International Angela Merkel criticizes Trump twitter ban

[Islam Imamate]

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

Not sure why you are pointing this out, doesn't really contradict anything I said.

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

 

[cooks1]

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.

Awful analogy. Regardless of race, color, or political leaning, there are still rules. Restaurants can still throw out black (or white) people that take a shit on the fucking table.

 

[Islam Imamate]

OK- One last time for all the mouth breathers in here.......Twitter bouncing Trump has nonthing....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.

I don't entirely agree. Obviously on a legal level sure, Trump has no right to use Twitter.

But I do think its fair to be concerned with the amount of power and influence that big tech companies like Twitter and Facebook and Google have on the public discourse. My problem here is that on the right it seems that some are simply mad that the unrestrained corporate power that their political establishment helped unleash is now hurting them but instead of questioning that approach generally they merely want to narrowly regulate big tech so it can't screw them specifically in this very particular way.

To be fair there are right wing populists who have a generalized anti-corporates messaging but even there often the corporations they name and target are those that are perceived as left wing(traditional media corporations, big tech etc.).

My solution off the top of my head would be for the government to just buy a controlling share of these corporations so they can set the corporates policy for them specifically instead of passing laws that would affect all social media and forums on the internet. But I can imagine there are potential problems there,. For instance, is being banned or otherwise moderated by a corporation that is majority owned by the government a 1st amendment issue? So idk, could be more trouble than its worth.

 

[TheGreatA]

OK- One last time for all the mouth breathers in here.......Twitter bouncing Trump has nonthing....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.

It has to do with free speech in the sense that Twitter has failed to uphold the principle of free speech.

Much like when we say that there's structural racism, and then another type of racism that occurs at the behest of private actors, we may also say that there are infractions against free speech on the part of a government, and then, on the part of private actors. All of it has an impact in the overall scheme. The responsibility to uphold free speech values, does not lie entirely with the government.

Whereas the latter might not be an illegal act, compared to the act of a government suppressing speech, it can certainly be regarded as an immoral act that is not in accord with the values that we attempt to uphold over here in the West.

It's not just even the Don's ban that's the problem, we've seen many examples of them banning people with flimsy reasoning. They seem to be corporate decisions rather than decisions made based on the rules.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Awful analogy. Regardless of race, color, or political leaning, there are still rules. Restaurants can still throw out black people that take a shit on the fucking table.

There is something called disparate impact, at least in labor law. Basically if you have a rule that is on its face neutral but disproportionately affects one protected class it can be considered unlawful. So for instance, there are racial differences in IQ tests in the aggregate so having an IQ test as part of your hiring process would reliably lead to certain races being disproportionately excluded.

You can get around it if your hiring criteria that has a disparate impact can be justified as being concretely related to the job. So for instance a police department got sued for a hiring process that had a disparate impact on female applicants because they required their applicants to be able to jump a six foot fence and this part of the physical exam was the hardest for women. They won because they justified it on the grounds that the county code specified six foot fences so it was reasonable to expect that a cop be able to scale one in pursuit of a suspect. IQ can't be justified in that way because its supposedly a general intelligence test, not one specific to any one job.

That's straying a bit off topic but the point is that just because something on its face seems neutral doesn't mean its not discriminatory in intent and/or impact.

 

[cooks1]

I don't entirely agree. Obviously on a legal level sure, Trump has no right to use Twitter.

But I do think its fair to be concerned with the amount of power and influence that big tech companies like Twitter and Facebook and Google have on the public discourse. My problem here is that on the right it seems that some are simply mad that the unrestrained corporate power that their political establishment helped unleash is now hurting them but instead of questioning that approach generally they merely want to narrowly regulate big tech so it can't screw them specifically in this very particular way.

To be fair there are right wing populists who have a generalized anti-corporates messaging but even there often the corporations they name and target are those that are perceived as left wing(traditional media corporations, big tech etc.).

My solution off the top of my head would be for the government to just buy a controlling share of these corporations so they can set the corporates policy for them specifically instead of passing laws that would affect all social media and forums on the internet. But I can imagine there are potential problems there,. For instance, is being banned or otherwise moderated by a corporation that is majority owned by the government a 1st amendment issue? So idk, could be more trouble than its worth.

Never said it was not fair to be concerned. Just that it was not a 1A issue.

Regarding what should be done- I think it's simple. Just repeal section 230. Social media companies would be financially liable for the libel, slander, and incitement they allow on their platforms. Therefore they will set up precautions and safeguards. Just like any TV station or newspaper.

People simply have not fully digested the fact that social media is the ONLY media form where the platform/provider itself is fully protected from slander libel, incitement, etc.

 

[DivineMind]

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.

I hear everyone saying he incited violence, so I'd like to see the tweet, video, or speech where he incited the violence.

Are you saying it doesn't exist because he did not directly tell them to break the law ?

 

[MicroBrew]

I hear everyone saying he incited violence, so I'd like to see the tweet, video, or speech where he incited the violence.

