BF2S Forums Freedom of Speech, the Internet, and You

amazing that you make out donald trump has been uniquely disadvantaged by his ban from twitter.

because all politicians are global brands and well-known celebrities before assuming office. my local MP had a cameo in home alone, as well!

poor donald trump. how will he gain publicity now he can't use twitter? he's practically a nobody who can now only use morse code to beep out his frustrations. carrier pigeons, egads! it's really very unfair that this legitimate politician is being censored and now can't get out his message, absolutely anywhere, and nobody knows about him.

imagine what it's like trying to run a political campaign when you don't have a global empire of money-losing golf clubs and casinos. wowsers! how has democracy managed up to now with these clumsy tools like traditional media and political parties, i don't know. the man just can't get a break!

the owner of twitter has already said that he's uncomfortable with the ramifications of banning trump. as soon as twitter starts making a habit of censoring politicians or banning them, then we'll be in for a real debate on the matter. right now i see trump as a sui generis case, one which isn't comparable to any other elected official or national leader. and, in that capacity, he's enjoyed many more tolerances and privileges than any other average politician, too. twitter gave him special treatment for YEARS.

Last edited by uziq (2021-01-15 05:17:32)

twitter is the most important thing for political communication today. it's vital. just dilbert has never used it, doubtful as to whether he even has an account, and every other politician who isn't donald trump conducts their business perfectly well without his reliance on it.

but yes, now twitter is the single-most important thing in democracy today.

you have a very hard time following an argument.

uziq is insisting its trivial and irrelevant, you're insisting there are plenty of other ways to communicate with the electorate, why would Biden get a twitter account at all?

i didn’t say it was trivial and irrelevant? those were YOUR attitudes towards twitter for YEARS before this sudden trump story. now it’s ‘in the fabric of our lives’ and ‘the lifeblood of democracy’ and ‘absolutely essential for politicians’. lol you utter creep.

i clearly said that all other politicians use it in a distanced, official capacity, as an extension of their public communications. they speak from an office, not blur the lines between personal branding and the great positions of state.

i clearly said that twitter is not the only place for politicians to conduct their messaging in this way. as is surely appropriate and right. there are any number of other media channels which a politicians team will use every day.

i clearly said no other politician uses twitter like trump. and that trump’s populist, emotional, rabble rousing, posing and pouting, threatening and declaiming manner was completely inappropriate and a danger to democracy. i said we should all walk back from that precipice and return to ‘business as usual’ politics with politicians issuing stale and impartial statements vis their twitters like the other great powers have been doing the whole time.

by the same token, by not using twitter as their 'special connection' to a cult-like following, twitter itself becomes less important to their support. trump's whole twitter mode was a way of subverting the norms of democracy and undermining its processes. that's a very real problem when it's spun to a reality-denying, election-denying base. this whole mess can be avoided when politicians remain politicians and don't become monstrous creations of 'social media'.

you wanting to make out that biden has a twitter is ‘wow interesting’ is asinine. that really invalidates everything i said above, doesn’t it? just why are you so pliant and flexible when it comes to making bad faith arguments for trump and neo-nazi faggots? it’s a bit weird isn’t it?

Last edited by uziq (2021-01-15 23:16:50)

What exactly is your argument then, dilbs? Can you boil down the last couple of pages?

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

What exactly is your argument then, dilbs? Can you boil down the last couple of pages?

Its problematic that private corporations own and control public and political discourse and cancel whoever they want.

It seems like yesterday Trump was taken to court and told he couldn't ban people from his twitter feed.

The president lost a legal battle when the Supreme Court ruled in July 2019 that it was unconstitutional for him to block critics on social media.

"The Court recognized that when a public official uses a social media account to host speech … it functions as a kind of public forum," Fallow, one of the lead attorneys in the case challenging Trump, said.

"When he blocked people from his account, it means they could no longer reply to him, and they could no longer participate in the discussion."

Also

Meanwhile, the American Civil Liberties Union, which had been critical of Trump's rhetoric on social media, sounded the alarm after he was banned by Twitter, saying that while "we understand the desire to permanently" suspend him, "the unchecked power" companies like Facebook and Twitter have "should concern everyone."

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-twitter … d=75150689

Seems I'm in good company, Macron, Merkel, the ACLU, the US supreme court.

Thats a separate issue.

Dilbert_X wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

What exactly is your argument then, dilbs? Can you boil down the last couple of pages?

₁Its problematic that private corporations own and control public and political discourse and cancel whoever they want.

It seems like yesterday Trump was taken to court and told he couldn't ban people from his twitter feed.

The president lost a legal battle when the Supreme Court ruled in July 2019 that it was unconstitutional for him to block critics on social media.

"The Court recognized that when a public official uses a social media account to host speech … it functions as a kind of public forum," Fallow, one of the lead attorneys in the case challenging Trump, said.

"When he blocked people from his account, it means they could no longer reply to him, and they could no longer participate in the discussion."

₂Also

Meanwhile, the American Civil Liberties Union, which had been critical of Trump's rhetoric on social media, sounded the alarm after he was banned by Twitter, saying that while "we understand the desire to permanently" suspend him, "the unchecked power" companies like Facebook and Twitter have "should concern everyone."

