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

Tell me how

Jaded Walker wrote: »

I'm not sure of the legal end of things but to me if you are from the United States of America you have the fight to free speech. As such if you post something up on any of those social media sites in America then you are posting it with the freedoms of the First Amendment.

Thing is these sites are worldwide so you may be a breaking a law in another country.
So I'd imagine that you can be banned from international postings but not from your own country if there are rights to freedom of speech in the country. I don't think anybody can have terms and conditions which are legally acceptable in the USA as regards preventing a person's right to free speech.
I'd imagine we will see court cases over this in the next while.

No. 1st Amendment doesn't mean one person can force a private company to be a platform for their message.

briany

Freedom of speech does not include freedom from consequences. It just means that the government will not attempt to suppress your speech. To be honest, this still has theoretical limits, i.e. you couldn't be a high-ranking government official, walk into the middle of a park and start shouting out state secrets to passers-by without expecting some police or unmarked vans to cart you off at some point.

But Twitter is essentially no different to any other business like a bar, and you can certainly be tossed out of a bar and told never to come back if you shoot your mouth off too much.

duploelabs

Jaded Walker wrote: »

I'm not sure of the legal end of things but to me if you are from the United States of America you have the fight to free speech. As such if you post something up on any of those social media sites in America then you are posting it with the freedoms of the First Amendment.

Thing is these sites are worldwide so you may be a breaking a law in another country.
So I'd imagine that you can be banned from international postings but not from your own country if there are rights to freedom of speech in the country. I don't think anybody can have terms and conditions which are legally acceptable in the USA as regards preventing a person's right to free speech.
I'd imagine we will see court cases over this in the next while.

You try saying whatever you want here and then try the first ammendment defence to the mods when you get banned. Then tell us why this is different to twitter

Kermit.de.frog

Mark my words, these over 100 pardons, Trump is about to give are going to be the biggest single scandal of the Trump administration.

joe40

Jaded Walker wrote: »

I'm not sure of the legal end of things but to me if you are from the United States of America you have the fight to free speech. As such if you post something up on any of those social media sites in America then you are posting it with the freedoms of the First Amendment.

Thing is these sites are worldwide so you may be a breaking a law in another country.
So I'd imagine that you can be banned from international postings but not from your own country if there are rights to freedom of speech in the country. I don't think anybody can have terms and conditions which are legally acceptable in the USA as regards preventing a person's right to free speech.
I'd imagine we will see court cases over this in the next while.

If an american citizen writes a letter to the new york times, is that newspaper obliged to publish the letter because otherwise they would be infringing free speech.
Obviously not, the newspaper is under no obligation to publish some else opinions.

Social media sites are no different.

hotmail.com

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

The average across all Presidents from McKinley to now is 691 pardons. So Carter's 534 is actually below average.

The trend in recent administrations has been for lower numbers, with Bush Senior the lowest ever with only 74 pardons (out of 1,433 total requests).

Obama had only 212 pardons out of a whopping 36,544 requests (the most requests so far by far).

(Note: this is just pardons, not commutations and other forms of clemency.)

Carter a one termer. Seems a lot to me.

Anyway, the issue of abolishing the practice is front and centre now.

It'll be interesting to see if anything changes in the next 4 years to remove this practice.

duploelabs

hotmail.com wrote: »

Carter a one termer. Seems a lot to me.

Anyway, the issue of abolishing the practice is front and centre now.

It'll be interesting to see if anything changes in the next 4 years to remove this practice.

I must have missed your response, but did you cite the NYT article you said that wrote that Clinton took cash for pardons?

listermint

duploelabs wrote: »

I must have missed your response, but did you cite the NYT article you said that wrote that Clinton took cash for pardons?

I've been waiting for this too.

hotmail.com

duploelabs wrote: »

I must have missed your response, but did you cite the NYT article you said that wrote that Clinton took cash for pardons?

Emily Maitlis from the BBC mentioned it in a tweet earlier.

robinph

You can say what you like out on the street, but if you come into my house and start spouting the same stuff I'm fully entitled to tell you to shut up and leave.

That doesn't effect your rights. Freedom of speech doesn't mean that anyone has to listen to you.

Gregor Samsa

This is the Clinton situation regarding payments to his brother-in-law (a lawyer) being referred to. It came out in 2001

There was no allegation that Clinton took bribes for pardons.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/clinton-pardoned-men-who-paid-his-brother-in-law-1.375325

Carfacemandog

Tell me how wrote: »

No. 1st Amendment doesn't mean one person can force a private company to be a platform for their message.

