Trump says Twitter is "stifling free speech" after it labels his tweets with fact-check...

candle_86

Posts: 514   +382
Which covers a shocking portion of the population. And doesn't invalidate my previous point that courts have consistently ruled that any form of identification as a form of voting requirement that is tied to the persons ability to pay is unconstitutional.

EDIT

Also, since when have conservatives been the ones calling for universal ID checks? Barely a decade ago you guys would have blown a gasket if someone suggested as much.
Texas still has their ID law on the books, it survived the courts, want to vote show an ID. And honestly anything that limits the ability of non citizens to vote is necessary, if California doesn't require proof of citizenship it means the guy that just moved here from Guatemala with a visa can now vote for the president, which is illegal, but under no id voting, there is no way to enforce this nor is it possible to catch it. Maybe the better method would be to mail a paper card to every citizen they must bring to the voting place and surrender the card when they go to vote, and to prevent forgery include a holograph. If you loose it, to bad you don't get to vote that year.


no I've meet none that say you shouldn't need an ID to buy a gun, I agree show ID, take a background check. Where I disagree is the requirement to register that weapon with the government, as well as red flag laws that jeopardize peoples 2nd amendment rights without first receiving an order as such from trail by jury.
 

gamerk2

Posts: 424   +296
Texas still has their ID law on the books, it survived the courts, want to vote show an ID.


no I've meet none that say you shouldn't need an ID to buy a gun, I agree show ID, take a background check. Where I disagree is the requirement to register that weapon with the government, as well as red flag laws that jeopardize peoples 2nd amendment rights without first receiving an order as such from trail by jury.
In Texas's case, the court ruled in Texas's favor because they issue a form of ID that is free to obtain. Which is perfectly fine.

That being said, your grossly misrepresent the purpose behind the second amendment. The 2nd Amendment was passed because the Constitution gave the Federal government the explicit right to fund a standing Army, something that was terrifying to the Jeffersons/Madisons of the world [and was notably absent from the Articles of Confederation]. Heller was blatantly ruled incorrectly. And even then the court still ruled the states were free to regulate ownership is arms in whatever manner they so choose; that's why it's illegal for you to personally own a nuclear weapon.
 

candle_86

Posts: 514   +382
In Texas's case, the court ruled in Texas's favor because they issue a form of ID that is free to obtain. Which is perfectly fine.

That being said, your grossly misrepresent the purpose behind the second amendment. The 2nd Amendment was passed because the Constitution gave the Federal government the explicit right to fund a standing Army, something that was terrifying to the Jeffersons/Madisons of the world [and was notably absent from the Articles of Confederation]. Heller was blatantly ruled incorrectly. And even then the court still ruled the states were free to regulate ownership is arms in whatever manner they so choose; that's why it's illegal for you to personally own a nuclear weapon.
No the 2nd amendment has to do with militia which during colonial times every male was expected to own a musket and know how to use it proficiently because they may be called up as part of the militia. Even during this time period there was a distinction, the army was called the Regulars, while Militia where common men that owned a musket and would go to defend at the request of their governor. Heller was not ruled incorrectly if you look at it historically, the intent was always that every able bodied american be armed so as to provide for defense from both internal and external threats. It worked in our favor multiple times, in WW2 the Japanese and Germans never attempted to invade, they never even made a plan for it because they realized there was a gun behind every blade of grass in America in their own words. the meaning of the 2nd amendment is quite clear to anyone familiar with history. And states are getting shut down on their regulations these days by the courts, because taking away someones rights without a trail first is illegal, that's why red flag laws need to go, and why if they keep getting challenged they will disappear, because states are denying guaranteed constitutional rights without first getting a guilty verdict. The way the law is written someone could say I am angry and I own a gun, that is enough for the police to confiscate the gun without ever going to trial, and I will never have the gun returned, as history has shown us states with red flag laws seldom return the property stolen by the police illegally.
 

Michiel

Posts: 49   +29
No, it's a statement of a fact. Private entities are free to regulate content in whatever manner they deem fit.
Yes, the point was that everyone already knows this, yet some people seem to think they need to declare it every time as if they are the only ones who do. Like you've just done yourself.

