Twitter Trump account closure and Freedom of expression

Politics and Social Issues
1

The twitter account of Trump is closed.

I will not write to discuss if it was justified or not given the use Trump was doing of it. What interests me here is the matter of freedom of expression and censure and the fact that this closure was decided by a man and not by a judge. In fact my thoughts are very hesitating and could change, according what you say. I am not defending Trump, who I hate, and i am trying to think beyond his case !!

I feel that only tweets which are un lawfull could be censored and that these onres should be suppressed by the company, very fast. If the author disagrees he should have a recourse to a court.

But beyond that, I think that it is a denial of service, which should be submitted to a judge before hand.

The social network has become one of the main information channel and needs special rules.

What happened to Trump could happen to any one.

Facebook has a tendency to suppress messages or accounts along very strange and partisan norms which make me afraid.

2

Trump wanted the repeal of “Section 230” which protects internet companies from the content posted by others.

Ironic.

Trump certainly has other avenues for his freedom of expression. It is individual companies that are shutting him down, and specifically because of his previous content. Not because he is orange, or has bad hair, or his worship of dictators.

 

 

3

I don’t think a judge would take the case. Who is harmed here? A guy who has a team of people who are assigned to record and broadcast his every word. He still makes the “turn the cameras around” statement, even at his “Stop the Steal” rally. Those cameras he is pointing at are paid for by taxpayers and assigned to point only at him. He pretends like they aren’t “showing the crowd”, but there are dozens of other cameras doing just that. It’s one of his many acts in his farce.

4

And it’s unfortunate, as a former president, he will have protection for the rest of his life.

And I mean that only from a cost/resources POV

5

Not if he gets impeached. It’ll remove all benefits and secret service protection and he won’t be able to pardon himself for ANY of the crimes he as committed as president and private citizen. This is why he is so desperate. He knows what’s waiting for him after Jan 20, 12 noon.

He will become a “persona non grata”

6
Not if he gets impeached. It’ll remove all benefits and secret service protection and he won’t be able to pardon himself for ANY of the crimes he as committed as president and private citizen. This is why he is so desperate. He knows what’s waiting for him after Jan 20, 12 noon.

He will become a “persona non grata”


So are you saying Bill Clinton doesn’t have SS protection?

 

7

Well, nothing here says he Wasn’t protected:

https://www.bnd.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/answer-man/article101538627.html

On Aug. 25, Dwight Eisenhower signed the bill that not only gave presidents and their spouses lifetime Secret Service protections, but also provided certain benefits

It was shortened for a time, but extended back (info in article)

 

8
So are you saying Bill Clinton doesn’t have SS protection?
Was Bill Clinton impeached and found guilty? You have to be found guilty to be removed from office and become persona non grata.

Impeachment is not in itself a verdict, it is a charge and you have to be found guilty of the charge to be removed from office. That’s how Trump got off the first time. McConnell refused to have the Senate even consider evidence and just declared “insufficient evidence”, which got Trump off the hook.

 

9

Keep this in mind- Facebook and Twitter are not the property of the people. I’ll say it again, Facebook and Twitter are NOT the property of the people. Facebook and all the other stuff related to FB (messenger for example) are the property of Zuckerberg. He owns it and he’s become rich off it. He has employees, some of whom monitor the site and give people warnings for being out of line in their posts or even ban people. Twitter is owned by someone else. It’s no different than going to Hellmart or Amazon. Those large companies do not belong to the people either and they can refuse service or even kick people out of their stores if they want, even the president of the United States, if they want. A DNS is not needed by a judge before the company denies a person. They have the right to refuse service, if they so chose. Facebook can shut up anyone they want. They are not bound by the First Amendment because it is their property and not that of the U.S. and the people. If Zuckerberg wants to shut down the whole site tomorrow, taking everyone’s voice away, he can do that and there is nothing anyone can do about it, under law. If he declares bankruptcy and cannot pay the bill for the domain and webspace, then it gets shut down, just like that and just like any other country. Even KMart lost all its stores and properties after so many bankruptcies and there wasn’t anything customers could do about it. So basically, your voice on Facebook and Twitter is only limited by the owner’s rules, because you are on their property that they bought for the year or for 5 or 10 years (though I don’t think anyone buys webspace for 10 years. Even the servers he has, could be his or another companies (I assume it’s the owners of Twitter and FB), but those servers cost money in which to allow people around the world to use the FB and Twitter sites. It’s not just the U.S. that uses these various platform, but people from around the world. Zuckerberg has a FB for the population of China that is for China only and those citizens are not privy to any area of FB outside of China FB. So in that respect, Zuckerberg is the guest and he has to go by Communist rules. Other than that, Zuckerberg owns FB and whoever owns Twitter and there’s nothing you can do about what they decide anymore than you can do anything about what Walmart and Amazon decides concerning how they run their business. If they want to ban the dotard for life, oh well and who cares. The dotard asked to be banned by inciting violence on the respective properties and he got what he asked for.

While Googly and Apple banned that the one platform from their Googly play store and Apple Store, there’s talk that the dotard could end up creating his own platform. That takes time, maybe even a few years, in which case the dotard could be dead before that happens. He is well into his 70s and had COVID bad enough to be hospitalized, so his health is even worse than it was before, despite the better care than us commoners would get if we fell that ill, in part because he went AMA (against medical advice).

What happened to Trump could happen to any one.