Are you saying it doesn't exist because he did not directly tell them to break the law ?

The protest march was touted and called upon by Trump weeks in advance. He kept telling his base the election was stolen. He said Jan 6th was going to be wild. He said he was going to march with them to the Capitol Building. His surrogates (DiGenova, Bannon, Lin Wood) have called for executions, beheading and assassinations. Ben Sasse said Trump was happy to see the protesters storm the Capitol and couldn't understand why the others around him weren't happy. He was slow to condemn and when he it heaped praise on the supporters as being very special people and patriots.

 

[DivineMind]

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.

You're taking an exceptionally narrow view of what free speech is, thinking it's only a legal right, and omitting its status as a classical liberal value. Free speech is a value, and by suspending Trump for something which amounts to political speech, they are acting against free speech, the value.

 

[DavidsGhost]

I normally side with free speech, but trump is a special case. Nothing good was coming out of his twitter. It was drivel and spam. Who cares.

 

[DivineMind]

The protest march was touted and called upon by Trump weeks in advance. He kept telling his base the election was stolen. He said Jan 6th was going to be wild. He said he was going to march with them to the Capitol Building. His surrogates (DiGenova, Bannon, Lin Wood) have called for executions, beheading and assassinations. Ben Sasse said Trump was happy to see the protesters storm the Capitol and couldn't understand why the others around him weren't happy. He was slow to condemn and when he it heaped praise on the supporters as being very special people and patriots.

Um, that's not what I asked.

In any case, I got my answer (also with a little help from Google). Trump did not break the law by calling for a protest. Especially because, among other things, the legal precedent around incitement often protects the speaker, and it's very hard to prove something is not just political speech and instead incitement.

Various facts may still make Trump and his team look bad (as you showed), but they did nothing illegal. In fact, prosecutors are now indicating they will not go after any speakers that day.

 

[King in the North]

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

Hey what’s going on with that audit?

 

[chardog]

She speaks about Free Speech while her country has outlawed support for Nazis, Holocaust denial and has Hate speech laws.

Does Merkel only want Free Speech for the elite? Twitter is a private business, whereas in Germany you can be arrested by the government for certain views. The US government is not arresting Trump or anyone else.

Germany has convicted a man for hate speech and assault after giving a Nazi salute at a far-right rally in the country's east.
https://www.newsweek.com/nazi-saluting-protester-convicted-germany-after-far-right-rally-1120073

she's afraid of losing power to a company as powerful as twitter. Freedom of speech is an afterthought

 

[cooks1]

There is something called disparate impact, at least in labor law. Basically if you have a rule that is on its face neutral but disproportionately affects one protected class it can be considered unlawful. So for instance, there are racial differences in IQ tests in the aggregate so having an IQ test as part of your hiring process would reliably lead to certain races being disproportionately excluded.

You can get around it if your hiring criteria that has a disparate impact can be justified as being concretely related to the job. So for instance a police department got sued for a hiring process that had a disparate impact on female applicants because they required their applicants to be able to jump a six foot fence and this part of the physical exam was the hardest for women. They won because they justified it on the grounds that the county code specified six foot fences so it was reasonable to expect that a cop be able to scale one in pursuit of a suspect. IQ can't be justified in that way because its supposedly a general intelligence test, not one specific to any one job.

That's straying a bit off topic but the point is that just because something on its face seems neutral doesn't mean its not discriminatory in intent and/or impact.

If you are making the assertion that Twitter for example disproportionately applies it's rules to the detriment of conservatives, that is something I am open to considering. But you would need to show objective, not subjective proof to support that assertion. Show me a liberal politician that has lied, libeled, slandered, threatened, and incited with the severity and frequency that Donald Trump has, yet still tweets with impunity.

My personal belief is that social media does not have a political bias, which would be unhealthy. I do believe they have a bias against inflammatory or provocative content that generates strong emotions. Which I think is both incredibly healthy and necessary.

I do not spend an immense amount of time on social media. So I am open to evidence of a differing viewpoint. But from the time I do spend, my analysis this that there is probably more liberal content than conservative on social media. But that the conservative content is in general more provocative and inflammatory. If that were the case, you would see more curbing of conservative content than liberal, even though there was more liberal content overall. This would create the false perception of an undesirable conservative bias, when what you have in reality is a necessary inflammatory content bias.

 

[Otto!]

Free speech is important, and should not be regulated by govt.

 

[BForrester]

Remind me, which Constitutional Amendment affords one the right to post on Twitter or Facebook?

 

[oldshadow]

Part right and wrong.

It is already up to the government as there are laws against the threatened use of violence.

Plenty of them.

So she is right about it but only using the laws that are in place right now.

 

[oldshadow]

Remind me, which Constitutional Amendment affords one the right to post on Twitter or Facebook?

Say anti trust should do it. It would be interesting in court.

 

[giusti825]

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.

Incitement to violence is not protected by the first amendment.

 

[BForrester]

Say anti trust should do it. It would be interesting in court.

I agree that Facebook and Google should get the Standard Oil treatment.