 

Michiel

Posts: 49   +29
As for Trump, stifling free speech is his big thing. Telling reporters they're rude", refusing to answer legitimate questions.

What I'll never forget, is when he said that "Covid1`9 was a Democratic hoax".
Telling reporters they're rude or refusing to answer a question is "stifling free speech" how exactly?
Think of Trump what you will but it's really hard to argue that people, including reporters have been in any way stifled in publishing negative opinions about him (deserved or not). As far as I'm concerned Trump can argue with reporters or ignore them all day long. They are still free to say and write whatever they want about him. Stifling free speech would be getting the New York Times shut down, or reporters thrown in jail. That's not exactly happening as far as I'm aware.

Trump also didn't call Covid 19 a hoax. He called the Democrats' criticism of his administration's response to the virus "their new hoax." It's pretty clear if you read it in the context: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/t...om/fact-check/trump-coronavirus-rally-remark/
It would be very weird (even for Trump) if he was referring to the virus as a hoax in the same sentence where he's praising his own administration's response to said virus.
 

Axil00

Posts: 32   +41
In Texas's case, the court ruled in Texas's favor because they issue a form of ID that is free to obtain. Which is perfectly fine.
I agree that every state ought to issue a free form of ID to anyone who wants one. However constitutionally there is no reason to apply the right to vote or free speech any differently than the right to bear arms.
That being said, your grossly misrepresent the purpose behind the second amendment. The 2nd Amendment was passed because the Constitution gave the Federal government the explicit right to fund a standing Army, something that was terrifying to the Jeffersons/Madisons of the world [and was notably absent from the Articles of Confederation]. Heller was blatantly ruled incorrectly. And even then the court still ruled the states were free to regulate ownership is arms in whatever manner they so choose; that's why it's illegal for you to personally own a nuclear weapon.
This is the kind of garbage that turned our courts into the partisan political bodies they are now. Yes, the 2nd amendment mentions a well regulated militia as essentially however it does not in anyway limit your right to the fulfillment of that purpose.

It's quite clear that the government is not allowed to pass a law that in anyway restrict your ability to obtain and carry any armament you choose.

Personally I'd be all for amending it only apply to man portable weapons under .50 caliber. I'd rather my neighbor not have access to a bazooka for home defense. As the law stands he has the right to one though. Courts can "interpret" words to mean whatever they want. It doesn't change what's written on the page. If what is written is inconsistent with the intentions of the legislature it is up to them to change it.

So no, I dont get particularly worked up when the left yells about voter suppression. Neither side of the aisle is willing to afford the people the rights to which they are entitled.
 

Eflow

Posts: 21   +46
Just remember when the next democrat is elected president (not this election though it wont happen), the folks on the left have given the conservatives carte blanche to burn as many effigies as him as we wish, while rioting, and destroying private property, we likely wont though, because unlike the left we get up in the morning because we have jobs and provide for ourselves.
As laughably wrong as you are, please remember that Republicans have given the next Democrat president permission to:

1) Declare a national emergency to circumvent congressional budgetary oversight
2) Withhold money from an ally and request that they intervene in our elections
3) Use the presidency to increase their personal wealth
4) Work with Department of Justice to drop charges on their felon friends
 

Tyrchlis

Posts: 19   +37
What ***** Trump may not realize is that a company is totally free to set standards and enforce them or not as it wants to. Trump, as president, walks a dangerous line threatening Twitter in this manner legally speaking. As president, he is the one in fact censoring a private company's rules of use, which is unconstitutional. He is representing the government, and government censorship of private institutions is strictly forbidden.
 

bandit8623

Posts: 219   +95
Fact-checking an opinion is not fact-checking anything; it's opinion.

Secondly, Twitter isn't exactly objective; they're biased to the core - they target conservatives on a daily basis; same goes for YouTube/Google/FaceBook.

EVERYONE has the right to voice their opinion, whether snowflakes like it or not.

Twitter needs the POTUS on their platform more than the POTUS needs Twitter.
Agreed. Facebook is terrible. Won't even allow opinion pieces from some sites I like to read... Says goes against policy.. What policy a different point of view?
 

