International Angela Merkel criticizes Trump twitter ban

[Rocco Siffredi]

I forgot which admin posted this quote earlier but it certainly applies. especially for those applauding this.

edit: due to Falsedawn, Trotsky, Fox by sea's comments below)

She literally said that the US should create laws restricting online speech.

She cannot simultaneously be right and also be following the Constitution of the United States.

...her position is more "anti-First Amendment" than the current American position. She's saying that the government should adopt more stringent laws prohibiting what Trump has done rather than leaving it up to the discretion of private companies.

LOL, Trotsky still spitting mad bullshit with no proof.

1st amendment is not and never was say whatever the fuck you want.

From wiki
Exceptions to free speech in the United States refers to categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment. According to the Supreme Court of the United States, the U.S. Constitution protects free speech while allowing for limitations on certain categories of speech.[1]

Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial speech such as advertising.

Now it seems that Ms Fuhrer is suggesting something THAT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT!
"But Ms Merkel said through her spokesman that the US government should follow Germany’s lead in adopting laws that restrict online incitement"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

^ see that word INCITEMENT, so if Trump was telling his followers to perform a coup the law should punish him as this is not protected by the 1st Ammendment!!!

So whether or not Merkel is all right. I think it is a better position for everyone to have laws against unprotected speech on Social Media and nothing else should be censored. But the law should be used against illegal speech.

Here's an NYT article that goes over the general anti-worker orthodoxy of the GOP which includes at-will employment. I am not insulting the forum or whatever, I'm pointing out that your minority opinion on the right is not as representative of the right as a whole when compared to the hundreds of lawmakers, donors, and think tank staff who actually create, fund, and implement the policy objectives of the right wing establishment.

yet record unemployment for blacks and latinos under trump right up until the lockdown...

 

[Falsedawn]

LOL, Trotsky still spitting mad bullshit with no proof.

1st amendment is not and never was say whatever the fuck you want.

From wiki
Exceptions to free speech in the United States refers to categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment. According to the Supreme Court of the United States, the U.S. Constitution protects free speech while allowing for limitations on certain categories of speech.[1]

Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial speech such as advertising.

Now it seems that Ms Fuhrer is suggesting something THAT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT!
"But Ms Merkel said through her spokesman that the US government should follow Germany’s lead in adopting laws that restrict online incitement"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

^ see that word INCITEMENT, so if Trump was telling his followers to perform a coup the law should punish him as this is not protected by the 1st Ammendment!!!

So whether or not Merkel is all right. I think it is a better position for everyone to have laws against unprotected speech on Social Media and nothing else should be censored. But the law should be used against illegal speech.

Why did you quote me?

 

[Rocco Siffredi]

Why did you quote me?

because you were wrong. I was showing how you and trot were both fucking wrong.

You said "She literally said that the US should create laws restricting online speech. She cannot simultaneously be right and also be following the Constitution of the United States."
^ I was showing that there is speech that is illegal and not protected by the first amendment. You smart enough to understand why you were wrong yet???

It is saying everything permitted by the 1st amm should be allowed. Anything not protected should be punishable by law.

So you see you can restrict speech online and you can still not violate 1st amm. Cool.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Same argument the segregationists used. "Its my restaurant and I refuse to serve darkies!" Then we realized that actually made for a pretty shitty society and was unethical, so we changed the rules on who private companies could and couldn't exclude. Its time to do the same for political affiliation. If we want healing and unity, we have to start with acceptance and tolerance. This country will never heal if you we are banning everyone who thinks differently than we do.

He was banned for inciting violence not for being a Republican. It's not like refusing service to someone who is black but someone coming in without shoes or a shirt or someone harassing your other patrons.

 

[Falsedawn]

because you were wrong. I was showing how you and trot were both fucking wrong.

You said "She literally said that the US should create laws restricting online speech. She cannot simultaneously be right and also be following the Constitution of the United States."
^ I was showing that there is speech that is illegal and not protected by the first amendment. You smart enough to understand why you were wrong yet???

It is saying everything permitted by the 1st amm should be allowed. Anything not protected should be punishable by law.

So you see you can restrict speech online and you can still not violate 1st amm. Cool.

Hello stupid, sure you read my posts in the thread?

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.

