Trump is saying that Twitter is violating his freedom of speech, but isn't it also freedom of speech for Twitter to say what they want about their tweets?

Updated on : December 3, 2021 by Alex Robertson



Trump is saying that Twitter is violating his freedom of speech, but isn't it also freedom of speech for Twitter to say what they want about their tweets?

Since when does "Violate your freedom of expression" consist of Twitter verifying your statements? Especially when those statements have no truth?

I'm not on Twitter, but if I went to Twitter and said that purple gorillas in Mickey Mouse hats and lime green tutus were breaking dance on the front lawn of the White House, and Secret Service agents were sitting watching them while chewing ants fries… The statement would be withdrawn immediately.

And if I post another twitter on “I KNOW THAT IS TRUE! I WAS THERE AND SAW IT WITH MY OWN EYES! THOSE WHO DENY THIS TO

Keep reading

Since when does "Violate your freedom of expression" consist of Twitter verifying your statements? Especially when those statements have no truth?

I'm not on Twitter, but if I went to Twitter and said that purple gorillas in Mickey Mouse hats and lime green tutus were breaking dance on the front lawn of the White House, and Secret Service agents were sitting watching them while chewing ants fries… The statement would be withdrawn immediately.

And if I post another twitter on “I KNOW THAT IS TRUE! I WAS THERE AND SAW IT WITH MY OWN EYES! THOSE WHO DENY THIS ARE ALL PART OF A HUGE CONSPIRACY… ”Twitter would shut down and delete my account immediately.

45 threatens to take action against Twitter because Twitter refused to publish lies. Therefore, the fact verifies.

And 45 is angry that SOMEONE ELSE is contradicting what he is saying.

Like when he stated that “During the Revolutionary War the Patriots took over the airports. "

"The moon is part of Mars. "

"The sound of windmills causes cancer".

"The Corona virus will disappear"

And so on.

Regarding Twitter, they have the right to delete any account due to deliberate misrepresentations and inaccuracies of the statements of the account holders. After all, they are not "The Weekly World News".

Forget about it: the Weekly World News stopped publishing years ago, mostly because no one believed its silly stories anymore. They exist as a website, but their popularity is long gone.

So since Roadkill Toupee is threatening Twitter because they wouldn't post their blatant lies without question, Twitter has every right to terminate your account there.

And only an aspiring dictator gets angry when the media doesn't support his obvious lies.

It seems so, but in reality it is different. This is why:

Once again, we must remember that the rights contained in the Bill of Rights are not absolute. Can a convicted felon legally buy a gun because of the second amendment? Can a newspaper print whatever it wants and not be sued for defamation because of freedom of the press? Does my first amendment right to freedom of religion allow me to practice human sacrifice?

Not all three.

So why wouldn't freedom of speech or freedom of the press apply in this case? Because Twitter has argued that they are not media, but a platform for everyone to exp

Keep reading

It seems so, but in reality it is different. This is why:

Once again, we must remember that the rights contained in the Bill of Rights are not absolute. Can a convicted felon legally buy a gun because of the second amendment? Can a newspaper print whatever it wants and not be sued for defamation because of freedom of the press? Does my first amendment right to freedom of religion allow me to practice human sacrifice?

Not all three.

So why wouldn't freedom of speech or freedom of the press apply in this case? Because Twitter has argued that they are not media, but a platform for everyone to express their opinions. In fact, that is the basis for which they have maintained zero liability. But once they start making editorial decisions about content, they cease to be platform neutral unless those decisions are universally enforced. At that point, they have switched from a platform to a media source and are now potentially responsible for their content. At least that's the legal argument the Trump White House holds. It has not yet been legally challenged. But let's see the danger here if social media is not challenged.

Imagine that Twitter was sold to the Koch brothers and the Koch brothers decided they would use Twitter to make Biden look bad. So they decided to filter out all content that was not "conservative" in nature. Do we honestly believe that the progressive left would take that on its back? I mean, it wasn't too long ago, the left was trying to force talk radio to make sure it gave left-wing radio personalities equal time, but no one listens to left-wing programs ... they've tried before. And without an audience, they can't sell advertising that pays for these shows. It was called the doctrine of fairness and disappeared in 1987. But in the early 2000s, the left was trying to get it back:

Democrats bet on the 'doctrine of fairness'

So clearly Democrats are not crazy about media that are abundantly one-sided when they are the ones in the minority position.

But what is Trump threatening? It is not threatening to censor Twitter, but will remove its liability shield. Now anyone could sue them. In court, someone who files a lawsuit against them would argue, you fact-check with the president, how come you didn't check other content that was posted that ultimately harmed someone?

Do you see the problem? If they check one of the facts, shouldn't they check all the facts? That would be a legal nightmare for Twitter and other social networks. Also, then you question the fact-checkers ... as most are politically biased.

The reason Americans should be concerned is that censoring the presidents' Twitter feed is a form of electoral manipulation. Do we really want that? Would those on the left be unhappy if they only did this to Biden?

It is better to leave social networks free and fair for everyone. Let the president publish whatever he wants and let your opposition do the same.

And Twitter needs to take its fucking thumb off the scale!

Of course it is, but if you amend, censor, or modify your tweets, you are functioning as an editor rather than a common carrier.

Common operators, such as telephone companies, have no stake in the content on their platform and they also have no responsibility for anything they carry.

However, once a company has information about what is carried out on its platform, it assumes responsibility for everything it contains. Which means they can be sued for anything you write. No company can afford that, so social media companies have to be common carriers.

Until now, the FCC has allowed soci

Keep reading

Of course it is, but if you amend, censor, or modify your tweets, you are functioning as an editor rather than a common carrier.

Common operators, such as telephone companies, have no stake in the content on their platform and they also have no responsibility for anything they carry.

However, once a company has information about what is carried out on its platform, it assumes responsibility for everything it contains. Which means they can be sued for anything you write. No company can afford that, so social media companies have to be common carriers.

So far, the FCC has allowed social media to get away with it both ways. Donald Trump's Executive Order is expected to stop that.

And, of course, Twitter can take Trump off its platform and watch him and his millions of followers enrich one of his competitors.

Twitter has a kind of legal disclaimer that they absolutely rely on to offer their service. If someone tweets something, Twitter is not responsible for what someone else tweeted, even if it turns out that it was a speech that falls under one of the few limited exceptions to the first amendment. This is different from a normal editor. This disclaimer comes with its own rules and restrictions on Twitter actions that are set out at 47USC, where the US regulates what are called common carriers. But wait, there is an additional plot twist, 47USC230 provides information service

Keep reading

Twitter has a kind of legal disclaimer that they absolutely rely on to offer their service. If someone tweets something, Twitter is not responsible for what someone else tweeted, even if it turns out that it was a speech that falls under one of the few limited exceptions to the first amendment. This is different from a normal editor. This disclaimer comes with its own rules and restrictions on Twitter actions that are set out at 47USC, where the US regulates what are called common carriers. But wait, there's an additional plot twist, 47USC230 gives information services an exemption from the common transportation regulation so they can keep pornography and snuff videos out of the reach of children.

Twitter claims that President Trump's speech is part of his 47USC230 right to censor his users. President Trump says this is not the case and, unlike the rest of us, he can write orders to regulatory authorities to do so.

Twitter is in serious trouble.

Trump may well have been drinking his own Koolaid here. The First Amendment does not protect President Trump when he violates the terms and conditions he agreed to when he opened his account on a private Internet service, and that Twitter can change at any time. It was designed to prevent the government from passing laws that limit freedom of the press and an individual's right to free speech. Twitter is not the government.

Twitter has the right to dictate how people can behave while using its private platform. If Trump is operating his account in a way that violates his rules, they have th

Keep reading

Trump may well have been drinking his own Koolaid here. The First Amendment does not protect President Trump when he violates the terms and conditions he agreed to when he opened his account on a private Internet service, and that Twitter can change at any time. It was designed to prevent the government from passing laws that limit freedom of the press and an individual's right to free speech. Twitter is not the government.

Twitter has the right to dictate how people can behave while using its private platform. If Trump is operating their account in a way that violates his rules, they have the right to take all kinds of actions. The one they've taken is pretty benign if you ask me, considering all the ugly, hurtful, racist, and slanderous things he's tweeted so far.

I want Trump to sign an executive order on this. I'll almost literally laugh out loud if you do so and your Twitter account is terminated. It would totally lose its shit if they canceled it.

Twitter can censor within its limitations. The legal issue that arises is one that both Facebook and Twitter have defended on both sides, which is where the problem arises. Twitter and Facebook like the protections they receive as Platforms, which means that they are not responsible for what other people post. The rules for platforms are intended to protect a more open dialogue and allow users to interact with each other without fear of consequences for them within certain limitations. The courts established in a court ruling that Twitter is a platform that is a means to interact with political figures and