Added to that, in the US corporations are given the same legal rights as people on many issues including the first amendment. As such, companies like Twitter and AWS have the same legal rights to express themselves by refusing to host content or people that they do

This was reiterated in the gay cake case a few years ago. Republicans tend to be considerably stronger advocates of it too, ironically enough. The ruling was 7-2, with every republican (and 2 of the then 4 democrat appointed ones) appointed judge voting in favour.

mcmoustache

I had a quick look online regarding Clinton's pardon's. There's a wikipedia page for it.

There was a fairly dodgy one for a chap called Marc Rich, a fugitive who got pardoned after some large donations from his ex wife. Another dodgy one was to Susan McDougal who refused to testify in the whitewater investigation.

It's not on the same scale as Trump's ones but still dirty enough.

This only took a few seconds googling so I don't understand why links weren't forthcoming.

Agent Coulson

I wonder how many resignations will there be tomorrow across the government departments.

Jump before they are fired on Wednesday.

mcmoustache

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

This is the Clinton situation regarding payments to his brother-in-law (a lawyer) being referred to. It came out in 2001

There was no allegation that Clinton took bribes for pardons.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/clinton-pardoned-men-who-paid-his-brother-in-law-1.375325

The allegation was there and it was even investigated by the Bush administration where it didn't amount to anything.

Agent Coulson

mcmoustache wrote: »

I had a quick look online regarding Clinton's pardon's. There's a wikipedia page for it.

There was a fairly dodgy one for a chap called Marc Rich, a fugitive who got pardoned after some large donations from his ex wife. Another dodgy one was to Susan McDougal who refused to testify in the whitewater investigation.

It's not on the same scale as Trump's ones but still dirty enough.

This only took a few seconds googling so I don't understand why links weren't forthcoming.

My Reasons for the Pardons
By William Jefferson Clinton

https://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/18/opinion/my-reasons-for-the-pardons.html

boardise

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Mark my words, these over 100 pardons, Trump is about to give are going to be the biggest single scandal of the Trump administration.

Does a Presidential pardon have to specify what the pardon is for ?
Plus, a Presidential self- pardon is in essence an utterly nonsensical concept .

duploelabs

hotmail.com wrote: »

Emily Maitlis from the BBC mentioned it in a tweet earlier.

Twice you said it without citation.
So it's bullsh!t

Timberrrrrrrr

hotmail.com wrote: »

Emily Maitlis from the BBC mentioned it in a tweet earlier.

Heres the tweet, you seemed to have left out the important part.

https://twitter.com/maitlis/status/1351149454221598721?s=19

everlast75

hotmail.com wrote: »

Clinton received donations from pardonees according to the NYT.

Not a peep will be said about abolishing the practice from either party this week.

From "But her emails" to "But his pardons"

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Jaded Walker wrote: »

I'm not sure of the legal end of things but to me if you are from the United States of America you have the fight to free speech. As such if you post something up on any of those social media sites in America then you are posting it with the freedoms of the First Amendment.

Thing is these sites are worldwide so you may be a breaking a law in another country.
So I'd imagine that you can be banned from international postings but not from your own country if there are rights to freedom of speech in the country. I don't think anybody can have terms and conditions which are legally acceptable in the USA as regards preventing a person's right to free speech.
I'd imagine we will see court cases over this in the next while.

First amendment allows private companies to set said terms and conditions and actually protects them, not the individual. It gurantees you free speech, but it does NOT guanrantee you a platform.

astrofool

hotmail.com wrote: »

Carter a one termer. Seems a lot to me.

Anyway, the issue of abolishing the practice is front and centre now.

It'll be interesting to see if anything changes in the next 4 years to remove this practice.

You were presented with a history of pardsons from all presidents, and that is your only comment? Do you want to comment on trumps self serving pardons vs. the altrustic pardons made by all other presidents? Is what trump is doing to be applauded or disdained? You have to have some thoughts on this beyond glib one liners that add nothing and smack of whataboutery all over the place.

everlast75

https://twitter.com/MollyJongFast/status/1351239361585680385?s=19

everlast75

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1351264364624445440?s=19

Someone best check in on him. He might be feeling... down.

BorneTobyWilde

everlast75 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1351264364624445440?s=19

Someone best check in on him. He might be feeling... down.

He will always have a pillow to comfort him

BorneTobyWilde

So apparently the huge military presence at the Capitol Building is a military coup in disguise. A Trojan Hore

ohnonotgmail

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

So apparently the huge military presence at the Capitol Building is a military coup in disguise. A Trojan Hore

keep dreaming

Timberrrrrrrr

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

So apparently the huge military presence at the Capitol Building is a military coup in disguise. A Trojan Hore

According to idiots it is yes.

astrofool

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

A Trojan Hore

However so trumpian.

Can you grab this trojan wherever BorneTobyWilde wants to, or is it forced?

duploelabs

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

So apparently the huge military presence at the Capitol Building is a military coup in disguise. A Trojan Hore

Looks more amongst the lines of Baldrick's A Frozen Horse