-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
We have argued this past the point of being boring.
You are not going to like this but the U.S. responsibility for those trying to enter illegally is minimal. We more than meet international standards for humane detention. Were I a parent who tried to enter the country illegally I would hold MYSELF responsible for what happened to me and my children. I would know that detention in the U.S. is a lot better ; a lot more humane than facilities in Guatemala and Mexico. Both of whom would prosecute me for illegal entry .
No we don't and no you wouldn't. It's easy to say that while sitting comfortably in your house or apt. in the US. If you were living in an impoverished village in Central America, where you didn't earn enough to feed your children, and your life was endangered on a regular basis by violent gangs, you would think differently. Our laws aren't based on what goes on in Guatemala or Mexico. It's not just wrong to forcibly remove small children from their parents without valid reasons, it is against the law.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...al-judge-rules
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
Without getting biographical , I DO know a LOT more about the Constitution and Constitutional Law than you think I do. For every professor or attorney saying that the Senate can impeach and punish a FORMER President that are just as many who recognize what is going on for what it is : A POLITICAL effort to blame Trump, his supporters and the Republicans for the riot. Why hasn't the media pursued WHY Chief Justice Roberts refused to preside over Trump's trial ?
It makes no sense that a president cannot be impeached after he leaves office. If a president has been in office for less than 6 years and commits impeachable offenses, then all he would need to do to prevent being impeached and barred from running for president again, would be to resign before his trial, and then run for reelection the next election year.
Judge Roberts isn't presiding over the trial because Trump is not a sitting president.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
Read Byron York's latest column about all the legitimate questions he asked the Capitol Police and their refusal to answer. Did you know that there is NO EVIDENCE that Sicknick was killed during or as a result of the riot ? That's right. He was NOT hit in the head with the fire extinguisher. His union said he died from a stroke. His autopsy is unfinished and has not come up with a cause of death. 3 others died from natural causes and the the Capitol Police won't say who shot Ashley Babbitt, the woman who was killed. These are just a few of the unanswered questions that most of the mainstream media won't touch. I am not trying to minimize the riot or that people died. Only that the Dems rushed to judgement to make political hay without having all the facts.
I doubt very much that Sicknick would have died, were it not for the riot. We know enough about what went on, to know that there was a violent riot, where the intent was to take over our government and overturn the results of a lawful election. That alone is against the law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
I don't like Trump. I think he is a horse's ass and behaved accordingly. The problem is there is still a First Amendment that applies just as much to him as it does to AOC , Pelosi , Maxine and BLM. Since he is now a private citizen, if he is really guilty or responsible then Biden's Justice Department ought to investigate him ; indict him if there is probable cause and prosecute him for Sedition or incitement to riot , criminal conspiracy , reusing postage stamps or anything they like . Good luck to them. Instead the Dems want to vent and punish him for what are probably not crimes.
Then why do you defend practically everything he does? The 1st Amendment doesn't cover lying or incitement of violence. Trump knowingly, repeatedly lied about election, and we know he made every possible effort to try to overturn the results, both legally and illegally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
Worst of all is the precedent that would be set. Would you like to see Republicans impeaching Clinton again for things he did while he was President ? Better yet, how about if they tried to impeach Obama for improperly spying on Trump and maybe went after Biden for going along when he was V.P. ? Not as far fetched as you might like to think.
If Clinton or Obama clearly broke the law while in office, then I wouldn't have a problem with them being impeached after they finished their terms. Obama did not spy on anyone. He couldn't spy on anyone, even if he wanted to. The President does not have the power to order wire taps. The Trump DOJ spent millions investigating Obama, Biden, and Clinton; and came up with nothing. Trump even pressured his DOJ to charge them with crimes.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
As for law professors expressing anything from serious reservations to outright opposition to Impeaching Trump NOW , they include Alan Dershowitz ( No Eagle - he is NOT a crackpot but a highly respected Constitutional lawyer . He's also written more books than you've probably read lol . Just kidding ); Ann Althouse Of the University Of Wisconsin who has described and explained how Roberts wanting nothing to do with the current farce makes it a nullity: Eugene Kontorovich of The Scalia Law School at George Mason who explains how and why it is dangerous to pursue FORMER Presidents with Impeachment ; Jonathan Turley of George Washington and Philip Bobbitt of Columbia.
It seems that until fairly recently, Jonathan Turley did think that you could impeach a president after he left office.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dByK3EiX06c
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
eagle2
Let's focus on what Turley says NOW !.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
OK, I'm going to be simplistic here - What was the purpose of a lame duck president holding a rally two weeks before inauguration day? Never been done before, just perpetuating the 'big lie' that the election had been stolen. To say nothing of the $50M spent on advertising the buildup to the rally.
Half the people there were the same ones screaming to lock Hillary up for emails on a non-secure server, even after she left office. Too many people have fixed views and only look for facts to support those views.
Right after the election, people wondered 'what Trump would break on the way out'. Now we know. There has to be accountability, to say it is not OK to do because you will (reluctantly) leave in a couple weeks.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
eagle2
No we don't and no you wouldn't. It's easy to say that while sitting comfortably in your house or apt. in the US. If you were living in an impoverished village in Central America, where you didn't earn enough to feed your children, and your life was endangered on a regular basis by violent gangs, you would think differently. Our laws aren't based on what goes on in Guatemala or Mexico. It's not just wrong to forcibly remove small children from their parents without valid reasons,
it is against the law.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...al-judge-rules
It makes no sense that a president cannot be impeached after he leaves office. If a president has been in office for less than 6 years and commits impeachable offenses, then all he would need to do to prevent being impeached and barred from running for president again, would be to resign before his trial, and then run for reelection the next election year.
Judge Roberts isn't presiding over the trial because Trump is not a sitting president.
I doubt very much that Sicknick would have died, were it not for the riot. We know enough about what went on, to know that there was a violent riot, where the intent was to take over our government and overturn the results of a lawful election. That alone is against the law.
Then why do you defend practically everything he does? The 1st Amendment doesn't cover lying or incitement of violence. Trump knowingly, repeatedly lied about election, and we know he made every possible effort to try to overturn the results, both legally and illegally.
If Clinton or Obama clearly broke the law while in office, then I wouldn't have a problem with them being impeached after they finished their terms. Obama did not spy on anyone. He couldn't spy on anyone, even if he wanted to. The President does not have the power to order wire taps. The Trump DOJ spent millions investigating Obama, Biden, and Clinton; and came up with nothing. Trump even pressured his DOJ to charge them with crimes.
When you compare our detention facilities to those in other countries , ours are far more humane than most.
I have sympathy for the poor of Central America. As bad as things are it does NOT entitle them to enter our country illegally. WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW and subjects them to DETENTION and Expulsion.
Whether it "makes sense" or not the language of the Constitution is clear. THAT is what I am arguing for. I do not care one whit for Trump or about Trump. The last thing I want to see is him run again. He can be prosecuted for whatever crimes he may have committed. This is political theatre to try and damage the Republicans and Trump supporters. And of course they want to dirty up Trump as much as possible to make him easier to defeat if he runs again in 2024. This is not a question of letting Trump get away with anything although that is how the Dems have tried to couch it. Trump can be prosecuted. I doubt he will be because they have a very weak case against him and as a criminal defendant he will have rights and privileges that he doesn't have now as an unwilling participant in a political theatrical.
You don't know about Sicknick. You were not there. There are reports that he had a stroke or some sort of severe reaction to the chemical agents that were used against the rioters. There is no video showing it was him who got hit in the head with the fire extinguisher. To date, over a month later, nobody has been charged in his death. Why do YOU think that is ?
The First Amendment protects SPEECH. Not just popular speech. Not just truthful speech. Were it otherwise then defamation cases against public figures would not have the high hurdles to overcome that they do in this country. We are not the U.K. where the libel laws are much more liberal. Trump had the right to say what he did. Even though I think what he said was not true and that it was wrongful for him to do so. The fact that he believed the election was rigged or stolen did not entitle him to say so afaic. However the same language that Trump used at the RALLY "fight like hell " was used by Jamie Raskin and other Dems speaking out against Trump policies. Raskin btw objected to 10 of 29 Electoral Votes from Florida in January, 2017 when Congress was certifying Trump's victory in the Electoral College. Schumer threatened Justices Gorsuch and Kavanagh at a rally held outside the SCOTUS while the justices were hearing a case.
We are going to have to agree to disagree as to whether what Trump said constituted "incitement ". There are very specific standards under both Federal law and the Constitution as to what constitutes ACTIONABLE incitement. What Trump said falls short of both. I am not defending Trump. I am standing up for the First Amendment and the Constitution, Trump be damned.
Your last point is hilarious. Obama approved efforts to spy on Trump's campaign. I don't know about wiretaps per se but there were FISA warrants that were found by the Inspector General of the Justice Dept. to have been obtained improperly and perhaps illegally i.e. the FISA Court was lied to. Mr. Durham has not finished his investigation so we don't know if anyone will be prosecuted for their misdeeds. I hope so but I kinda doubt it.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CFMNH44
OK, I'm going to be simplistic here - What was the purpose of a lame duck president holding a rally two weeks before inauguration day? Never been done before, just perpetuating the 'big lie' that the election had been stolen. To say nothing of the $50M spent on advertising the buildup to the rally.
Half the people there were the same ones screaming to lock Hillary up for emails on a non-secure server, even after she left office. Too many people have fixed views and only look for facts to support those views.
Right after the election, people wondered 'what Trump would break on the way out'. Now we know. There has to be accountability, to say it is not OK to do because you will (reluctantly) leave in a couple weeks.
I have repeatedly posted that Trump's rally was stupid. It was a lame attempt to pressure Congress. Fortunately it didn't work. The RALLY and the RIOT were two separate things. The RIOT occurred while the RALLY was still taking place.
Trump can be held accountable with a criminal prosecution. He can also be held accountable by the voters who hopefully will see through him should he try and run again.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
When you compare our detention facilities to those in other countries , ours are far more humane than most.
Not under Trump, and it doesn't matter. What matters is what the law is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
I have sympathy for the poor of Central America. As bad as things are it does NOT entitle them to enter our country illegally. WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW and subjects them to DETENTION and Expulsion.
It doesn't matter whether or not they broke the law. Our government is required to follow the law either way. The law does not subject them to have their children forcibly removed, and it doesn't subject them to the horrific conditions that some of them were kept in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
Whether it "makes sense" or not the language of the Constitution is clear. THAT is what I am arguing for. I do not care one whit for Trump or about Trump. The last thing I want to see is him run again. He can be prosecuted for whatever crimes he may have committed. This is political theatre to try and damage the Republicans and Trump supporters. And of course they want to dirty up Trump as much as possible to make him easier to defeat if he runs again in 2024. This is not a question of letting Trump get away with anything although that is how the Dems have tried to couch it. Trump can be prosecuted. I doubt he will be because they have a very weak case against him and as a criminal defendant he will have rights and privileges that he doesn't have now as an unwilling participant in a political theatrical.
It is not clear. You're putting meaning into it that isn't there. Your interpretation makes no sense. What is the point of putting it into the Constitution, that an impeached president can be prohibited from holding public office, if all he has to do to avoid this, is resign before his trial is over?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
You don't know about Sicknick. You were not there. There are reports that he had a stroke or some sort of severe reaction to the chemical agents that were used against the rioters. There is no video showing it was him who got hit in the head with the fire extinguisher. To date, over a month later, nobody has been charged in his death. Why do YOU think that is ?
They're saying he was sprayed by the rioters. They haven't identified who is responsible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
The First Amendment protects SPEECH. Not just popular speech. Not just truthful speech. Were it otherwise then defamation cases against public figures would not have the high hurdles to overcome that they do in this country. We are not the U.K. where the libel laws are much more liberal. Trump had the right to say what he did. Even though I think what he said was not true and that it was wrongful for him to do so. The fact that he believed the election was rigged or stolen did not entitle him to say so afaic. However the same language that Trump used at the RALLY "fight like hell " was used by Jamie Raskin and other Dems speaking out against Trump policies. Raskin btw objected to 10 of 29 Electoral Votes from Florida in January, 2017 when Congress was certifying Trump's victory in the Electoral College. Schumer threatened Justices Gorsuch and Kavanagh at a rally held outside the SCOTUS while the justices were hearing a case.
There are limits to the 1st Amendment, and it does not protect lies or incitement to violence. Again, it wasn't just what he said at the rally. It's what he was saying for the past 3 or 4 months.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
Your last point is hilarious. Obama approved efforts to spy on Trump's campaign. I don't know about wiretaps per se but there were FISA warrants that were found by the Inspector General of the Justice Dept. to have been obtained improperly and perhaps illegally i.e. the FISA Court was lied to. Mr. Durham uas not finished his investigation so we don't know if anyone will be prosecuted for their misdeeds. I hope so but I kinda doubt it.
No he didn't. You don't understand what happened or how law enforcement works. The President isn't the one who approves FISA warrants. FISA judges do.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
Let's focus on what Turley says NOW !.
This is a good example of the logical fallacy, Appeal to Authority.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Probably, the most widely used example of speech that's not protected by the Constitution, is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. (when there isn't a fire) Trump repeatedly yelling "the election was stolen" is no different.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CFMNH44
OK, I'm going to be simplistic here - What was the purpose of a lame duck president holding a rally two weeks before inauguration day? Never been done before, just perpetuating the 'big lie' that the election had been stolen. To say nothing of the $50M spent on advertising the buildup to the rally.
Half the people there were the same ones screaming to lock Hillary up for emails on a non-secure server, even after she left office.
Didn't she leave office like TEN years ago? Last I heard she was just Secretary of State for two years. I'm just asking. Is there something I'm missing, here? I know that in 2016 she was trying to get into office, but she was outvoted.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
eagle2
No they haven't. You're getting your information from dishonest sources. Nobody was banned from Twitter for their political views. They were banned for inciting violence that led to five people being killed. There is no legal basis for your argument that government should control how private businesses run their platforms.
Why should you be the one who decides what is allowable for Twitter to have posted on their platform, rather than Twitter?
You lost me. What are you babbling about ?
Twitter has repeatedly used "incitement of violence" and "factual inaccuracy " as fig leaves to cover obvious political favoritism . They let stand a lot of Tweets that mused about doing physical harm to Trump and his family; that advocated potentially violent confrontation ; that excused rioting. As for being factual that only seems to apply to voices from the right. Name one Lib or Progressive who has been banned or had their account suspended on the same specious grounds as Trump , O'Keefe and others ? I'll save you the trouble. Afaik there aren't any.
I did not appoint myself as arbiter of anything. Were I any such thing I would permit robust debate on a broader and more even handed basis that Twitter does.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Raziel
Didn't she leave office like TEN years ago? Last I heard she was just Secretary of State for two years. I'm just asking. Is there something I'm missing, here? I know that in 2016 she was trying to get into office, but she was outvoted.
I usually just ignore your posts but Hillary was Secretary of State for all of Obama's FIRST term = 4 years.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
eagle2
Probably, the most widely used example of speech that's not protected by the Constitution, is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. (when there isn't a fire) Trump repeatedly yelling "the election was stolen" is no different.
Your hair is on fire. There is a world of difference between Trump's claims of a stolen election and FALSELY shouting "Fire " in a crowded theatre.
Even though there was a lack of evidence of any actual election fraud, there were a LOT of last minute changes to election laws and procedures in various states. None of which benefitted Trump. Too bad , too sad Donnie. There was a concerted effort to change and game the system to get Biden elected. People involved like Stacey Abrams admitted it. It does NOT mean they did anything illegal nor that Biden did NOT get more votes than Trump. They probably did NOT and Biden did.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
As for being factual that only seems to apply to voices from the right. Name one Lib or Progressive who has been banned or had their account suspended on the same specious grounds as Trump , O'Keefe and others ? I'll save you the trouble. Afaik there aren't any.
This was not Twitter, but RFK Jr, a Democrat, was banned from Instagram (owned by Facebook, which is cited in the thread title as controlling speech) for repeatedly sharing debunked anti-vax claims. ...That was easy.
People on all parts of the political spectrum could very easily stop lying and end this "bias." But since lying is these people's business schemes, it's not happening any time soon.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
I usually just ignore your posts but Hillary was Secretary of State for all of Obama's FIRST term = 4 years.
First off, I really don't care. You're a DUDE. I have enough friends.
But then 9 years ago Hillary was in office. Big difference.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
eagle2
Not under Trump, and it doesn't matter. What matters is what the law is.
It doesn't matter whether or not they broke the law. Our government is required to follow the law either way. The law does not subject them to have their children forcibly removed, and it doesn't subject them to the horrific conditions that some of them were kept in.
It is not clear. You're putting meaning into it that isn't there. Your interpretation makes no sense. What is the point of putting it into the Constitution, that an impeached president can be prohibited from holding public office, if all he has to do to avoid this, is resign before his trial is over?
They're saying he was sprayed by the rioters. They haven't identified who is responsible.
There are limits to the 1st Amendment, and it does not protect lies or incitement to violence. Again, it wasn't just what he said at the rally. It's what he was saying for the past 3 or 4 months.
No he didn't. You don't understand what happened or how law enforcement works. The President isn't the one who approves FISA warrants. FISA judges do.
No Eagle, there are some things you apparently neither know about or do not understand. Let's agree to disagree about the illegal immigrants and the children they brought with them. And about the conditions in which they were held. Our facilities were not the best and were not adequate. I think posting that at least ten times ought to be enough. I could post something flippant like : How many illegals are you willing to put up in your house ? But why bother ?
Actually there is some First Amendment protection for both "lies" and "incitement to violence". So says the SCOTUS under a long line of decisions including N.Y. Times vs. Sullivan and Falwell vs. Flynt. To be actionable on a CIVIL level the "lie" must be false , defamatory , harmful and said with SCIENTER = knowledge that it was false or reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity. We do not have FEDERAL laws covering criminal libel and most state statutes attempting to criminalize certain kinds of speech were invalidated decades ago.
Incitement is covered by a case called Brandenburg vs. Ohio. To be actionable criminally the incitement to violence must be clear , unequivocal ( "if they do this then we will that " is NO Good ) and immediate. "Let's have a rally about a mile from the Capitol to protest a stolen election " is not actionable. Neither is " go over there peacefully and patriotically and be heard . " What would be actionable would be if Trump had said " Storm the Capitol " ;" leave now and go there and stop that vote any way you have to "; " and bring your bats" ; or "lock and load and go arrest Pelosi " or a dozen other direct and clear exhortations or encouragements of either violence or actions directly calculated and virtually certain to cause or create violence. The speech MUST be directed to "incite or produce imminent lawless action and be likely to produce or incite such action ". Advocacy of violence alone cannot be prohibited. Trump NEVER said any such things.
FISA judges approve FISA warrants AFTER the FBI applies for one. Who was in charge of the FBI ? Comey. Who did he report to ? Loretta Lynch. Anyway he was SUPPOSED to report to her. The guy went rogue and violated procedure so many times it is hard to keep track. Who did she work for ? Obama. More important was the famous or infamous OVAL OFFICE meeting AFTER Trump was elected but before he took office. Whose idea was it to charge him with violating the Logan Act ? Biden's. ( this isn't me ; this isn't Rush or Sean ; this is according to Sally Yates who WAS THERE ! ) Yates said a lot of things about that meeting and Obama's role , UNDER OATH in front of Congress. Look it up. Why would she lie ? Obama was her guy and she hates Trump.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Raziel
First off, I really don't care. You're a DUDE. I have enough friends.
But then 9 years ago Hillary was in office. Big difference.
I am so glad. That's very big of you.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dpacrkk
This was not Twitter, but RFK Jr, a Democrat, was banned from Instagram (owned by Facebook, which is cited in the thread title as controlling speech) for repeatedly sharing debunked anti-vax claims. ...That was easy.
People on all parts of the political spectrum could very easily stop lying and end this "bias." But since lying is these people's business schemes, it's not happening any time soon.
You're right. I forgot about him. But it wasn't his political thoughts or ideas that got him banned. It was his junk science.
And he wasn't banned by Twitter.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
I am so glad. That's very big of you.
Well, it's true. She hasn't been in office in a long time. She tried for it in 2016, it didn't work. Hence, she hasn't actually been in office in 9 years! Get over it for fucks sake!
Count the years on your fingers. 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021. I include 2021 for posterities sake, but I really don't think it counts.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
You lost me. What are you babbling about ?
Twitter has repeatedly used "incitement of violence" and "factual inaccuracy " as fig leaves to cover obvious political favoritism . They let stand a lot of Tweets that mused about doing physical harm to Trump and his family; that advocated potentially violent confrontation ; that excused rioting. As for being factual that only seems to apply to voices from the right. Name one Lib or Progressive who has been banned or had their account suspended on the same specious grounds as Trump , O'Keefe and others ? I'll save you the trouble. Afaik there aren't any.
I did not appoint myself as arbiter of anything. Were I any such thing I would permit robust debate on a broader and more even handed basis that Twitter does.
No, those were the actual reasons why people were banned. If anything, Twitter has been very lenient towards Trump. He was breaking their terms of service for years before they banned him. Why are there many conservatives who have not been banned by Twitter, including Trump's children?
You did appoint yourself as arbiter. You said Twitter should ban certain things, such as Holocaust denial, but not lying about the election. How is that not being arbiter? Why is it wrong to lie about the Holocaust, but okay to lie about the election?
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
eagle2
No, those were the actual reasons why people were banned. If anything, Twitter has been very lenient towards Trump. He was breaking their terms of service for years before they banned him. Why are there many conservatives who have not been banned by Twitter, including Trump's children?
You did appoint yourself as arbiter. You said Twitter should ban certain things, such as Holocaust denial, but not lying about the election. How is that not being arbiter? Why is it wrong to lie about the Holocaust, but okay to lie about the election?
Without appointing myself anything I thought , silly me , that something like Holocaust Denial was so far off the map ; so unsupported by any facts or evidence , so lacking in any redeeming value of any kind , so hurtful and so harmful to public discourse that NOBODY could seriously argue in favor of not banning it from Twitter or any other outlet or platform. I can't believe you disagree but correct me if you do. A private web-site or newsletter, as distasteful as those would be, should probably be permitted I suppose.
In contrast, being suspicious about the Election of 2020 is well within the mainstream of political and civic discourse. Trump was within his rights to file Court challenges. There WERE last minute changes to Election Laws. There WERE last minute changes to voting procedures without legislative imprimaturs.
However, as I have repeatedly posted , in every case one of two things happened : Either there were not enough questionable votes to affect the result in a single state or more often there was not enough evidence of any fraud. Ghoulie Giuliani admitted more than once in open court that " this is not a case of voter fraud or election fraud ". I posted that Trump ought to have conceded within about 48 hours of Election Day. That his post election behavior was a shameful disgrace. Some of the changes ARE troubling. Vote by mail invites fraud as Jimmy Carter and other eminent members of a Committee said years ago when they examined the issue. Most electoral democracies do not permit voting by mail. Trump and the country would have been MUCH better off if he had been forward looking and focused on future elections and preserving their integrity without any improper effect on suffrage. Sadly his ego did not permit him to do that. Worse yet, he does not listen to me . More's the pity. We'd all be a lot better off if he did.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
You're right. I forgot about him. But it wasn't his political thoughts or ideas that got him banned. It was his junk science.
And he wasn't banned by Twitter.
You just stipulated "As for being factual that only seems to apply to voices from the right," and RFK Jr's ban was an example of denying facts. Claims of election fraud are the same level. I addressed RFK Jr's ban not being from Twitter, and you (theoretically) acknowledged having read it by quoting it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
Without appointing myself anything I thought , silly me , that something like Holocaust Denial was so far off the map ; so unsupported by any facts or evidence , so lacking in any redeeming value of any kind , so hurtful and so harmful to public discourse that NOBODY could seriously argue in favor of not banning it from Twitter or any other outlet or platform. I can't believe you disagree but correct me if you do. A private web-site or newsletter, as distasteful as those would be, should probably be permitted I suppose.
Without appointing myself anything I thought, silly me, that something like Election Fraud was so far off the map, so unsupported by any facts or evidence, so lacking in any redeeming value of any kind, so hurtful and so harmful to public discourse that NOBODY could seriously argue in favor of not banning it from Twitter or any other outlet or platform. I can't believe you disagree but correct me if you do. A private website or newsletter, as distasteful as those would be, should probably be permitted I suppose.
Does that help you understand now? I know you have an entire second paragraph explaining your viewpoint, but opposition should have been dropped when your aforementioned "not enough questionable votes" point was made clear. But it's still being claimed after about three months. And not to speak/type for him, but it's clear eagle was not disagreeing with you about Holocaust denial.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
Without appointing myself anything I thought , silly me , that something like Holocaust Denial was so far off the map ; so unsupported by any facts or evidence , so lacking in any redeeming value of any kind , so hurtful and so harmful to public discourse that NOBODY could seriously argue in favor of not banning it from Twitter or any other outlet or platform. I can't believe you disagree but correct me if you do. A private web-site or newsletter, as distasteful as those would be, should probably be permitted I suppose.