Keep reading

Twitter can censor within its limitations. The legal issue that arises is one that both Facebook and Twitter have defended on both sides, which is where the problem arises. Twitter and Facebook like the protections they receive as Platforms, which means that they are not responsible for what other people post. The rules for platforms are intended to protect a more open dialogue and allow users to interact with each other without fear of consequences for them within certain limitations. The courts established in a court ruling that Twitter is a platform that is a means to interact with political figures and, as such, is a public platform. Nevertheless, Twitter and Facebook have also argued that they are publishers and have argued that they have the right to remove users and censor content they don't like. The problem is it really can't be both and you can't have the rights to censor (outside of certain legally established terms) and get the protections of one platform at the same time. As a private company, Twitter has the right to operate as it sees fit, but they must identify themselves as a platform or publisher. Each has its own protections and responsibilities. If Twitter wants to be a platform that they cannot editorialize, they can remove if it violates their terms, but they cannot alter the content itself, add a disclaimer, or file an alternative opinion is editorializing. If they are an editor, They can edit what they want about the content, but they are responsible for what users do. I am not saying whether what Twitter did is correct or not, it is simply a legal matter of Twitter not playing by its own rules of what it wants. People can have any opinion on Trump, but the truth is that many users have made questionable content on Twitter and not many of them are editorialized. It is a legal question, I see that many answers have turned into a more tribal argument. Legally, the courts will have to decide this. People can have any opinion on Trump, but the truth is that many users have made questionable content on Twitter and not many of them are editorialized. It is a legal question, I see that many answers have turned into a more tribal argument. Legally, the courts will have to decide this. People can have any opinion on Trump, but the truth is that many users have made questionable content on Twitter and not many of them are editorialized. It is a legal question, I see that many answers have turned into a more tribal argument. Legally, the courts will have to decide this.

The rights contained in the first amendment apply only to the government, not to private companies, something that some, perhaps most, do not seem to understand.

When someone signs up for Quora, certain rules apply, like BN: BR. With Twitter and Facebook there are more specific rules about what you can or should post, and if you violate those rules, Twitter or Facebook can limit or end your subscription to their service.

Truth be told, Trump has violated those rules many times, and if he weren't the president, they would have banned it long ago. It is not nice or friendly. You should try to open a

Keep reading

The rights contained in the first amendment apply only to the government, not to private companies, something that some, perhaps most, do not seem to understand.

When someone signs up for Quora, certain rules apply, like BN: BR. With Twitter and Facebook there are more specific rules about what you can or should post, and if you violate those rules, Twitter or Facebook can limit or end your subscription to their service.

Truth be told, Trump has violated those rules many times, and if he weren't the president, they would have banned it long ago. It is not nice or friendly. You should try to open an account on Quora.

TL Quick Response: DR: There is no guarantee of "free speech" on any website, period.

Constitutional free speech rights protect the American people from government-imposed restrictions on free speech. It has nothing to do with other people or companies. Twitter can do whatever it wants to warn and restrict incorrect or misleading content on its platform. Constitutional rights simply do not apply and Dumbp Trump has no basis for his complaint. I wonder why Twitter didn't act sooner to point out misleading or demeaning tweets from Dumbp Trump. Trump has crossed a line and I hope to see him banned from Twitter entirely.

Trump is saying that Twitter is violating his freedom of speech, but isn't it also freedom of speech for Twitter to say what they want about their tweets?

Twitter is a distribution platform, not a journalistic organization. They should not interpret an individual publication; they set universal rules for content and the rules MUST apply, so Iranian posts should have the same rules. BUT Twitter, the platform does NOT have speech rights ... if someone believes that a post needs to be verified, they can politely do so as individuals ... Twitter wants to verify that they MUST do it for ALL posts.

I do not believe that freedom of expression extends to deceit and lies.

Even if it extends to misrepresentations, it is hypocritical to deny the freedom of expression of others who may disagree, particularly in areas that are questionable or prone to misinterpretation or just plain wrong.

This has the characteristics of early National Socialism, the "big lie", at least this is my opinion, and I think the courts would easily support it. We have basically undermined our separation of powers into just two powers, Trump / Congress and the courts. And of course, if Pres. Trump serves another term and then he will continue

Keep reading

I do not believe that freedom of expression extends to deceit and lies.

Even if it extends to misrepresentations, it is hypocritical to deny the freedom of expression of others who may disagree, particularly in areas that are questionable or prone to misinterpretation or just plain wrong.

This has the characteristics of early National Socialism, the "big lie", at least this is my opinion, and I think the courts would easily support it. We have basically undermined our separation of powers into just two powers, Trump / Congress and the courts. And of course, if Pres. Trump serves another term then he will further undermine this separation of powers, consolidating his power as an executive at the expense of constitutional intent.

Aspects of freedom of expression contained in the Bill of Rights have to do with government interference with freedom of expression. Twitter is not part of the government. They provide a service that contains terms of service. The same terms of service that Trump agreed to when he created his Twitter account. Trump, on the other hand, is part of the government and its attempt to crack down on Twitter and its actions to improperly and probably unconstitutionally enforce its terms of service.

Other Guides:


GET SPECIAL OFFER FROM OUR PARTNER.