International Angela Merkel criticizes Trump twitter ban

[Don the grifter]

I think anyone with a shred of honesty and that isn't blinded by hatred for Trump is perfectly aware that a tremendous amount of speech coming from Left leaning figures (Michelle Obama, Harris, Presley, Waters, Pelosi, Cuomo, you name it) over the past year could absolutely be counted as incitement by the same standard, and actually should be. Because of this, the recognize that while this whole "get the corporations to do our dirty work" thing is a fun toy to play with for now, it will come back and bite them in the ass as soon as the corporate winds change. The ones who see past one election cycle are remembering the old adage "live by the sword, die by the sword" and trying to dull the blade a bit.

 

[hedidhisownstunts]

What is so difficult to understand about a private company, open to the public, banning or restricting people’s access based on their content violating its rules? Wearing my double yellow proudly in support of bans and restrictions at the discretion of sherdog. If I had a problem with the rules and the site itself, I wouldn’t post here. That’s the deal. It’s really no different.

 

[Milton_Gracie]

when Whitehouse.gov is pulled off the internets, or Trump is banned from having press conferences, then I’ll start to take this pseudo-Orwellian shit seriously.

Until then, this is just the highest example of the Sherdog terms of service that condemns violence or genocide

 

[Seano]

Wtf I love Angela Merkel now

You don't have to love her because what she said is common sense and something we really all should agree on.

 

[ultramanhyata]

"Angela Merkel, German chancellor, has sharply criticised Twitter’s decision to ban US president Donald Trump, calling it a “problematic” breach of the “fundamental right to free speech”.

Would have expected a German to be smart enough to make the basic distinction between restriction of speech by government and restriction of speech by a private company.

I doubt Merkel would say that the firing of Joe for having a whiteboard hanging on his cubicle wall that read "The assistant general manager is an incompetent nepotism hire," was a problematic restriction of Joe's right to free speech.

 

[Teppodama]

People in power or looking to be in power don't like it when someone else can censor them. They will always prefer that power reside in their hands or the hands of those they control. Governments are in the business of acquiring and maintaining power, not distributing it among the citizenry. The bigger the government, the more power they desire and require.

 

[Losfer Words]

Im confused, I usually dont give a shit about stuff like this but....ive never had a twitter account so i cant not give any less of shit.

 

[Rand M Arthur]

No, she is wrong. Twitter is a private company who has clearly taken an editorial stance in recent years; they are no longer just a platform.

Governments around the world should treat them as such. If Marie Claire wants to blacklist a certain advertiser it can, but equally, it is held responsible for the contents of its articles. If Trump is inciting rioting, Twitter is held responsible for broadcasting that, but it also works when Kamala Harris is pushing anti-vax propaganda.

 

[ultramanhyata]

when Whitehouse.gov is pulled off the internets, or Trump is banned from having press conferences, then I’ll start to take this pseudo-Orwellian shit seriously.

Kind of ironic in retrospect that Trump, himself, was the one who for a time chose to effectively "ban" official White House press briefings.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

I didn't see that.

But it basically boils down to your constitutional priorities. To be clear, the current setup (where it's left to Twitter's discretion) is the conservative constitutional approach: one that narrowly opposes government intervention and supports the speech rights of the corporation in choosing what messages go through their channel and affect their brand. The liberal/left-wing constitutional approach, at least per the US Supreme Court, would be to relegate the speech interests of corporations since they are, legally speaking, only an extension or reflection of that corporation's pure market interests.

And the government HAS made a law. That's what Section 230 is. And in line with the constitution, it proscribes no direct guidelines for speech as that would transgress the 1st Amendment.

You cannot say "the government should make speech guidelines" and also have the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. Because what people are being banned for may not be illegal, and therefore not rise to a level that it is in the public interest for the government to restrict speech.

You're doing the exact opposite of what you think you are. Now, it's a transaction between two individuals. The person has a right to say things, and the platform has a right not to host it. You're attempting to inject the government to restrict free speech rights of platforms, therefore restricting speech further than if you had simply not bothered.

i think her understanding of the situation is that enforcement of rules for banning are without a government mandate. in germany, sure, they fine or even put you in prison for doing the hitler salute, but it's because there exists a law for it. there is a process that goes through the judicial, there are appeals, there is an entire mechanism, framework. in twitter's case, the banning of trump came somewhat out of a black box, with what appears no real process about it and no appeal possibility. bang and you're gone.

granted, i am not an expert on section 230, but i think given the very high profile, twitter should have done a better job communicating. because it comes in a time the world is already weary and suspicious of big tech's reach and some would say over=reach. having gone through the shitshow called communism, a leader such as Merkel, who grew up in east Berlin, naturally detests censorship done with what appears as no or very slim and vague mandate. that's my opinion of it.

