Ronald Reagan got elected by major landslides twice without Twitter and Facebook and he did it by winning all but one State and Washington DC in 1984.... and will never be thought of as evil at all let alone anywhere close to Like Trump is despite being a menace
This. I am shocked by the responses in this thread.
This. The fact that banning Trump was the right thing to do doesn't mean it's right for a corporation to decide who should have a microphone. No terms of service bullshit, America needs laws that make it clear was is and isn't ok, then instead of banning from Twitter, you can actually prosecute hate speech.
She is also talking in German, despite being able to speak English. It's to a home audience, not to Americans. She's calling for states to be able to regulate speech on the internet, which she has done before and regularly tries to influence the EU in doing. Non-American states with string hate speech laws are terrified of leaving the regulation of speech to some American plutocrats. She's a religious conservative so it's hardly surprising that she's pro-censorship.
Ok I see what you mean, I suppose to your point if something is that dangerous (whatever exactly it would be classed as) then one hopes there would be statutes to protect the country against it in the future, or current ones used more robustly. Incitement isn't normally illegal in the US but it is for rioting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement#United_States, that doesn't help the seeping, creeping nature of these things though. Anyhow, I don't have a proposal.
Can't arrest a President until you impeach in the House and convict in the Senate and guess who controls the Senate.
Damn, I knew there'd be a catch!
I've yet to hear a bad thing about the current PMs of Finland or Iceland but I'd be lying if I said I read a lot of news about what goes on in either country.
A core issue is how rigid the first amendment is, that's why you see liberal and conservative justices generally agree more than disagree on this issue
Yes, originally the title left out the context of anti hate speech laws and just said that she didn't want Twitter to ban him
Eh.
Era is great for this. This Metallica thread is basically custom made to prove that people don't even bother reading the OP before landing their hot takes.
This is why giving a president so much unilateral power is a bad idea
Because like laws, all rules are subject to biased enforcement in order to achieve a desired outcome
So mean of nasty Twitter to limit Trump's god given right to encourage sedition!
And like all kind of workers around the world, politicians can feel class solidarity and now they're concerned about moderation policies.
Absolutely this. It shouldn't come down to Facebook or Twitter making the decision to deplatform Trump. He's been inciting hatred and violence since before he took office and should have been dealt with years ago. Laws should already exist to keep even the leader of the nation in check and they shouldn't be immune to the consequences of breaking those laws. We should be ashamed that it came to this.
It's too late for America to get them. The US constitution's first amendment (and the second but that's for another thread) is far too broad by European standards but the rules should have been set up when the country was in a more united mood, if you put hate speech rules into place now you'd likely have Republicans writing them and deeming BLM hate speech but Parler acceptable. You need to keep the hate speakers away from the levers of power for hate speech laws to have the intended effect, the US is too far past that point.
