Twitter has permanently banned Trump for "incitement of violence". Do you agree with it?

[nightdrot]

Preface to answering, hereby my credentials are proffered. I am a Republican who has worked in politics for over 30 years and am no fan of President Trump and did not vote for him in 2016.

Further, I have no love of Twitter. It is the National Enquirer of the grotesquely limited attention span. 280 character statements not being a thought, but rather a thought fragment. It conduces then not to reason but emotion and pace, Henry L. Stimson's "Gentlemen do not read each other's mail" I firmly believe that "Gentlemen do not 'tweet.'" This then helping to explain Mr. Trump's proclivity for using that medium.

That said, the question has two answers. One legal and the other cultural and political. As Mr. Trump is paradoxically not central to either answer, I did not vote. However, that paradox notwithstanding, the implications are significant.

In the legal realm, Twitter, Facebook and the like are apt to face, and in fact are facing, serious anti-trust cases that may, in the fullness of time, lead to their being broken up. To be sure, as private companies they have the authority to determine what and what does not get placed on their sites.

However, first, as they were originally to be platforms that carried a multiplicity of viewpoints, they were given certain legal exemptions. However, as the various bans seem to have taken on a specific ideological direction, the courts are apt to view their actions as collusion and thus in violation of anti-trust laws. This getting easier if, as seems possible, Congress revokes the exemptions from legal action that it granted these companies in the late 1990s.

(As an aside, this issue splits the Democratic party wide open. The likes of Senator Elizabeth Warren favoring the GOP position, ironically enough, of breaking "big tech" companies up. While the mainline Democrats - now the party of big business - wants to continue to afford "big tech" various legal and regulatory protections.)

However, it is at the cultural level that things turn especially bitter. The effort by "Big Tech" to ban President Trump and conservative sites like Parler may be based on their assessment of the political dynamics, but it feeds the populist narrative that big business is trying to impose its will on the public.

This is fueling massive social tensions that will result in more violence. Moreover, driving populist and conservative populist tendencies underground and pushing them toward greater extremism. This can only end badly and in the short term was made worse when it came out that most of the planning for the recent riots on Capitol Hill were facilitated not by Parler, but Facebook.

Put it all together and in cultural terms, Facebook and Twitter are, intentionally or not, driving the cultural dialogue to greater extremes and the price for that is likely to be more tumult. Not least as social media has the tendency to place people in their own mental universe.

To be sure the United States has endured periods of violence and social upheaval before. The current period bearing a startling resemblance to the mayhem of the 1960s and 70s. (Fun fact, from January 1, 1960 to December 31, 1969, there were over 8000 domestic bombings, albeit most were small scale. Suffice to say, as that fact demonstrates, the nation has been here before.)

CONT.

[MCheetah]

I hate Twitter and think its useless, but no social media platform should have the right to dictate free speech, especially when they are clearly publishers (biased) and not platforms (unbiased).

Some idiots are trying to make the "they're a company, so they can do what they want" argument, not understanding this. It's essentially bigotry and platforms not being allowed to do this is the same reason Verizon can't deny you service because you're black or Apple can't deny selling you an iPhone because you're gay. As publishers, they have no legal protections, which means they can be sued for libel and slander (and rightfully should be), but as platforms, they are protected from all of that since "anyone can use them and they're free speech zones."

It's not so much about the First Amendment as it is about these social media apps being protected by law because they're *supposed* to be neutral platforms that allows everyone to have a voice the same way Apple allows anyone to buy an iPhone and use the iTunes store. The issue is the massive government corruption when everyone who isn't a complete idiot knows they have a massive bias against the political right and favor the political left. They are basically publishers who can legally act with bigotry, discrimination, prejudice, and bias (in this case, political discrimination), which is *supposed* to be illegal and against the law.

Let's see how many mindless brainless sheep agree with what the media tells them... So far 29%. One female and six beta males. That's just sad at least 29% of people are this dumb.

[AlienParasite]

I don't have a clear idea.

On one hand I believe you can't claim there's free speech if there are speeches that are forbidden. However is true there are speeches that invite to hate or violence. If be believe in free speech, we would have to trust people's critical sense and believe most people would despise incendiary ideologies. If we can't trust people, which is sad, free speech could be sacrificed in favor to safety.

Also I have this concept about private businesses, that they have the right to make their own rules and regulations, and deny service to those they don't want as customers. Even if social apps are so open it seems like a free service, they are still a private company's service. The only thing customers can do against it is to complain in such a way they cause a real pressure on the company - usually by methods that would effect negatively in the business' benefits so the company feels like the have to reconsider the way they rule and regulate. Either actions such as damaging the platform reputation through pointing out the obvious hypocrisy in how they inforce their rules unequally or basic option which is stop using their services.

Beign honest, I don't care if Trump keeps banned or is unbanned. I neither care if Twitter works well or the platform dies.

