Posted on Jan 4, 2023
Twitter Files: Rep. Adam Schiff's office requested tech giant to suspend accounts
579
17
12
4
4
0
Posted 2 y ago
Responses: 5
SGT (Join to see)
Keith, I couldn’t agree more. So where was the angry energy when trump was doing his own brand of Twitter censorship?
(0)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
SGT (Join to see) blocking users is completely and totally different from banning them. This is the difference between the right and the left. The left keeps saying the right created cancel culture with their boycotts in the 80s.
When the right doesn't like something they block it for themselves and tell you it is bad so you should block it, too. But they still leave that choice to you. I.e. Trump blocks users from himself, but anyone else can subscribe, view, interact, etc.
When the left doesn't like something they not only want to block it from themselves, they want to block it from EVERYONE. I.e. banning people from Twitter or censoring their posts.
If Trump had asked Twitter to delete the accounts of the people he blocked, I would be just as upset. But that is not what he did. And you know it.
When the right doesn't like something they block it for themselves and tell you it is bad so you should block it, too. But they still leave that choice to you. I.e. Trump blocks users from himself, but anyone else can subscribe, view, interact, etc.
When the left doesn't like something they not only want to block it from themselves, they want to block it from EVERYONE. I.e. banning people from Twitter or censoring their posts.
If Trump had asked Twitter to delete the accounts of the people he blocked, I would be just as upset. But that is not what he did. And you know it.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
I didn’t state that that’s what trump did. But since you bring it up, he kinda sorta did that, too.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/7/17544344/donald-trump-twitter-bots-delete-your-account
Anyway, despite your stated differences in types of censorship (which isn’t entirely accurate), is one version really better than the other? Generally, censorship is wrong. So I suppose my original question still stands. So where was the angry energy when trump was doing his own brand of Twitter censorship?
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/7/17544344/donald-trump-twitter-bots-delete-your-account
Anyway, despite your stated differences in types of censorship (which isn’t entirely accurate), is one version really better than the other? Generally, censorship is wrong. So I suppose my original question still stands. So where was the angry energy when trump was doing his own brand of Twitter censorship?
Trump (sort of) tells the New York Times: Delete your account
Twitter is finally addressing fake accounts. Trump wants it to go after two specific real ones.
(0)
(0)
LTC Chu needs to realize that censorship, government coercion to block speech and government officials working to limit speech and Journalism violate the first amendment. Schiff took an oath to uphold the constitution.
(2)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
I also noticed that he was able to (poorly) paraphrase what is being repeated "out there" but did not once quote the 1st Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I wonder what "abridging the freedom of speech" actually means?! Actively directing multiple companies as to which accounts to mute/ban and which not?
I wonder what "abridging the freedom of speech" actually means?! Actively directing multiple companies as to which accounts to mute/ban and which not?
(1)
(0)
1. This was a request since Twitter allowed previously suspended accounts that spewed racist and anti-Semitic views to be allowed back on
2. Freedom of speech means government won't criminally prosecute. Since Twitter is a private business, the people in question can go onto Truth Social or Rumble. No one is facing charges.
https://thehill.com/homenews/3767177-democrats-call-on-musk-to-target-hate-speech-on-twitter/
2. Freedom of speech means government won't criminally prosecute. Since Twitter is a private business, the people in question can go onto Truth Social or Rumble. No one is facing charges.
https://thehill.com/homenews/3767177-democrats-call-on-musk-to-target-hate-speech-on-twitter/
Democrats call on Musk to target hate speech on Twitter
Two House Democrats have called on Twitter CEO Elon Musk on Thursday to take action against the rise of hate speech on Twitter. In a letter sent to Musk, Reps. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Mark Takan…
(2)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
1. There is no such thing as hate speech. It is a made up thing by bureaucrats in an attempt to find ways of circumventing the 1st Amendment. Free speech is not free if we can slap a label on it and write laws against it. Truly free speech includes the things we don't like. Even the things that we find morally objectionable.
2. Freedom of speech means government cannot prevent speech. They cannot write laws preventing speech, but they ALSO cannot coerce private companies to prevent speech, either.
Third party doctrine REQUIRES voluntary (i.e. not coerced, not blackmailed, not bribed) participation. It also requires a bona fide third party. People rotating out of government into a leadership position, and then back in to government - only to be back-filled by another government agent - is not a truly independent third party. The Twitter files are showing that the participation was NOT voluntary. And that the claim of independent third party is dubious, as well.
Lawmakers calling on Twitter to block speech they do not like is still a violation of the 1st Amendment. Twitter doing it independently is not. Them doing it on behalf of the government is.
2. Freedom of speech means government cannot prevent speech. They cannot write laws preventing speech, but they ALSO cannot coerce private companies to prevent speech, either.
Third party doctrine REQUIRES voluntary (i.e. not coerced, not blackmailed, not bribed) participation. It also requires a bona fide third party. People rotating out of government into a leadership position, and then back in to government - only to be back-filled by another government agent - is not a truly independent third party. The Twitter files are showing that the participation was NOT voluntary. And that the claim of independent third party is dubious, as well.
Lawmakers calling on Twitter to block speech they do not like is still a violation of the 1st Amendment. Twitter doing it independently is not. Them doing it on behalf of the government is.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next