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-twitter … d=75150689

Seems I'm in good company, Macron, Merkel, the ACLU, the US supreme court.

This doesn't really explain yourself much.

₁Sites like Twitter are among the forefront at the pleasure of their users. No users, no platform. You don't have to participate. You're not assigned a Twitter username at birth, and afaik not currently forced to use it over the course of schooling. Zero people forced Trump to rape that medium. He's just a cheap bastard and it was free publicity. Twitter does not control the constitution. Twitter is not making rules about the constitution. They didn't even cancel the guy. They banned him, and now he'll have to get off his hamburger-scarfing, cheeto-looking ass and find a new way to lie to the world.

The profile of a sitting president obviously has a different weight than that of an average joe. The Supreme Court isn't going to make a ruling on whether or not Earl at the local plumber can block one of his eight followers. Being banned from Twitter outright is a separate issue from whether or not a user can ban/block people.

Trump has resources at his disposal. He has a website. He could have it redesigned so that his flock can register there for hourly updates from the john.

₂The ACLU etc. are probably in the wrong here. If Twitter can't ban Trump, then why should they be able to ban anyone? The next time a mass shooter posts a suicide note on social media, nope sorry: can't take it down. That would be a violation of Free Speech. Trump's free speech is not curbed. It's just a venue that will no longer accept him. Thinking that the first amendment or whatever is under attack here I think just reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the internet.

I can guess what you're probably thinking though, that if the government "lets" Twitter ban Trump, it should "let" a bakery refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. Again, two separate issues to consider if you apply Brain Cell One.

Also, the ACLU? You're in good company with? Let's see how that works out when you email them your racist rants.

uziq wrote:

the european powers are right: it’s troubling that private companies are having to step in and prevent a president from inciting and killing his own people. but that’s america for you. the private sector will fix everything: until you don’t like the results, apparently.

Thats not what happened at all, making things up doesn't make for a better argument.

Dilbert_X wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Twitter is a tool. Going back to stuff like train cars and carrier pigeons for a moment: if the soap box company reclaims their box, a politician can still give a speech. Find another box.

Twitter, etc., should not be nationalized. And the government setting up its own service to compete would be a whole different can of worms to open.

The supreme court has already determined that you're wrong, bad luck.

I'm not going to dwell on it but your timing on this is really sus. Three pages of objections to twitter finally enforcing its (perfectly reasonable) glorification of violence ban policy. How much did you even think about twitter on a daily basis before the donald was ejected?

Big tech and social media are influential, yes. The power given to them by people (esp. a sitting president using their personal social media account in an official capacity - a mistake that should never be repeated) should probably be checked. But a social media platform should be able to make its own decisions to the extent that a publisher can decide to reject someone's terrible book (without curbing their "first amendment rights" I might add).

First Amendment protections against government censorship do not apply if Twitter “decides it is not going to participate in disseminating someone else’s message,” said Jeremy Mishkin, a lawyer with Montgomery McCracken in Philadelphia who practices First Amendment law. A newspaper, for instance, is not required to publish a politician’s news release, Mishkin said.

Whether or not Trump can ban/block followers/users from his posts is a separate issue from whether or not twitter can ban a user. I might add that if Trump gets back into it after the end of his presidency, he'll probably be able to block other users once more.

Back in August:

The case grew out of a challenge brought by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, which sued on behalf of seven individuals blocked by Mr. Trump after criticizing his policies.

Jameel Jaffer, the Knight Institute's executive director, said the justices should decline to take up Mr. Trump's appeal.

"This case stands for a principle that is fundamental to our democracy and basically synonymous with the First Amendment: government officials can't exclude people from public forums simply because they disagree with their political views," Jaffer said in a statement.

The administration argued in its appeal that the Supreme Court, not lower courts, "should decide where to draw the line between the President's personal decisions and official conduct."

The pace of the case was slowed by the coronavirus pandemic, as well as by Mr. Trump's decision to ask the full 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to review the ruling by a three-judge panel. The court refused to do so by a 7-2 vote in March. Two Trump appointees, Judges Michael H. Park and Richard J. Sullivan, were the only members of the court to side with the president.

The president should not use their personal social media account in any kind of official capacity (let alone issuing allcaps threats against sovereign nations), nor ask the supreme court to get involved in their private dispute.

The Supreme Court is an important institution, to be sure, but they are not the word of god. Do you have any idea how often the US changes rules on stuff? "Bad luck," super mature take, as expected from someone who wept at Captain Marvel.

Anyway, I can see Trump getting back into it after the end of his presidency with the regained ability to once again block other users.

Not one-sided at all. In tech support terms, two different tickets each in separate categories. Anyway,

(esp. a sitting president using their personal social media account in an official capacity - a mistake that should never be repeated)

Also clarification, my mom told me that they'd turned off the TV for their cat because it was making a pest of itself that day. Literally grounded from TV like a child acting up. I thought the story was funny.

If I'm stopping by I might drop off a cat toy or some treats. I'm not buying an ipad for a cat lol.

The europeon powers are griping about Trump being banned by twitter, try to keep up.