[angelgirl7]

It's a little too late in my opinion.
First of all, I'm not a big Trump fan so this is not coming from the place of a Trump supporter. But I don't feel like he was ever given a fair chance. As soon as he was elected they were trying to impeach him. This social media ban just feels like a personal attack on him and a distraction from the real issues (Insert the clip of Kourtney Kardashian saying "Kim, there's people that are dying").
Of all the troublesome things he's said/posted throughout the years, what exactly did he say this time that was the final straw?
It definitely felt like this was a bias decision. People were criticizing Twitter for not doing it so they finally caved, and then other social media companies followed suit to save face.
I've seen far worse things posted on social media throughout the years and absolutely nothing was done. Not that citizens should be held to the same standard as the president but if you're going to cite your rules for the reason for banning him, then you better make them universal and start holding everybody (regardless of their status) accountable.

[BCA6010]

Having actually read the speech in full, no I do not agree with Twitter (or any other organization) and their decision. At best, they jumped the gun without knowing the facts, at worst they had much more malicious motivations. Now of course those idiots had to wait until after the impeachment hearings to announce it, but the FBI has determined Trump's speech and rally had nothing to do with the capitol riots.

This goes before taking into account the hypocrisy of the entire scenario given what happened all throughout 2020 yet not one of those people, including elected officials in the house were banned for actively participating.

The bottom line is that this proves big tech has gotten way too big and needs to be forcibly broken down into bits. The reality is that a single social media company can flex more power and influence than the actual elected government. If not, then someday even the people who think big tech serves their interests are going to be in for a really rude awakening when they eventually get betrayed.

By the way this goes further than big tech now; even banking is jumping on the bandwagon.

[Anonymous]

This is a man who said he could have a gun and shoot someone and get away with it. This is a man who said he could ruin Canada when the NAFTA talks were being discussed. This is a man that divided America. This is a man that sucked the teet of Israel on matters such as Jerusalem when America has no right to be involved in the Middle East. This is a man that killed Iranian general Soleimani, a general and his military that stopped the US-backed and funded ISIS from entering Iran. This is a man who made fun of a man with a disability. This list goes on and on and on. See if I post this on twitter and my account was banned people would say YEAHHHHHH GOOOD HE DESERVES IT!! Y’all talk free speech but if I state the truth for something that you don’t agree that unanimously you will support something evil and stupid.

Oh by the way, I am not a democrat supporter, nor am I a republican supporter, nor am I communist or socialist. But for people saying he’s allowed to be hateful and push for violence than it’s clear to me many people in society especially in the US don’t seem to have values, morals or ethics. There are Christians who call themselves Trump supporters yet they hate other people. Jesus was not taught to hate, so I call those people fake Christians. I could care less if people give my comment a thumbs down or report it or flag it. It just goes to show the hypocrisy of what people on GAG or on social media will say and try to be clever trying to silence others.

[lightbulb27]

Don't think he did, don't think should be banned. Not sure about this "banning" becasue don't like what they say.

I listenened to his whole speech. What trump said was "audit the election system". I agree with that and agree with passing legeslation to ensure elections are accepted by both sides... he asked for that as well. Need to address root issues... audit the system so can be better trusted... or else this gets worse.

Replace twitter, FB with something else... a conservative version... that's what's coming. maybe even google.

Others on the left have incited and ignored the left's behavior. That's the diff I see.

[Petermorgan34]

I am a center st and try to be moderate in everything. So No, I think that it sets a dangerous precedent of protection of free speech. Twitter is a private company but the fact that they dont equally enforce the rules on leftist leaning bs vs rightist leaning bs is adding more fuel to rightist arguments of media and social media are biased twords leftism. Its important that everyones voice is heard no matter how right or wrong it may be as both views need to coexist and be heard in order to cause a more centerist and moderate view which to lead to a successful and prosperous future for all. becuase America is built on compromises

[AMonthOfAugust]

It scares me how different women are to men on this one haha
Ladies, know that your men who are against speech regulations aren't just against it. They are terrified of it.

Twitter is a private company and has rights to do as they please to some extent but the American constitution states that a person has the right to free speech with some exceptions. Trump basically yelled fire in a burning building and should have a slap on the wrist. But general speech regulations should never be legal.

[KrisKris81]

Trump seems to not be aware of how powerful the president's voice is. Free speech is a fundamental principle of America, but at the same time if he won't at least consider the effects of what he is saying then please stop him from (intentionally or not) inciting further violence.

His "supporters" might continue their "support" after he leaves the white house. Plus, I don't think Trump will be able to let go of losing the election; now that he has been impeached twice and might lose his president's club benefits (with a, supposed, mountain of debt waiting for him) I think the last thing he should have is a podium like Twitter.

If his supporters didn't include groups like the proud boys (who openly walk around with assault rifles) I would be against a permanent ban

[Anonymous]

Trump has incited violence against the American people when he encouraged the mob to riot and become insurrectionists. Their intent was to keep the American people from having the peaceful transfer of power that they had voted for. That is plenty of reason to ban Trump from whatever. There is no right to incite violence and insurrection. Coup attempts are what used to happen in third world countries, until Trump came along. Now coup attempts are part of America, and unfortunately, will now always be more likely to happen in America.

