• 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!

Tell me how fact checking tweets is ending free speech?

Bullseye said:
LOL. You guys think more like fascists than anyone on the right. Singling out Trump for this treatment IS a constrain of free speech, but it's Trump so that's OK, right?
Click to expand...

Disagreement is not suppression of free speech. I don't know how to put it any more simply.
 
Bullseye said:
LOL. You guys think more like fascists than anyone on the right. Singling out Trump for this treatment IS a constrain of free speech, but it's Trump so that's OK, right?
Click to expand...

Trump is doing exactly what the Nazi's did in the 1930's. Try and silence those who want people to know the truth, THE FACTS. Trumpsters hate facts and always call them fake news. Anytime I hear a Trumpster say it is fake news, i know it is a gruth they do not want to believe. I remeber what Trump said, 'do not believe your eyes and ears but only me". Trumpsters do as he says like sheep.
 
Bullseye said:
LOL. You guys think more like fascists than anyone on the right. Singling out Trump for this treatment IS a constrain of free speech, but it's Trump so that's OK, right?
Click to expand...

Unless he has been fined or arrested by the government his free speech rights are not in question. That is the limit of our free speech rights. We have no free speech rights on private property. This is why Twitter has a TOS and can eject those who are found in violation. If you dont like their rules then leave and create your own social media platform in competition. Twitter is their playground and you live by their rules or you leave.
 
Lisa said:
McConnell never let the facts be presented in the senate, so Trump wasn't cleared of wrongdoing.
Click to expand...

Hilarious. What the hell do you think Schiff and his team were doing for hours on end, playing with themselves? Yes, Trump was cleared, same as Bill Clinton. Again though, the impeachment had nothing to do with Russian collusion. You must not have been paying attention.
 
Bullseye said:
And having a person carrying the power of the application saying "that's not true" following posts is NOT a constraint of free speech?
Click to expand...

No, if it was half of what Trump writes would be constraint of speech. How often have we heard him say that what is written or said is "fake news".
 
Bullseye said:
And having a person carrying the power of the application saying "that's not true" following posts is NOT a constraint of free speech?
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. You do not have the right not be be criticized for your speech. You can also be held legally accountable for your speech when it cross the line of libel or slander.
 
Bullseye said:
And having a person carrying the power of the application saying "that's not true" following posts is NOT a constraint of free speech?
Click to expand...

Nobody is stopping Dear Leader from telling his lies. (Actually, I don't think that is even possible.)

Just look at it like a label disclaimer. You know, like on a cd jacket when it says "Parental advisory. Explicit lyrical content. Profanity. Violence."

Do we have the right to deny Twitter their right to free speech by not allowing them to tag the daily Trump lies with a fact check link?
 
Deuce said:
Disagreement is not suppression of free speech. I don't know how to put it any more simply.
Click to expand...
Disagreement is FINE, that's free speech, which I fully support. And if one of his followers chimes in with data that disproves something he said - fine as well. But someone speaking with the authority of Twitter is tipping the scales unfairly, even if it is Trump - which seems to be you guys primary point.
 
veritas1 said:
Hilarious. What the hell do you think Schiff and his team were doing for hours on end, playing with themselves? Yes, Trump was cleared, same as Bill Clinton. Again though, the impeachment had nothing to do with Russian collusion. You must not have been paying attention.
Click to expand...

You do remember that several of the GOP Senators admitted that Trump was guilty of what what he was charged with, but that they did not think it was sufficient to remove him from office.
 
Bullseye said:
Disagreement is FINE, that's free speech, which I fully support. And if one of his followers chimes in with data that disproves something he said - fine as well. But someone speaking with the authority of Twitter is tipping the scales unfairly, even if it is Trump - which seems to be you guys primary point.
Click to expand...

What about Trump saying information is "fake news". I guess that is okay with you and his words certainly are more powerful than twitter when it comes to tipping the scales
 
Lisa said:
Twitter is not censoring the government because Donald Trump is not the US Government, nor are those statements have the full support of the 3 branches of federal government. Those are only his words.
Click to expand...

I do not agree that Twitter is not censoring our Government. Trump is the elected manager of the government.
 
Captain America said:
Nobody is stopping Dear Leader from telling his lies. (Actually, I don't think that is even possible.)

Just look at it like a label disclaimer. You know, like on a cd jacket when it says "Parental advisory. Explicit lyrical content. Profanity. Violence."

Do we have the right to deny Twitter their right to free speech by not allowing them to tag the daily Trump lies with a fact check link?
Click to expand...
LOL, totally brainless bull****.
 
veritas1 said:
Hilarious. What the hell do you think Schiff and his team were doing for hours on end, playing with themselves? Yes, Trump was cleared, same as Bill Clinton. Again though, the impeachment had nothing to do with Russian collusion. You must not have been paying attention.
Click to expand...

Facts are also an anathema to you as well. The facts were never presented in the Senate and there were no witnesses called to testify.

On January 31, after a planned debate session, the Senate voted against allowing subpoenas to call witnesses, including former national security advisor John Bolton who wrote in his forthcoming book mentioning Ukraine aid freezing, or documents with a 51–49 vote. 51 Republican senators voted against calling witnesses,
Click to expand...
 
trixare4kids said:
The government has NO business to censor the speech of privately owned domains like Twitter. Trump is wrong.

Twitter has the right to make their own rules even if Trump thinks they are being done by biased anti-Trump Twitter executives.
Click to expand...

But if social media companies ban, censor, take down, fact check, they aren't 'carriers', they are 'publishers', and the rules are significantly different.