Be sure you quote me when you apologize for being a fuckin idiot.

 

[DivineMind]

Can someone point me to the tweet, or an archive of it, where Trump told his followers to break into the Capitol building ?

I'd like to see for myself whether Trump actually incited people to break the law, or whether he told them to simply protest around the capitol building or similar.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

I think someone mentioned here Trump still has a government account for Twitter he could use? Is that correct?

The account exists for government messages but I don't believe Trump himself is allowed to tweet from it. Trump the person has been banned.

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

Here's an NYT article that goes over the general anti-worker orthodoxy of the GOP which includes at-will employment. I am not insulting the forum or whatever, I'm pointing out that your minority opinion on the right is not as representative of the right as a whole when compared to the hundreds of lawmakers, donors, and think tank staff who actually create, fund, and implement the policy objectives of the right wing establishment.

I've honestly never heard of a pro union Republican with exception of support for the FOP

 

[Rocco Siffredi]

Hello stupid, sure you read my posts in the thread?



Be sure you quote me when you apologize for being a fuckin idiot.

I quoted you. You were wrong. But you cry about me being idiot. But if you came to the realization at some point in life that I was right then good for you.

You just didn't know what you were talking about on first page but finally learned at some point. Awesome!

 

[Falsedawn]

I quoted you. You were wrong. But you cry about me being idiot. But if you came to the realization at some point in life that I was right then good for you.

You just didn't know what you were talking about on first page but finally learned at some point. Awesome!

I literally quoted a post I made from the first page you dumbshit lmfaoooooooooooo

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

Here's an NYT article that goes over the general anti-worker orthodoxy of the GOP which includes at-will employment. I am not insulting the forum or whatever, I'm pointing out that your minority opinion on the right is not as representative of the right as a whole when compared to the hundreds of lawmakers, donors, and think tank staff who actually create, fund, and implement the policy objectives of the right wing establishment.

it's just a personal pet peeve of mine...

"meanwhile, here you guys are..posting on a karate forum..."

 

[MicroBrew]

Can someone point me to the tweet, or an archive of it, where Trump told his followers to break into the Capitol building ?

I'd like to see for myself whether Trump actually incited people to break the law, or whether he told them to simply protest around the capitol building or similar.

Trump isn't that stupid. Instead he tip toes around, puts enough dots for one to connect the dots and draw a line but leaves a dot or 2 so that it isn't too blatant.

Republican Senator Ben Sasse said that Trump was enjoying watching his supporters storm the Capitol building.

 

[cooks1]

OK- One last time for all the mouth breathers in here.......Twitter bouncing Trump has nothing....absolutely nothing....to do with free speech. Trump can still say whatever he wants. The right to tweet is not guaranteed in the constitution.

Twitter and Facebook definitely need to be held to the same legal standards as any newspaper though. The reach of a single facebook post or tweet can reach orders of magnitude more people than even the largest newspapers or TV networks.

 

[wonderbread]

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.

I'm guessing FB and Twitter have TODs.

 

[Islam Imamate]

it's just a personal pet peeve of mine...

"meanwhile, here you guys are..posting on a karate forum..."

Its a funny phrase and it got my point across.

So I guess you now know that the GOP vigorously supports at-will employment and other anti-worker measures. So basically right wing shitposters on Twitter need to have a judicial review and access to appeals while workers can get fucked.

 

[ShinkanPo]

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.

Yes Yesh! Agreed

If ever just post nudes if you no longer feel its good to post

 

[ShinkanPo]

could you be a little more specific?

and can we quit this " derp derp, posting on Karate forum...." as if it's some sort of insult?

first off, it's an MMA forum.

and like I said 500 times before, this forum is so much better than other forums I've been too.

@Khabib Khanate Are Karete forums even a thing before?

 

[Fox by the Sea]

@Khabib Khanate Are Karete forums even a thing before?

we're on a burundian basket weaving forum, mate
dont know what you're on about with this "karate" nonsense

 

[Fluffernutter]

What's the vegas odds of Trump getting his Twitter back on January 21?

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

What's the vegas odds of Trump getting his Twitter back on January 21?

Not likely imo.

I think they were waiting until Jan 21 to ban him but he pushed the envelop too far even for Jack so they had to cut the chord early.