[jshm2]

Break the rules enough times anywhere and you'll eventually get banned. Doesn't matter if it's a golf club or Twitter.

What Twitter and others have shown is, being POTUS isn't any sort of defense against the rules- which is a good thing.

Regarding others, doesn't matter if it's antivaxxers, racists or people you don't like. If they have not broken the ToS, then they are fine. What you are trying to encourage is censoring people because you want to, not because they have broken the rules.

[wagsingle]

The 1st amendment prohibits the government from limiting speech. Twitter is a private company, and the ban does not discriminate against a protected class under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The platform is international, so additional local and state protections don't apply. The local baker comparison is invalid because that local baker who refused to serve a gay couple did violate ant-discrimination laws, and local protections do apply since the reused sale was local. If Twitter were to start limiting Muslims, women, Arabs , etc they would be breaking the law and face prosecution. However, banns based on content are acceptable, and in the case of false statements and comments that encourage violence, bans are not just justified. They are a moral obligation.

[BeenThereLovedIt]

Twitter was right to ban him. I read their full explanation on why his last two tweets were problematic, and agreed with their conclusion. They also had to consider their level of liability.

You wouldn't want a child molester inciting other child molesters to have the right to use twitter to incite their base and then rain down on playgrounds and 'take back' the children of america, right?

This is idiocy on an epic level.

[OfDeath]

It's hard for me to pick a side on this one because I am pro free speech. I'm not pro lies though. I think the footnotes under his tweets saying that reliable sources state otherwise were enough. So if pressed I have to say I'm against the decision to silence him.

[TKasap]

I support freedom of speech and while I don't think it was fair to ban Trump's twitter and facebook, I do support that social media remove harmful content that violates community standards and his content did violate community standards by inciting violence among his followers. So will I don't agree with the silencing, I won't be losing any sleep over it. Enjoy your retirement with golf outings, resorts, and hotels you terrible person!

[CasaNorba]

fuck no!

Twitter is cancerous cesspool. if you ignore the news and actually study what really happened in Washington you will obviously conclude that it was not Trump's supporters that caused that warzone. it was obviously the ANTIFA losers pretending to be Trump supporters in order to justify his second impeachment and make sure he leaves for good on January 20. it can't all be a coincidence and I even have a leaked video of authorities escorting at least four buses filled with ANTIFA members in that area hours before the incident took place.

ironically what they did/doing to Trump is the epitome of fascism

[Kabluie]

Once Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg pulled the plug on Trump it was all downhill from there. I tell people in this IT industry you don't want to get blackballed, we are all connected and it will spiral out of control and you'll only get to wallow in your own self-pity, which is what Trump is probably doing now.

Just like the "muh freedums" people who won't wear a mask at a store and have to get kick out because that doesn't apply on private property. This is the same on twitter, you don't have a right to incite harm or violence. Social networks also enjoy having the section 230 law in-place, and if they let people roam free unmoderated, congress would hasten to repeal the law.

[seanras]

The whole point of free speech is ALLOW people to say things even if you disagree with them. Twitter isn't allowing free speech. And I see this self-righteous behavior from the left very often -- if it offends them, it's not free speech. We should create a world where we don't stifle opinions (even if those opinions are wrong). If Trump thinks the election was stolen, I disagree with him, but banning him is banning free speech.

[jhnny1331]

He's a grown fucking man in his 70s not a nine-year-old girl and a president for Good sake fucking act like one quit tweeting and twittering and that's the stupidest fucking thing ever saw in my life damn dude some of you people voted for this shit head fuck

[Glue-Sniffer]

Merkel can say whatever she wants. Meanwhile in Germany you cam get sued for calling someone stupid. Insulting is a punishable act by law in Germany. Speech is regulated as well. So before latching on to some news do your research.
Twitter is a private company. They can do whatever they want. No one is forced to use their product.

[Deathraider]

Twitter has the right to ban people if they want, just as you have the right to tell people to get out of your house if you don’t like what they’re saying.

The problem is that Twitter and other companies don’t have enough competition. Laws in the US have allow sites like Facebook, Twitter, or Google to become essentially monopolies. If there were competition, then Twitter would have to be more concerned about their users since their users could just leave them for another site.

[Anonymous]

Unlike in those countries, America's constitution clearly states that one person's rights can not impede upon another. Therefore hate speech and propaganda are not protected under the right to free speech because they impede on people right to safety and liberty under the 14th amendment.

[Chris_u006]

Hell no! Attacks against free speech is never okay! No matter who the president is, USA should either sue Alphabet, freeze their assets or something like that.
Any sign of dicatorship is a gigantic problem in so called Democracies.
And I don't believe they have any evidence against Trump at all.