Yes it can and no judge say differently because basically, the site is not people’s property, but the owners of FB and Twit. This was true from the day one when they were first created and the first post was made. FB nor Twit is yours or mine or Lausten’s or anyone else on CFI and BTW, CFI Forums is not the people’s either. CFI owns it because they pay for webspace, domain, etc etc etc. They can shut it down tonight if they want (I hope they don’t want to) or they can overrule us mods and even decide they don’t want the mods they have (I hope they don’t do that either). It’s not ours posting on this forum.

Facebook has a tendency to suppress messages or accounts along very strange and partisan norms which make me afraid.

There’s nothing to be afraid of on FB or Twit, as long as you mind your Ps and Qs and especially if you have them on hand while you’re posting. Being tipsy and typing wildly while online isn’t a very good idea on any platform. Just keep in mind that you can say almost anything you want as long you don’t incite violence or make threats or post porn or whatever violated common sense. Just have common sense in what you post and you will be OK.

Not if he gets impeached. It’ll remove all benefits and secret service protection and he won’t be able to pardon himself for ANY of the crimes he as committed as president and private citizen. This is why he is so desperate. He knows what’s waiting for him after Jan 20, 12 noon.

He will become a “persona non grata”

Good. That’s what a lot of people, except the dumpster people (dotard’s minions) in the U.S. are wanting now.

10

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IS NOT LIMITLESS.

When your expression consists of nothing but malicious lies, expressly intended to do harm to other,

OTHER HAVE THE RIGTH TO SAY: NO ENOUGH!

 

Of course, those trapped within the rapture of cultism are oblivious to fair play, civility, respect for others, the needs of other. It’s all about ME, ME, ME.

11

Impeaching him will also cut him out of the national security briefings ex-presidents get. That would be a good thing, considering what a Putin puppet the trump is and how much he owes Putin.

12

Not to split hairs (ok, maybe) But yes Impeachment AND removal from office will cut benefits. Just Impeachment doesn’t. And it’s already been said that they probably won’t have time to actually remove him from office through the Impeachment, and Trial process.

I suppose that would also be true if they had the trial after Jan 20. But do they really want to waste more time on him after he’s out of office, or work on repairing the damage he’s done?

13
The twitter account of Trump is closed.

I will not write to discuss if it was justified or not given the use Trump was doing of it. What interests me here is the matter of freedom of expression and censure and the fact that this closure was decided by a man and not by a judge. In fact my thoughts are very hesitating and could change, according what you say. I am not defending Trump, who I hate, and i am trying to think beyond his case !!

I feel that only tweets which are un lawfull could be censored and that these onres should be suppressed by the company, very fast. If the author disagrees he should have a recourse to a court.

But beyond that, I think that it is a denial of service, which should be submitted to a judge before hand.

The social network has become one of the main information channel and needs special rules.

What happened to Trump could happen to any one.

Facebook has a tendency to suppress messages or accounts along very strange and partisan norms which make me afraid.


Social Media are private companies and can censor anybody for whatever reason they want. Twitter especially censors users for ideological reasons all the time. It’s been going on for years. The main thing to highlight is these companies claim to be for open debate and all that, but they obviously aren’t. Calling out that hypocrisy is the only weapon we have against them.

On that note, one of Donald Trump’s biggest mistakes was not turning social media (and all of big tech) into public utilities – which would break their enormous power.

14
On that note, one of Donald Trump’s biggest mistakes was not turning social media (and all of big tech) into public utilities — which would break their enormous power.
Umm... isn't that a further step towards the Evil SOCIALISM!! ?? (Or Communism, or one of those -isms that they like to throw around to scare people)

And he was unable to strong arm congress into repealing Section 230 - which, with out the protections, could be used as a defense for kicking trump off of platforms.

He doesn’t seem to think more than 2 or 3 steps ahead.

 

15

@mriana is spot on, according to my experience.

I once once kicked someone out if my place or business for making racist statements and told them not to come back. They said I’d be hearing from their lawyer because I was stepping on their right to freedom of speech.

Their lawyer phoned me a week later to enure I was the owner of a private business, said his client would likely then not be pursuing the stated charge, and that was that.

I’m with Twitter. I don’t care if you’re the President or the janitor of the building; say some thoughtless, purposely inciting statements like POTUS has and you can hit the bricks.

16

Government regulated big tech would be no loss. Especially as they are now controlling most if not all of public discourse (including discourse government itself takes part in).

17

@bluecord35 Very good example as to how a business owner can throw people out of their establishment without any legal repercussions. I’m with Twitter too. They own it, therefore if they don’t want someone there, including the president of the U.S., because they are inciting violence, they do not have to have that person there. The shouldn’t be forced to keep that violence inciting person on their internet property.

18
Government regulated big tech would be no loss.
 

Are you saying let the Gov silence QAnon and the likes of trump?

Or are you saying Gov should force Twit, FB etc to allow the continued call for violence?

 

Hasn’t the mantra always been “Keep Gov’t Out of it! But if the companies can’t control themselves, then Regulations will” ?

It looks like the companies are taking responsibility

19

Taking responsibility.

What a concept.

 

20
Are you saying let the Gov silence QAnon and the likes of trump?

Or are you saying Gov should force Twit, FB etc to allow the continued call for violence?

 

Hasn’t the mantra always been “Keep Gov’t Out of it! But if the companies can’t control themselves, then Regulations will” ?

It looks like the companies are taking responsibility


Government has to allow free speech. Private companies do not.

Government has censored speech before, of course, but you can at least challenge them legally. Private companies can legally make their own rules about speech.