:

IMO it was a mistake for Pres. Trump to have attended the protest rally in the first place let alone address them. His attendance and whatever he said was going to be used against him. However a charge of 'incitement' privately or in Law might be difficult since some will say his words were incitant and others will say they weren't. According to my Oxford English Dictionary, V.1 1961 it is a verb from 1483 both Latin & French sources, meaning to urge, spur on, stir up, instigate, stimulate. The main problem as I see it, would be to prove that Pres. Trump urged the protesters to be violent and enter the building. If it does come to litigation, will be interesting to see how the arguments for and against, go.

every rallye is an opportunity for Trump to motivate his followers, not only to donate to his Stop the steal charity, but also a way for him to find comfort in their adulation, it's all profitable 

Before mob stormed US Capitol, Trump told them to ‘fight like hell’ - The Boston Globe 

 

" In recent weeks, Trump heavily promoted the rally that led directly to the assault on the Capitol. The rally was part of the “Stop the Steal” movement, which, fueled by Trump’s own conspiratorial fantasies, explicitly aimed to halt the certification of Joe Biden’s election victory. On Dec. 19, Trump promised a “big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!” Trump promoted the rally again on Dec. 27, Dec. 30, and Jan. 1, in tweets compiled by the New York Times. "

Capitol riot: How Donald Trump incited an attack on America | Fortune

Edited January 10, 2021 by Opl

[GrandPapillon]

The "tech" war against Trump supporters is quite shameful, and exposing what we as people thought would happen eventually by relying all our communications with tech giants like AWS, Google, Twitter etc...

 

The GAFA just jumped the shark, and I think anyone who is concerned with free speech, now have the proof they were looking for that our communications channels are controlled by a few, and this is very very dangerous

 

A lot of political commentaries are going this way this morning, worrying that unilateral quick actions by GAFA can be regarded as attacks on freedom of speech by private tech companies.

 

The Trump saga has exposed the truth about those dangers, and it is now a good reminder of not relying too much on those private tech firms. Always have a backup plan to save the truth.

Edited January 10, 2021 by GrandPapillon

[heybruce]

10 minutes ago, GrandPapillon said:

The "tech" war against Trump supporters is quite shameful, and exposing what we as people thought would happen eventually by relying all our communications with tech giants like AWS, Google, Twitter etc...

 

The GAFA just jumped the shark, and I think anyone who is concerned with free speech, now have the proof they were looking for that our communications channels are controlled by a few, and this is very very dangerous

 

A lot of political commentaries are going this way this morning, worrying that unilateral quick actions by GAFA can be regarded as attacks on freedom of speech by private tech companies.

 

The Trump saga has exposed the truth about those dangers, and it is now a good reminder of not relying too much on those private tech firms. Always have a backup plan to save the truth.

" ...now a good reminder of not relying too much on those private tech firms."

 

Good advice.  Pass it on to Trump and his minions:  Free speech means the right to speak and write what you want in public.  You do not have this right on commercial platforms and private venues.

[GrandPapillon]

the funny thing is that those platforms make money on the Trump supporters, they were creating momentum and traffic

 

what will people talk about without that angry crowd? or without the controversy? there is no use then for Twitter!!!

 

Twitters feeds on half-truth, scandals, lies, and drama. The platform was built by Jack Dorsey with a promise for absolute free speech and an alternative to exposing the truth. Now, they bow to certain political pressure, and rollover.

 

They jumped the shark, now we know ????

[Sujo]

3 minutes ago, GrandPapillon said:

the funny thing is that those platforms make money on the Trump supporters, they were creating momentum and traffic

 

what will people talk about without that angry crowd? or without the controversy? there is no use then for Twitter!!!

 

Twitters feeds on half-truth, scandals, lies, and drama. The platform was built by Jack Dorsey with a promise for absolute free speech and an alternative to exposing the truth. Now, they bow to certain political pressure, and rollover.

 

They jumped the shark, now we know ????

There is no tech war on trump supporters. Just on inciting hatred and illegal acts. That is also done on anyone regardless of political views.

 

You have an issue with stopping hate speech. I do not. The owners of such platforms also do not.

 

Nothing illegal in stopping them. If you have an issue blame repubs who havent corrected it.

[Jeffr2]

1 hour ago, GrandPapillon said:

the funny thing is that those platforms make money on the Trump supporters, they were creating momentum and traffic

 

what will people talk about without that angry crowd? or without the controversy? there is no use then for Twitter!!!

 

Twitters feeds on half-truth, scandals, lies, and drama. The platform was built by Jack Dorsey with a promise for absolute free speech and an alternative to exposing the truth. Now, they bow to certain political pressure, and rollover.

 

They jumped the shark, now we know ????

The world will be better off without these nuts spewing their lies.