 

[Trotsky]

I think

You don't have to love her because what she said is common sense and something we really all should agree on.

This is hilarious. Once again, you are saying that liberal/left-wing thinking on the issue of free speech is "common sense and something we really all should agree on" and that the Republican/conservative thinking on the issue is corrupt.

Of course, it's all just a matter of you and other Republicans changing your position based on how it affects you. If it was Michael Moore getting suspended from Twitter, you and the Republican Party would abide the ideological line because it's convenient for you. But, since it's affecting your side, you and the Party are bucking the line because it's inconvenient for you.

 

[ultramanhyata]

You don't have to love her because what she said is common sense and something we really all should agree on.

Glad you agree that the power of government should trump the power and decisions of private owners. You've come a long way.

 

[TUFNewb]

Tweets are not fundamental speech and are not covered by the constitution. In America this thing called capitalism regulates the speech of private companies, not the government.. perhaps as a child Mutti spent too much time in East Germany to grasp this concept.

 

[phoenixikki]

Merkel is mad because she wants only governments to be able to censor, not Twitter. Germany is infamous for its draconian censorship laws. MMA was until recently banned from TV there for example.
Essentialy, it's just virtue signaling coming from her part.

 

[ultramanhyata]

there is a process that goes through the judicial, there are appeals, there is an entire mechanism, framework. in twitter's case, the banning of trump came somewhat out of a black box, with what appears no real process about it and no appeal possibility. bang and you're gone.

Ironic that the right-wingers who want to peddle this argument are the same people who feverishly support at-will employment... The "bang and you're gone" lack of guidelines for workers relative to terminations/firings.

 

[Deleted member 547767]

Free speech is the pilar of democrazy, unless the free speech is true then it's hate speech.

And regarding Merkel, we don't trust anything that comes out of your turkey neck. Germany and Europe is in shambles because of your insanity.

Thank you come again.

 

[Falsedawn]

i think her understanding of the situation is that enforcement of rules for banning are without a government mandate. in germany, sure, they fine or even put you in prison for doing the hitler salute, but it's because there exists a law for it. there is a process that goes through the judicial, there are appeals, there is an entire mechanism, framework. in twitter's case, the banning of trump came somewhat out of a black box, with what appears no real process about it and no appeal possibility. bang and you're gone.

granted, i am not an expert on section 230, but i think given the very high profile, twitter should have done a better job communicating. because it comes in a time the world is already weary and suspicious of big tech's reach and some would say over=reach. having gone through the shitshow called communism, a leader such as Merkel, who grew up in east Berlin, naturally detests censorship done with what appears as no or very slim and vague mandate. that's my opinion of it.

The thing is that none of this SHOULD meet the level of a legal inquiry. Why should the government get involved in the speech concerns of two private individuals? Especially when nothing illegal was done? Sure it sounds unfair because a person has little recourse against a faceless corporation, but ultimately it's a discussion about their platform and why they don't believe you should be on it.

To abstract this, imagine if you let someone in your house and they started calling your wife a whore. You would be absolutely within your rights to tell them to fuck off and kick them out. Now imagine that guy calls the cops and tells them that he has free speech rights and you CAN'T kick him out.

That's where we are. How would that play out in your crib? I don't know about you, but that's when you end up at gunpoint on a countdown to get the fuck out my house.

 

[grimballer]

imagine how bad it is when even germans, who don't believe in freedom of speech, tell you you went too far

 

[Robotnickx]

You can expect plenty of world leaders to be kissing Trump's ass very soon

A crime dynasty with Pelosi as the linchpin, talk about backing the wrong horse. Pelosi is absolutely fucked.

 

[Hadron90]

she said the responsibility for those laws should fall to the government of the country, not to unelected mega corporation whose methods are basically a black box. she is not a free speech extremist.

The term "free speech extremist" exists in 2021.