Carriers have legal protection against what people put on, or transmit, via their systems. Publishers are responsible for the content they publish. When editorial decisions made, some posts taken down, some posts 'fact checked', and some users banned, that is exerting editorial control.

Publishers are legally liable for what they publish, which includes the publishing of copyrighted materials. Heck, that's like 3/4s of the posts on social media.

If someone is offended by a post they will go for 'the deep pockets' which is the social media publisher, so potentially every time someone is offended by a post, the social media company will find themselves in court paying legal fees.

The social media companies need to re-think this, become 'carriers' again so as to be afforded the legal protections there of. Otherwise they'll go broke on legal fees, as well as the expenses required to regulate (take down) copyrighted materials alone, let alone monitoring all the posts so as not to offend someone.
 
Bullseye said:
And having a person carrying the power of the application saying "that's not true" following posts is NOT a constraint of free speech?
Click to expand...

How is it? Trump has the freedom to tweet what he said. He exercised that freedom. The tweet still remains. Added commentary is not a constraint on speech. Rather, free speech invites commentary to a remark. The commentary by Twitter did not keep Trump from tweeting the comment and neither did such commentary remove, delete, in whole or in part, Trump’s tweet.

So, no, I do not see the logic of the argument the comment by Twitter is a “constraint to free speech.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
independentusa said:
What about Trump saying information is "fake news". I guess that is okay with you and his words certainly are more powerful than twitter when it comes to tipping the scales
Click to expand...

Correction, Trump calls incorrect data promoted as News, fake news.
 
independentusa said:
They do not have to do anything. They own the platform and make the rules. If Trump and you do not like it, tough!!!
Click to expand...

RTT.
Start with post #2 before you bark at me.

Of course they own the platform, and they can call out Trump on a daily basis, but what's it about if they don't call out leftist politicians?
 
Robertinfremont said:
I do not agree that Twitter is not censoring our Government. Trump is the elected manager of the government.
Click to expand...

Trump is the POTUS but his views are the only view from the executive branch, nor does he have the only voice for the legislative or judicial branches. His Tweets are his personal views and are not endorsed by the government as law.
 
Lisa said:
Absolutely not. You do not have the right not be be criticized for your speech. You can also be held legally accountable for your speech when it cross the line of libel or slander.
Click to expand...
Isn't that the case now? Can't any of his followers speak up? Why do you need a partisan spin artist to comment on a tweet, don't you form your own opinions? How do you KNOW the fact check knows anything more than you?
 
Robertinfremont said:
Twitter is censoring the Government in other words.
Click to expand...

Twitter is privately owned. They can censor whomever including the elected and gov. appointed, but will they only censor those they disagree with politically?
My money's on that.
 
NotreDame said:
How is it? Trump has the freedom to tweet what he said. He exercised that freedom. The tweet still remains. Added commentary is not a constraint on speech. Rather, free speech invites commentary to a remark. The commentary by Twitter did not keep Trump from tweeting the comment and neither did such commentary remove, delete, in whole or in part, Trump’s tweet.

So, no, I do not see the logic of the argument the comment by Twitter is a “constraint to free speech.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Recall the Democrats yelling bloody murder when Obama said this?

 
eohrnberger said:
But if social media companies ban, censor, take down, fact check, they aren't 'carriers', they are 'publishers', and the rules are significantly different.

Carriers have legal protection against what people put on, or transmit, via their systems. Publishers are responsible for the content they publish. When editorial decisions made, some posts taken down, some posts 'fact checked', and some users banned, that is exerting editorial control.

Publishers are legally liable for what they publish, which includes the publishing of copyrighted materials. Heck, that's like 3/4s of the posts on social media.

If someone is offended by a post they will go for 'the deep pockets' which is the social media publisher, so potentially every time someone is offended by a post, the social media company will find themselves in court paying legal fees.

The social media companies need to re-think this, become 'carriers' again so as to be afforded the legal protections there of. Otherwise they'll go broke on legal fees, as well as the expenses required to regulate (take down) copyrighted materials alone, let alone monitoring all the posts so as not to offend someone.
Click to expand...
This is not how it works.

All of these posts about "carriers", "platforms", and "publishers" betrays a lack of understanding how these laws work.

This is the relevant law:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

Notice there's no "unless the President throws a tantrum" caveat at the end.
 
Deuce said:
Also because disagreeing with his statement is not censorship. His posts weren't deleted.
Click to expand...

Twitter is not an arm of the government so they cannot legally censor anything, which must be done by the government with the power of secular law to enforce it.
 
Robertinfremont said:
Correction, Trump calls incorrect data promoted as News, fake news.
Click to expand...

And Twitter is saying something that Trump is saying is incorrect by having it fact checked. Trump has no right not to be fact checked. If so, find it in the constitution. And citizens, and by now the SCOTUS has said that corporations have the right's of citizens in Citizens United, have the right to criticize their government which includes fact checking them. just so you know., Trump calls anything he disagrees with fake news whether it is or not.
 
Bullseye said:
Disagreement is FINE, that's free speech, which I fully support. And if one of his followers chimes in with data that disproves something he said - fine as well. But someone speaking with the authority of Twitter is tipping the scales unfairly, even if it is Trump - which seems to be you guys primary point.
Click to expand...

Is it tipping the scales? There’s not one Trump follower who is going to find Twitter’s commentary about Trump’s tweet persuasive or compelling. Those already included to dislike Trump, or in fact do dislike Trump, are going to find it persuasive, not because of any illusory “authority” of Twitter, but because they hate Trump!

The “scales” are already tilted one way or the other, based on the bias of the reader, a bias that is for or against Trump.


It is incredulous to think Twitter has any “authoritative” clout to the extent you allege and indeed I have no evidence for the existence of this clout.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom