• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump to sign revenge-EO targeting social media

pocket aces said:
The thing is if I went on Twitter right now and accused Trump of murdering someones wife, I would be removed. The fact that he thinks he is above that shows how much a narcissistic twat this guy really is.
Click to expand...

Not only that, but if I were to go on Twitter and challenge him to a fist fight, I'd not only be removed, I'd get a knock on the door by the Secret Service, but he's allowed to practice actual stochastic terrorism with impunity on Twitter day in and day out.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
That's not how it works.

This message board is moderated. Do you think that removes the protections of Section 230 from this site?
Click to expand...

They do not provide the content. Editing is providing content.
 
poweRob said:
Tell that bitch to bring it. Because I will enjoy watching his tantrum when it is struck down.
Click to expand...

He's effectively DARING Twitter to kill his account.
I think first week in October would be ideal.
 
Trump is a weak spoiled child, having another hissy fit, another day in the insane Trump Party administration....what will happen tomorrow....or tonight?? :roll:

 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
He's effectively DARING Twitter to kill his account.
I think first week in October would be ideal.
Click to expand...

Oh I think it would be much more torturous to him for twitter to let it ride and keep tagging his tweets.
 
poweRob said:
Oh I think it would be much more torturous to him for twitter to let it ride and keep tagging his tweets.
Click to expand...

Between now and October 9th, yes...they should, but I am guessing that somewhere around that date, we will have heard a court decision on his EO and that's about when they should pull the plug. It will be very entertaining to watch his reaction.
They aren't REQUIRED to give him an account.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
No, it isn't.

Editing is editing content.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ, it most certainly is. Editing can and in many cases changes not only the flavor of content but the substance. Thats publishers do before they publish something, as the content is theirs. Editing constitutes control, the lack of control was what the law sought to address in regards to liability.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Between now and October 9th, yes...they should, but I am guessing that somewhere around that date, we will have heard a court decision on his EO and that's about when they should pull the plug. It will be very entertaining to watch his reaction.
They aren't REQUIRED to give him an account.
Click to expand...

I think they should wait 'till he loses and the next day yank it.
 
poweRob said:
I think they should wait 'till he loses and the next day yank it.
Click to expand...

Oh come on, that's no fun!
A Twitter yank needs to be timed as part of an October Surprise.
Just think how badly Donnie will need his Twitter in the final weeks before the elections.
 
Chomsky said:
Isn't this interesting?

I suspect it will be the usual hyperbolic bluster, that ends-up being little of substance.

But it could get interesting. If Twitter takes it to court, it's my understanding they temporarily suspend the account in question during the litigation period! Trump should be careful of what he asks for!
Click to expand...

There's no way in hell the admin wins this one. It's a straight-up obvious content-based restriction aimed at a private enterprise's political speech. The only way you get closer to the core of the 1st is if you go after Joe Schmoe from wherever for posting something critical of Trump on Facebook.

But I agree with your first conclusion. It's probably bluster. I hope it's bluster because otherwise....he's even more clueless and reckless than I thought.
 
PirateMk1 said:
I beg to differ, it most certainly is. Editing can and in many cases changes not only the flavor of content but the substance. Thats publishers do before they publish something, as the content is theirs. Editing constitutes control, the lack of control was what the law sought to address in regards to liability.
Click to expand...

This is entirely wrong.

The purpose of Section 320 is specifically to allow services like Twitter (and this messageboard) editorial control over the content on their sites, without opening them up to liability as publishers.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
Well, sure - they are liable for their own content. But not anyone else's.
Click to expand...

The point is, they made the decision to make Trumps tweets their own by editing them. They now own the modified tweets and they are responsible for the modified content they themselves contributed and also provided via a third party no less, who may or may not wish to be involved. They made themselves a publisher.

An interesting side note. Is Twitter going to attempt to claim Trumps tweets are their exclusive content to use however they like? Things get really interesting diving down that rabbit hole.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Twitter itself can say whatever it is they want, as by their right in a separate tweet. They are however seeking protections under law which protect them from legal liability from copyright holders, individuals ect. that normal publishing houses are NOT immune from. Editing Trumps tweet can be considered an act of a publishing house and thereby expose themselves to potential suit, said suit may succeed where otherwise the law would protect the company under normal circumstance. A normal publishing house can censor as much as they like, however they are also responsible on civil law for what they publish. If the published content is slanderous false or what have you, the aggrieved parties can sue civilly. Not so with a platform, whose function is to promote the freedom of speech, censoring content is the exact opposite of the purpose of a platform.

Platforms cannot have it both ways. They can not just censor the content of their users and not remain immune to suit. As they are protected by federal law, Trump can decide how to have those protections applied and could sue civilly on behalf of other aggrieved parties as well.

Definitely makes for an interesting court case, or two.
Click to expand...

Wait, what do you mean "editing"?

He tweets something, they put a disclaimer on saying "we fact checked this, here is what we found." That is not changing histweet. That is putting their political speech onto it. And that is no different than a newspaper article quoting Trump then saying "here is what we find wrong with what he said".

Is there something specific I am missing that you can point out?


"Editing" would be if I took the quote I am responding to of yours and put something different that you did not say in its place, like "I'm a [bad thing]" or "I like drowning puppies [or other bad thing]". That isn't what they're doing as I understand it. They're just tagging his lies with a fact-check appendage. That's their speech, clearly marked, so unless there's something I'm missing I don't get it.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
This is entirely wrong.

The purpose of Section 320 is specifically to allow services like Twitter (and this messageboard) editorial control over the content on their sites, without opening them up to liability as publishers.
Click to expand...

yes and there is a GREAT deal of discussion as to why they get this exemption, if i recall correctly. starting to abuse it may open them up to be treated just like other media outlets.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Oh come on, that's no fun!
A Twitter yank needs to be timed as part of an October Surprise.
Just think how badly Donnie will need his Twitter in the final weeks before the elections.
Click to expand...

If it happened in October, the surprise would be them playing a severe victim card. I want no fuel for them.
 
PirateMk1 said:
The point is, they made the decision to make Trumps tweets their own by editing them. They now own the modified tweets and they are responsible for the modified content they themselves contributed and also provided via a third party no less, who may or may not wish to be involved. They made themselves a publisher.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you heard this - but it's not true, and not how the law works.

An interesting side note. Is Twitter going to attempt to claim Trumps tweets are their exclusive content to use however they like? Things get really interesting diving down that rabbit hole.
Click to expand...

Probably not as interesting as you think. But it's all there in the TOS - somewhere.
 
Hypothetical said:
yes and there is a GREAT deal of discussion as to why they get this exemption, if i recall correctly. starting to abuse it may open them up to be treated just like other media outlets.
Click to expand...
"Discussion"?

How will it "open them up"? Do you think Congress will repeal Section 230?

Do you think they should?

Do you like posting here?
 
maxparrish said:
It's remarkable that Trump's enemies have no concern over the bill of rights and the first amendment when it comes to Fox News, Rush Limbaugh or social control by executive edict (e.g. the lockdown) but are now wailing "first amendment" when there may be some unwelcome social control by executive edict used on them...my...my.

And it is equally interesting to see the shameless left wail about how their opponents ought to be regulated by the FCC (an agency who has routinely denied since its birth that broadcasting and common carriers have anything to do with free speech)...and may yet see that such swords cut both ways.

Liberals deserve to be hoisted by their own petard, but such is not wise. Trump's edict will be either ineffective or struck down, and hopefully the left learns a lesson about the principle and value of free speech.

Somehow though, I doubt they will.
Click to expand...

Have you noticed how none of the stupid bull**** you typed responds to anything I typed?

Have you noticed that you did exactly what I said I expected the deepest core of Trumpists to do - to act like somehow the "free speech" right of the leader of the executive branch (the most public of officials) is being violated when private entity Twitter engages in the core of Free Speech in fact-checking his tweets?

Twitter is private. Trump is government. Twitter made political speech about Trump. That is the POINT of the first amendment.




How does the Trumpist not know that?

Why does the Trumpist hate the First Amendment?

Why does the Trumpist hate the constitution?

Why does the Trumpist hate America?




Clue: you're the Trumpist. So why? Why do you hate these great things? Why do you hate the ability of a private entity to criticize our government? Mr...um.....conservative? :lol:
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
This is entirely wrong.

The purpose of Section 320 is specifically to allow services like Twitter (and this messageboard) editorial control over the content on their sites, without opening them up to liability as publishers.
Click to expand...

Nope. No editorial control was intended or implied. Moderation was allowed. Moderation is NOT editing. Editing is direct control of content. Moderation is the allowance or not of content. The control is indirect. Two different things.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Nope. No editorial control was intended or implied. Moderation was allowed. Moderation is NOT editing. Editing is direct control of content. Moderation is the allowance or not of content. The control is indirect. Two different things.
Click to expand...
I've been a moderator on a number of message boards. I was empowered to - and frequently did - edit posts made by members.

You may see a distinction between moderation and editing - but there is no legal distinction between them. The law is quite plain - it's literally just a single sentence.
 
poweRob said:
If it happened in October, the surprise would be them playing a severe victim card. I want no fuel for them.
Click to expand...

Maybe you're right, so the time might be the LAST week in October instead.
But if you think about it, Trump's entire tenure has been him playing victim, with all the Trumpers backing him and playing victim themselves...they're SOOOOOO MAAAD at those mean libtards!!
 
Note how the right demands unlimited 'free speech right' when it comes to their posting propaganda and lies, but they have zero respect for the rights of others to post the truth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom