• 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

If you don't consistently apply disclaimers you're no longer a platform you're a creator of content. Thats going to be the argument and it will be very easy to show that twitter isn't consistently applying disclaimers.

I don't think they edited his tweets....instead they just put a disclaimer at the bottom that the information he was spousing was provably false.
 
If you don't consistently apply disclaimers you're no longer a platform you're a creator of content. Thats going to be the argument and it will be very easy to show that twitter isn't consistently applying disclaimers.
This narrative has no basis in actual law.
 
I don't think they edited his tweets....instead they just put a disclaimer at the bottom that the information he was spousing was provably false.

Although I’m no fan of Trump, but that is editing. Trump created a tweet. The tweet said something specific. Later, rep(s) of Twitter add to Trump’s tweet, content which did not appear with Trump’s original tweet, and was not written by Trump.

However, I cannot find any language in 230 revoking 230 status on this basis.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
The only real questions are: (1) whether it's just more hot air and someone will talk his wannabe dicatator ass down, (2) if it does what he threatens, how quickly courts will smack it down, (3) just how small (one hopes) the probability is that law enforcement would enforce it despite court decisions smacking it down


President Donald Trump is expected to sign an executive order aimed at social media companies on Thursday, White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany told reporters Wednesday evening, a move that comes as the president and his allies have escalated their allegations that companies like Twitter and Facebook stifle GOP voices. McEnany told reporters aboard Air Force One that the order is “pertaining to social media” but shared no additional details on what it will do. Trump and his supporters have been hammering Twitter since the social network labeled a pair of his tweets with a fact-checking notice for the first time on Tuesday, and the president pledged Wednesday that "big action" will follow.


[cont].

Trump to sign executive order on social media amid Twitter furor - POLITICO

Trump Will Sign an Executive Order on Social Media Companies: White House Spokeswoman - The New York Times


Earlier Wednesday, Trump warned social media giants that the federal government could “strongly regulate” or “close them down” if they continue to “silence conservative voices,” amid his flaring battle with Twitter after the platform fact-checked one of his tweets for the first time this week.


[cont].

White House says Trump will sign an executive order on social media | Fox News



The media companies engaged in political speech - the core of first amendment protections against government punishment/interference, the core of which in turn is protection against actions based on content of speech - to punish the lot and cow others because twitter fact-checked his constant lies in tweets. They would be free under the 1st to delete his account. But they didn't. Twitter just put a fact checker on his tweets because he keeps lying. Now he's saying he's going to sign an EO targeting them.

That's right. Twitter stood on its first amendment right to engage in political speech against government (Trump being leader of the executive branch of government, the authority of which these so-called conservatives pretend to stand against)). And a leader of one of government's branches is squawking about signing an unspecified executive order targeting social media because of this.

Will Trumpists cheer this on? Defend it? Will the usual suspects line up with diversions in the first ten posts? Let's see what the order contains and what they say. If it's like most things Trump, it'll be 100% bark, 0% bite. The announcement tests the waters. He'll spend tomorrow morning watching Fox instead of working. And then we'll see.

But more importantly, let's see what Trumpists will do as compared to what they say.

I know my bet: the most ardent will straight-up defend it, lying about first amendment jurisprudence in the process. A good number will pretend to criticize it, saying they "don't like it" or "don't agree", but not one of them will change their minds. At most, if a miracle strikes, there will be some words. No action.




So let us see what really happens, and when we do:

Remember when they pretend to care about America.

Remember when they pretend to love the constitution.

Remember when they chest-thump about their freedoms.

And always remember that actions so often speak far louder than words every could.

What an anti free speech, anti American asshole.

And his rubes eat it up because they are really that freaking stupid.
 
If you don't consistently apply disclaimers you're no longer a platform you're a creator of content. Thats going to be the argument and it will be very easy to show that twitter isn't consistently applying disclaimers.

What federal statute says this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Google, Facebook Twitter and You Tube should just come clean and admit that they're liberals, that they facilitate the liberal agenda and that they try to censor conservatives. It's their right to do so and everyone knows they do it so acknowledging what is already well known shouldn't be a problem.

You could just come clean and admit how much of a hypocrite you are about being for free speech and the free market.
 
Thats going to be the argument in court. And its a good one.

What federal statute says this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
True. But presidents do it all the time. Obama was the Queen of EOs.

What is "section 230 eligibility"?

The executive doesn't have authority to carve out exceptions to laws passed by Congress.
 
Great, Twitter moves its servers to another country.

Easy squeezy.
 
If you don't consistently apply disclaimers you're no longer a platform you're a creator of content. Thats going to be the argument and it will be very easy to show that twitter isn't consistently applying disclaimers.

An interesting argument, but Donald Trump violates their terms of service multiple times daily. So if Twitter’s response to that is to apply disclaimers rather than banning him from the platform like they would any other user then that is their prerogative.
 
Thats going to be the argument in court. And its a good one.

It’s a good one because you say so? No way!

Here’s why the argument isn’t a “good one,” because there’s not one federal statute that supports the argument.

There is no federal law I can find that says Twitter loses 230 protection on the basis you espoused.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Your phone company isn't allowed to deny you service because they don't like what you have to say (nor can they preface your phone calls with "this person is a liar, don't listen to them"). Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube should be the same.

False equivalence....
 
Your phone company isn't allowed to deny you service because they don't like what you have to say (nor can they preface your phone calls with "this person is a liar, don't listen to them"). Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube should be the same.

I am amazed by how many things are wrong with what you just tried to say. You clearly do not know how First Amendment jurisprudence works, let alone constitutional intrepretation. I would have to teach you so much before you could speak coherently about this. Your framing is all wrong. The whats, the whys, the hows, the wheres.... it's all wrong.

- An Actual Lawyer
 
Seeing as Trump's definitively wrong in legal terms, I'd like to see him go down this rabbit hole. Let him get spanked. And if it is true Twitter suspends accounts during litigation, can you imagine Trump campaigning into an election without Twitter? It would severely handicap him.

Court: getting "spanked" would energize his base but screw that, he should be.

Election: I'd love that. Trump feuding with Fox, feuding with Twitter, a smaller circle of rats too scared to jump ship? Please do. I need hope.



I've always been cynical. But now....now for once.... now...

I need a little hope. I need hope.



Hell, who am I kidding? Cold trudge, cradle to grave.
 
WTF can he really do about it though? Man, it sucks having a giant ass snowflake baby as President. He needs to grow the **** up.
 
They would be reflecting consistently, then, if they banned him. I dare them.

An interesting argument, but Donald Trump violates their terms of service multiple times daily. So if Twitter’s response to that is to apply disclaimers rather than banning him from the platform like they would any other user then that is their prerogative.
 
I am amazed by how many things are wrong with what you just tried to say. You clearly do not know how First Amendment jurisprudence works, let alone constitutional intrepretation. I would have to teach you so much before you could speak coherently about this. Your framing is all wrong. The whats, the whys, the hows, the wheres.... it's all wrong.

- An Actual Lawyer

Pfff. Name one thing a lawyer would know about what is and isn’t legal.
 
I am amazed by how many things are wrong with what you just tried to say. You clearly do not know how First Amendment jurisprudence works, let alone constitutional intrepretation. I would have to teach you so much before you could speak coherently about this. Your framing is all wrong. The whats, the whys, the hows, the wheres.... it's all wrong.

- An Actual Lawyer

IOW, what I said is correct and you can't refute it.
 
I don't think they edited his tweets....instead they just put a disclaimer at the bottom that the information he was spousing was provably false.

OK, but absent such a "disclaimer" must mean that they approve of other "provably false" content. That is my point - once they start approving (or disclaiming) their posted content they are no longer an "open platform".
 
Court: getting "spanked" would energize his base but screw that, he should be.

Election: I'd love that. Trump feuding with Fox, feuding with Twitter, a smaller circle of rats too scared to jump ship? Please do. I need hope.



I've always been cynical. But now....now for once.... now...

I need a little hope. I need hope.



Hell, who am I kidding? Cold trudge, cradle to grave.
The bolded was a great little sequence there! :thumbs:
 
Back
Top Bottom