the issue is Section 230 of the Communications act
https://www.businessinsider.com/what...plained-2020-5
(47 U.S.C. § 230)
No provider or user of an interactive computer service... shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected."
This specific text protects social-media sites against claims from people who say the First Amendment gives them the power to post whatever they'd like, as long as it's not illegal, without it being taken down.
That is why Trump had billy barr out there yesterday in his photo op doing what he does best, muddling legalities to make it appear Trump is correct
The only options Trump has is to have Congress pass legislation, or, take it to Court, either choice not reaching conclusion till way after the November election. In the meantime, it doesn’t appear Dorsey is intimidated by Trump’s threats, so the only real loser here is Trump
ThatOwlWoman (05-29-2020)
The only "unfair" I've seen from them is allowing the Agitator-in-Chief to get away with his lies, misinformation, bullshit, hate, manure-spreading, racism, bigotry, threats, bullying, taunting, and nastiness for years. Many average citizens have been temporarily or permanently booted from using their privately-owned site for far less. Ditto with Facebook.
In America no one is special and receives more privileges than others. Unless of course they are wealthy, have lots of lawyers, are white, male, and conservative.
"Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals." -- Mark Twain
When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist
so i guess you cant discriminate between inciting to violence etc, and political speech
when is the last time you've seen Twitter attach a 'fact correction' to other politicians? or 2? 1 day after the other?In America no one is special and receives more privileges than others.
You missed the context of my remark. If police or national guardsmen were given the kind of orders that Stone was recommending, Trump's tweet would definitely be influential.
It was an incredibly irresponsible message for a national leader to give. If you can't at least acknowledge that, you're really incapable of any sort of critical analysis of Trump.
First we got the accented THUGS, how come he didn’t phrase it as “good people on both sides” like he did Charlottesville, and secondly, “the shooting starts,” certainly not looking for peaceful solutions there
Get real, Trump don’t give a rat’s ass about Minneapolis nor George Floyd, he is just pimping the events to attack twitter cause he is pissed his lies and fabrications are being questioned and there isn’t a damn thing he can do about it
Bookmarks