Puiu

Posts: 4,031   +2,562
Fact-checking an opinion is not fact-checking anything; it's opinion.

Secondly, Twitter isn't exactly objective; they're biased to the core - they target conservatives on a daily basis; same goes for YouTube/Google/FaceBook.

EVERYONE has the right to voice their opinion, whether snowflakes like it or not.

Twitter needs the POTUS on their platform more than the POTUS needs Twitter.
Their fact checkers are CNN, wapo, and nyt, 3 companies known to spew lies and disinformation. So Twitter's fact check means diddly.
Fact-checking is objective if you use evidence that can't be disputed. It doesn't matter who does it and against whom it is for. This is a fact. You don't like it? Well, that's just your opinion.
 

Puiu

Posts: 4,031   +2,562
Telling reporters they're rude or refusing to answer a question is "stifling free speech" how exactly?
Think of Trump what you will but it's really hard to argue that people, including reporters have been in any way stifled in publishing negative opinions about him (deserved or not). As far as I'm concerned Trump can argue with reporters or ignore them all day long. They are still free to say and write whatever they want about him. Stifling free speech would be getting the New York Times shut down, or reporters thrown in jail. That's not exactly happening as far as I'm aware.

Trump also didn't call Covid 19 a hoax. He called the Democrats' criticism of his administration's response to the virus "their new hoax." It's pretty clear if you read it in the context: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/t...om/fact-check/trump-coronavirus-rally-remark/
It would be very weird (even for Trump) if he was referring to the virus as a hoax in the same sentence where he's praising his own administration's response to said virus.
He called it a hoax, FACT. You are just reading too much into what he said in hopes of finding an excuse for him, Trump was clearly talking about the virus and the circumstances surrounding the virus (he carelessly added "we're 15 people in this massive country" after he called it a dem hoax). He was annoyed that the dems were critical of him so he said something stupid (again). It's the same as when he said that he doesn't take any responsibility.

You should not need to decipher what a president says on TV in hopes of finding the "true" meaning of his words.
 
Last edited:

Markoni35

Posts: 750   +263
Fact-checking is objective if you use evidence that can't be disputed. It doesn't matter who does it and against whom it is for. This is a fact. You don't like it? Well, that's just your opinion.
And that's exactly where CNN and friends fall.
 

Markoni35

Posts: 750   +263
There's enormous censorship on YouTube, Google Search, TED, Facebook, Twitter and other popular media and information sites. Censoring one side, but not the other, is equivalent to lying. There's even a proverb:

"Half truth is entire lie"

Private news and social media corporations have to be punished for their censorship. They cannot push the leftist agenda and block the rightist, and even the center, because misinforming people must be (and probably is) punishable by law.

So, for example, if you say that GMO soy is healthy food, and then it turns out it's not, but you still push the same narrative, then you're working against public health. It should be punishable by law.

If you claim that immigrants in Sweden are NOT doing much more crime than normal Swedes, you're deliberately lying. You're working against public safety. That MUST be punishable by law. But that's exactly what liberal media is doing. Misinforming people to push their own agenda.
 

Puiu

Posts: 4,031   +2,562
And that's exactly where CNN and friends fall.
I don't care if they are CNN, Fox, russian news or penguins. Fact checking is based on evidence with proper research behind it (historic examples, documents, videos, pictures, etc).

This feature was absolutely required for high profile users that have influence over the masses.

Lets not forget that recently Trump promoted on Twitter a conspiracy theory that Joe Scarborough (MSNBC host and political rival) was responsible for the death of a Congressional intern almost two decades prior. --> this garbage came from the mouth of the US president and you can bet your ars that many people actually took this seriously.

Do you remember this?
 

Markoni35

Posts: 750   +263
I've experienced censorship myself, on YouTube and especially on TED. You're only allowed to write comments that support leftist agenda. If you write certain keywords (which are not rude, but are against leftist agenda) they censor you automatically. In a very pervert way. So that you can see your own comment, but nobody else can. I've checked from another computer. Now, such censorship must be punishable by law. Private corporation or not, that's too much influence on the society.

