You can defend trump's attack on twitter all you want (and yes, its an attack on twitter... the EO even specifically calls out twitter). In this instance, twitter didn't even remove trump's tweet, but simply directed twitter readers to a fact check. So trump's "free speech" wasn't even infringed upon. And if you are questioning whether someone may act on that tweet... Pipe-bomb mailer Cesar Sayoc, who targeted Trump critics, sentenced to 20 years The series of mailed pipe bombs, which prosecutors described in court papers as "a domestic terror attack," spurred a nationwide scare last year. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...who-targeted-trump-critics-sentenced-n1039261
I do not agree with Trump on this one. Leave private businesses alone. I will add if Twitter plans to "fact check" tweets then they need to do it everywhere. There has likely been millions of tweets about the Russia hoax that need to be fact checked as false.
Not sure if you intent it that way. "Editorial" decision has full protection under the 1st amendment. 1st amendment was to protect free speech from government suppression of it (yes, someone is actively trying to suppress free speech from the high office of gov). Treat social media as government or state actors, then you are done. It cannot have any code of conduct, disallow any content, ban anyone, or probably even flag any content. Treat social media as "common" carrier (like ISP) and you can probably said, they can't touch the traffic through it, but they are still allowed to have some code of conduct. Treat social media as editors, like what you mention and they would have full protection of expression of their own speech in any way they want to do it.
Trump has 80 million Twitter followers and millions more that see his tweets and don't follow him. They can be anywhere and see his tweets the second they are sent. He can share a video of himself on Twitter. Cspan or other stations don't begin to compare
The guy is an enemy of the state. A lazy idiot that Putin is having a laugh at - Putin succeeded - to weaken the US and he has weakened it well. It will go down in history as Russia's revenge. Trump is undermining democracy and moving us closer and closer to civil war. Again what Putin had hoped for - our country is divided and we see the other side as the enemy. We are not one nation, Trump has successful fractured us for his own personal gain. He must not be re-elected.
Right. If I wanted to post that someone should end the Trump campaign one way or the other, I should be allowed to. If I wanted to post that Twitter should just ban Trump for being all the things he is, the government shouldn't be able to regulate that. Government, and in particular, Trump, is dipping his toes in a hot mess of constitutional lava here.
The only answer is to ban Trump from Twitter. That's a totally acceptable conclusion. It should happen soon.
Donald Trump is trying to eliminate the system of checks and balances that American government was founded on. November 3 can’t get here fast enough, and anyone that votes for Trump should be ashamed of themselves.
If Trump increases Twitter's liability for content, I dont see any reasonable course of action for Twitter but to start banning the users that cause potential liability issues for Twitter. Sounds like the Clown-In-Chief is just seeing red. I question whether he has really thought through how this will play out. It's not even punitive. It is Twitter reasonably protecting itself from liability issues. If certain content causes increased legal hazard for Twitter, they need to excise that content.
You know what's even more sad. The president isn't even trying to hide that his motivation to surpress Twitter is purely for personal reasons because of criticism of him. If I'm a smart authoritarian I'm going to point to examples that have nothing to do with me to make an appearance that my qualms with Twitter isn't merely a personal qualm but rather a qualm out of 'principle' but Trump is too dumb to understand that. The same with the whole Ukrainian scandal. If Trump wanted to show the appearance that he actually cares about corruption in Ukraine rather than just trying to sell a political narrative that benefits him he would find examples of Ukrainian corruption outside of things just involving Democrats. 100% of his criticism of the media calling them the "enemy of the people" is from criticism of him. He's never criticized the integrity of the media outside his sphere of influence. It's all about him.