I didn't say I disagree, and dpacrkk was able to understand my point, so I wasn't being unclear. Again, my point is, Twitter is the one who should be deciding what is allowed on their platform, not you. Lying about the election is just as valid of a reason to ban someone, as lying about the Holocaust, especially when lying about the election led to a riot in which 5 people died. You want Twitter to allow lies that you're okay with (lying about the election), but to not allow lies you're not okay with (lies about the Holocaust). As I said before Twitter should be the arbiter of what is allowed on their platform, not you. If you want to allow lies about the election to be promoted, then build your own website and you can allow anything you want to be posted on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
In contrast, being suspicious about the Election of 2020 is well within the mainstream of political and civic discourse. Trump was within his rights to file Court challenges. There WERE last minute changes to Election Laws. There WERE last minute changes to voting procedures without legislative imprimaturs.
However, as I have repeatedly posted , in every case one of two things happened : Either there were not enough questionable votes to affect the result in a single state or more often there was not enough evidence of any fraud. Ghoulie Giuliani admitted more than once in open court that " this is not a case of voter fraud or election fraud ". I posted that Trump ought to have conceded within about 48 hours of Election Day. That his post election behavior was a shameful disgrace. Some of the changes ARE troubling. Vote by mail invites fraud as Jimmy Carter and other eminent members of a Committee said years ago when they examined the issue. Most electoral democracies do not permit voting by mail. Trump and the country would have been MUCH better off if he had been forward looking and focused on future elections and preserving their integrity without any improper effect on suffrage. Sadly his ego did not permit him to do that. Worse yet, he does not listen to me . More's the pity. We'd all be a lot better off if he did.
This wasn't about being suspicious about the election. It was about Trump repeatedly insisting he won the election by a landslide, but the Democrats stole it from him. I know you don't like it when I say something you posted was dishonest, so please explain to me how it is not dishonest to say, "being suspicious about the Election of 2020 is well within the mainstream of political and civic discourse", when the reason why Trump was banned was for repeatedly insisting that the election was stolen and he won by a landslide, which is way above and beyond merely being suspicious.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Here are two of Trump's tweets from Jan. 6, the day he was banned:
I know your pain, I know you’re hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us, it was a landslide election, and everyone knows it, especially the other side. But you have to go home now.
These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dpacrkk
You just stipulated "As for being factual that only seems to apply to voices from the right," and RFK Jr's ban was an example of denying facts. Claims of election fraud are the same level. I addressed RFK Jr's ban not being from Twitter, and you (theoretically) acknowledged having read it by quoting it.
Without appointing myself anything I thought, silly me, that something like Election Fraud was so far off the map, so unsupported by any facts or evidence, so lacking in any redeeming value of any kind, so hurtful and so harmful to public discourse that NOBODY could seriously argue in favor of not banning it from Twitter or any other outlet or platform. I can't believe you disagree but correct me if you do. A private website or newsletter, as distasteful as those would be, should probably be permitted I suppose.
Does that help you understand now? I know you have an entire second paragraph explaining your viewpoint, but opposition should have been dropped when your aforementioned "not enough questionable votes" point was made clear. But it's still being claimed after about three months. And not to speak/type for him, but it's clear eagle was not disagreeing with you about Holocaust denial.
It depends what you mean by "Election Fraud ". Are you saying that merely questioning the result of the 2020 Election is sufficient to support banning someone from Twitter ? I THINK we can agree that Trump had his chance to contest the result in various courts and crapped out every time. And yet I do not see Holocaust Denial as being on a par with claiming Election Fraud. Not when there were some facts to at least merit legal challenges ( albeit unsuccessful ) and to question how votes were cast and counted in certain states. Please don't misunderstand. At the end of the day Trump's claims lacked merit and ought to have been abandoned right after the Electoral College voted. His failure to do so was improper and inexcusable. And I've honestly been asking myself whether that was an impeachable offense. I think the answer is YES for a SITTING President. Not for Trump or any other former POTUS because the sole remedy in Impeachment of a President is REMOVAL and ineligibility for future office is the natural sequel.
I don't think I have patronized you. Would you please show me a little courtesy and stop doing it to me ? Just because we don't see eye to eye does not make me "obtuse" or demonstrate that I need any help from you in understanding the issues we are discussing.
Eagle and I have been going at it for years. One reason I respect him is because even when passionate about an issue he rarely comes close to insulting me and NEVER gets down in the gutter.