Same as you have anti-monopoly law, this is very similar. Actually, worse, because this is monopoly that causes single-sided misinformation. Considering that 95% of media nowadays is in the hands of a certain leftist group.

Which is why no media is attacking social web sites for selective censorship. Because those other media are in the same bed with them. The biggest source of lies is not Trump, but the mass media, also known as mainstream media.

I used to be leftist once. Now I'm strict center. And in talk with leftists I turn rightist (unless they are reasonable leftists, which is hard to find nowadays). Equally so, in talk with hardcore rightists I turn moderate leftist. Because... every force causes the exact and opposite force.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michiel

Puiu

Posts: 4,031   +2,562
I've experienced censorship myself, on YouTube and especially on TED. You're only allowed to write comments that support leftist agenda. If you write certain keywords (which are not rude, but are against leftist agenda) they censor you automatically. In a very pervert way. So that you can see your own comment, but nobody else can. I've checked from another computer. Now, such censorship must be punishable by law. Private corporation or not, that's too much influence on the society.

Same as you have anti-monopoly law, this is very similar. Actually, worse, because this is monopoly that causes single-sided misinformation. Considering that 95% of media nowadays is in the hands of a certain leftist group.

Which is why no media is attacking social web sites for selective censorship. Because those other media are in the same bed with them. The biggest source of lies is not Trump, but the mass media, also known as mainstream media.

I used to be leftist once. Now I'm strict center. And in talk with leftists I turn rightist (unless they are reasonable leftists, which is hard to find nowadays). Equally so, in talk with hardcore rightists I turn moderate leftist. Because... every force causes the exact and opposite force.
Show us proof that you got such comments deleted. If that was really the case, reddit would have blown up a long time ago.
For example, if I go lib favored channels I can see comments that support libs and Trump (one good example is Fox) and the opposite is true for dem channels.

What I did see where stupid comments that were deleted, for example comments with hate speech or extreme views (read as racist or worse). If enough people report your comment for such a reason, youtube's automated system might take it down.

Another way to loose comments is if the channel owner blocks you or the person that started the chain of comments removes the entire chain.

You are more likely to fall one of those situations than any conspiracy theory.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Charles Olson

Freddie159

Posts: 62   +24
Right, removing tweets is at most censorship, but private companies would have the full right to censor what's on their own platform.

Would probably be a bad business decision, but they still have the right to.

But they're not even censoring Trump. It's just fact-checking.
Meaning he should have a VERY hard time in Court making his "Free Speech" argument!!
The White House has now targeted a Twitter employee in California telling supporters to 'go wake him up and tell him he is about to have alot of new followers'. That is harrassment and needs to be investigated as such!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Charles Olson

Unilythe

Posts: 13   +39
Show us proof that you got such comments deleted. If that was really the case, reddit would have blown up a long time ago.
For example, if I go lib favored channels I can see comments that support libs and Trump (one good example is Fox) and the opposite is true for dem channels.

What I did see where stupid comments that were deleted, for example comments with hate speech or extreme views (read as racist or worse). If enough people report your comment for such a reason, youtube's automated system might take it down.

Another way to loose comments is if the channel owner blocks you or the person that started the chain of comments removes the entire chain.

You are more likely to fall one of those situations than any conspiracy theory.
This is the type of person who needs to brag about "turning leftists to rightists" and the other way around. He feels the need to talk big and be incredibly pretentious in the process. I doubt he has any evidence.
 

Axil00

Posts: 32   +41
Fact-checking is objective if you use evidence that can't be disputed. It doesn't matter who does it and against whom it is for. This is a fact. You don't like it? Well, that's just your opinion.
Right and that's the issue. None of these fact checkers consistently use evidence that cannot be disputed. Find me your favorite fact checker and I can provide examples.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 5,363   +3,444
  • Like
Reactions: Charles Olson

wiyosaya

Posts: 5,363   +3,444
We live in a time where the right to free speech doesn't mean that you shouldn't be arrested for your opinion, but it means no one should be able to disagree with you. But disagreeing with someone is also free speech. In other words, you don't have the right to free speech if you are disagreeing with someone else.
Free speech means no one should be able to disagree with you?? :confused: Am I understanding you correctly?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Charles Olson