Trump v Biden 2020,The insurrection (pt 6) Read OP

Lucy8080

completedit wrote: »

So should those Mohammad pictures have been banned or not. Because by the same token that was an incitement to hatred yet the free speech advocates will trot out the old "I may not agree with what you say but I'll defend your right to say it"

The Ayatollah is still on twiiter, Mohammed pics. (banned or not) etc, these are the arguments being scrapped out of the bottom of the barrel to defend a man who holds the most powerful office in the world.

If an ayatollah can navigate twitter rules better than the "leader of the free world"...that should be our concern. Jesus wept!

completedit

completedit wrote: »

So should those Mohammad pictures have been banned or not. Because by the same token that was an incitement to hatred yet the free speech advocates will trot out the old "I may not agree with what you say but I'll defend your right to say it"

I don't think the drawings should have been banned.

But Trump was directing a mob towards Congress. They were intent on capturing congressmen/senators to overthrow the election results. This is fascism. This is why they are being banned.

It's not difficult to understand.

Kaybaykwah

Howzabout this rookie congresswoman.

Even Dali had less talent at surrealism than this gracious wan has...

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/01/09/lauren-boebert-gun-capitol-riot-serfaty-pkg-vpx.cnn

yagan

Cruz Stocky Steak wrote: »

A moneyman (Trump) has found his cash cow in his followers. Make no mistake, he's not going anywhere after the presidency and will continue to milk followers for all they have, even if it further destabilses America. I'd say he can't believe his luck at how easy it is to make money off them.

He doesn't give a **** as he likely won't be around to see the real fallout.

Even if he bolts for Russia or some other safe haven from federal charges he'll still be able to milk the very kind of sucker who couldn't afford a stay at his Mar-A-Lago resort.

super_furry

Got to love how a man who has a entire PR organization, who has a press briefing room in his home and who's every single media briefing is shown live on TV and streamed worldwide is somehow being 'silenced'.

BorneTobyWilde

Windmill100000 wrote: »

Imagine if Dems supporters had stormed tbe building in 2016 what Trump would have said?

In fairness they've stormed countless buildings since he became president .

completedit

completedit wrote: »

So should those Mohammad pictures have been banned or not. Because by the same token that was an incitement to hatred yet the free speech advocates will trot out the old "I may not agree with what you say but I'll defend your right to say it"

Hey, why did you ignore the point that free speech isn't something a company has to engage in? You seem to have ignored all responses to what you said and are just going on a big ole rant.

Kaybaykwah

super_furry wrote: »

Got to love how a man who has a entire PR organization, who has a press briefing room in his home and who's every single media briefing is shown live on TV and streamed worldwide is somehow being 'silenced'.

Right. Just like that Hawley creature who says he is going to sue Simon and Shuster for not publishing his upcoming book on First amendent grounds. Lol

All he has to do is shop around for another publisher. Duh.

joe40

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

The left and liberals cheering on Big Tech billionaires who now have the power to censor the sitting President of the United States.
If Big Tech was right wing they would have censored Bernie Sanders.
They are purging and deplatforming right wingers and conservatives from their platforms.
Do liberals and left wingers not understand they will also be commanded to conform with the narrative or join their enemies in the outer darkness?

Been banned from Twitter is not censorship. It was frankly silly and undignified for a US president to be so obsessed with a social media platform.
This wasn't student politics.

Kaybaykwah

joe40 wrote: »

Been banned from Twitter is not censorship. It was frankly a silly and undignified for a US president to be so obsessed with a social media platform.
This wasn't student politics.

If anything, Twitter enabled another outlet amid an abundance of other outlets for the media created monster that is Da Donald Corp.


There are plenty other outlets out there. He has another 4 years to create another fearsome outlet the likes of which we can only dream of. He will be re-activated via new media that his backers will likely build for him, unless they think he can no longer be a running horse. They need to diagnose his branding, and how lame, how bankable he still is. I think he is still pretty potent.

Timberrrrrrrr

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

In fairness they've stormed countless buildings since he became president .

Equating looting a footlocker for cheap trainers with storming a government building while 99% of them are sitting in session is kinda silly.

Foxtrol

Bambi wrote: »

Using boards dog**** search function? Good luck with that

here's the result of 10 seconds on google search, our pal Foxtrol, thanked by protonmike:

How the hell is that supporting attacking federal buildings?

I have condemned law breaking by BLM protesters as it gives the cops and excuse to come down too hard on the rest of us (though cops never actually need an excuse to dish out brutality to BLM protesters).

All you've done with that post is again highlight how outrageously different the policing was between the protests. Here are cops in Portland beating and macing a protester who was on a public street, never breached or damaged the government building, and had in no way been violent to law enforcement. Compare it to how the MAGA terrorists were treated during their coup attempt.

https://twitter.com/JoeGomezNews/status/1284784306947264512?s=20

baaba maal

completedit wrote: »

So should those Mohammad pictures have been banned or not. Because by the same token that was an incitement to hatred yet the free speech advocates will trot out the old "I may not agree with what you say but I'll defend your right to say it"

With respect, you seem to be referring to "slippery slope" issues in terms of loss of freedoms via big tech- issues I share also.

In the case of Trump however, it is an open and shut case- there is a clear danger of him inciting further violence. As other have said, he can stand in front of the lectern in the press room and say whatever he wants, but of course, he chooses not to use many types of media and wants only the sense of martyrdom and victimhood of being banned from Twitter.

Twitter are also being hypocritical here, they certainly benefited from his presence and have a culpability in him becoming so ubiquitous on the platform. As for Zuckerburg jumping in also- a shameless hypocrite who enabled Trmp's rise also.

Sonics2k

completedit wrote: »

Terms and conditions of a private corporation. That's such a cop out in this day and age. I don't like Trump and perhaps as a society we need to handle free speech with care but if you do that, then its not really free speech.its a version of free speech that must exist within the confines of what is acceptable.

Do you even know what free speech means?

I've noticed a lot of people who trot out this nonsense of protecting free speech often have no idea of what it is.

Kaybaykwah

Sonics2k wrote: »

Do you even know what free speech means?

I've noticed a lot of people who trot out this nonsense of protecting free speech often have no idea of what it is.

You can also ask the question: How difficult can it be for the President to issue an opinion in this day and age?

Renjit

completedit wrote: »

So should those Mohammad pictures have been banned or not. Because by the same token that was an incitement to hatred yet the free speech advocates will trot out the old "I may not agree with what you say but I'll defend your right to say it"

Both are in different context. And France has different laws where you can do the same with Christianity or any other religion.

Gradius

Social media giants, much like the internet in general, have to be curtailed and reigned in.

They want all the money and none of the responsibility. So for them to pick and choose who can and can't amplify their opinions is a load of shyte.

They aren't simply a private product because their actions effect everyone whether they buy into the product or not.

namloc1980

Cody montana wrote: »

Man spotted carrying Speaker's lectern arrested in Florida.



Oh that's a shame.
Who would have guessed he's from Florida?

He ain't smiling now!

.

Sonics2k

Gradius wrote: »

Social media giants, much like the internet in general, have to be curtailed and reigned in.

They want all the money and none of the responsibility. So for them to pick and choose who can and can't amplify their opinions is a load of shyte.

They aren't simply a private product because their actions effect everyone whether they buy into the product or not.

So you want the Government to regulate and determine what social media can be used for. Do we include the press and media in this?

Sounds an awful lot like communism to me.

Movementarian

Kaybaykwah wrote: »

Right. Just like that Hawley creature who says he is going to sue Simon and Shuster for not publishing his upcoming book on First amendent grounds. Lol

All he has to do is shop around for another publisher. Duh.

Also the first amendment is protection against the government pursuing or legally charging you over free speech.

It doesn't cover private companies or the like. As is clearly shown in the many mamy defemation and libel lawsuits people and companies take when lies are told.

Gradius

Sonics2k wrote: »

So you want the Government to regulate and determine what social media can be used for. Do we include the press and media in this?

Sounds an awful lot like communism to me.

Yes, just like rte isn't allowed to have hardcore pornography on at 11am in the morning.

And no, common sense isn't communism.

It's all or nothing if you want to be fair. All are allowed speak, or none are allowed speak. Bias shouldn't be allowed.

joe40

Sonics2k wrote: »

So you want the Government to regulate and determine what social media can be used for. Do we include the press and media in this?

Sounds an awful lot like communism to me.

Press and media are regulated. If I go on Joe Duffy show and slander someone, RTE could be liable.
I can say what I want on facebook or twitter, and those companies have no liability at all.

salmocab

Gradius wrote: »

Yes, just like rte isn't allowed to have hardcore pornography on at 11am in the morning.

And no, common sense isn't communism.

It's all or nothing if you want to be fair. All are allowed speak, or none are allowed speak. Bias shouldn't be allowed.

RTÉ can’t have hard core porn at 11am because it’s the rules, if they broke the rules they would be punished. This is exactly what’s happened to trump.

jam_mac_jam

Sonics2k wrote: »

So you want the Government to regulate and determine what social media can be used for. Do we include the press and media in this?

Sounds an awful lot like communism to me.

No. Authoritarian is what you are thinking of. Both communist and fascist governments had strict control of the press.

So not just communism also fascism.

Movementarian

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

This is a power grab. No more and no less.
All alternative news views and posts will be purged.
If anyone supports this Orwellian insanity they can't say they weren't warned.

The exact same things were said when Obama's first term started, purge, socialism, country is gone bla bla.

None of that happened.

Gradius

salmocab wrote: »

RTÉ can’t have hard core porn at 11am because it’s the rules, if they broke the rules they would be punished. This is exactly what’s happened to trump.

Meanwhile a trillion other infractions are given the green light, like the Chinese celebrating cheekily over genocide.

One rule for ye and another for thee is point blank bias.

So yes, rules are needed that are fair and equal and common sense. Again, private companies selling a product that affects everyone, regardless of them buying the product, can no longer claim to be private. They are public domain, like it or lump it.

salmocab

Gradius wrote: »

Meanwhile a trillion other infractions are given the green light, like the Chinese celebrating cheekily over genocide.

One rule for ye and another for thee is point blank bias.

So yes, rules are needed that are fair and equal and common sense. Again, private companies selling a product that affects everyone, regardless of them buying the product, can no longer claim to be private. They are public domain, like it or lump it.

Well now you said ‘like it or lump it’ I see you have won the discussion.

PropJoe10

All this "Big Tech" nonsense in this thread in the past 24 hours is absolutely cringeworthy. If people can't understand the difference between "freedom of speech" and inciting hatred/spewing lies, then I don't think anyone can help them at this point.

Trump has used his Twitter platform to spread downright lies and nonsense to over 80 million followers. That is incredibly damaging to the fabric of society. There should rightly be a debate on how social media platforms regulate and moderate that sort of thing in the future, but at the end of the day, tell lies and face the consequences. It's about time Trump faced them. Long overdue.

Gradius

salmocab wrote: »

Well now you said ‘like it or lump it’ I see you have won the discussion.

As opposed to your brain fart above?

namloc1980

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

This is a power grab. No more and no less.
All alternative news views and posts will be purged.
If anyone supports this Orwellian insanity they can't say they weren't warned.

When the alternative views are the president of the United States inciting insurrection against the country then yeah, you'll get banned from Twitter. The rest of your post is utter nonsense.