-
You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
- Status
Part of me is thinking, "Twitter is a private company, and should literally be able to do whatever they want."
The other part is thinking, "These platforms are government-level huge, and their decisions are government-level influential. Silencing people on their platform would appear legal, but also perilous. It's like a JSOC operation to kill off some political opponent in a foreign country. Somehow they've found legal justification for silencing opponents outside the boundaries of all-out war, but......it's basically just murder without a trial. Is that really something we want? It's a stupid amount of power being wielded, and it's currently not balanced very well."
Is regulation the right answer, or does that just lead to the inevitable state-controlled media?
The other part is thinking, "These platforms are government-level huge, and their decisions are government-level influential. Silencing people on their platform would appear legal, but also perilous. It's like a JSOC operation to kill off some political opponent in a foreign country. Somehow they've found legal justification for silencing opponents outside the boundaries of all-out war, but......it's basically just murder without a trial. Is that really something we want? It's a stupid amount of power being wielded, and it's currently not balanced very well."
Is regulation the right answer, or does that just lead to the inevitable state-controlled media?
It would take something monumental, something that has never happened before. If only something like that happened recently. Not saying it will, but for the first time I can see a legit crack through which a third party emerges. Honestly, what does the Republican party do with the super pro Trump wing now?
Note:by super pro Trump wing, I'm not talking about conservatives who swallowed their disgust and voted for him on policy reasons or conservatives who were OK with him. I'm talking drank the koolaid, Trump is (near) infallible, elites hate us and we hate them kinds of supporters. That does not seem like a small wing still. Maybe I'm wrong
I very much want a viable third party, even if it emerges from trumpism. It would allow someone to move to the center, not be as beholden to extremes in the primaries, and just give more nuanced options.
Note:by super pro Trump wing, I'm not talking about conservatives who swallowed their disgust and voted for him on policy reasons or conservatives who were OK with him. I'm talking drank the koolaid, Trump is (near) infallible, elites hate us and we hate them kinds of supporters. That does not seem like a small wing still. Maybe I'm wrong
I very much want a viable third party, even if it emerges from trumpism. It would allow someone to move to the center, not be as beholden to extremes in the primaries, and just give more nuanced options.
-
3
-
2
- Show all
It encourages news organizations and journalists to hurry to try and be first with their 200 or so characters trying to condense massive news events into a small chunk. It also encourages them to not do they're due diligence investigating the information before sticking it out there. Most social media truly causes this, but the lightning fast and small tweet limit almost requires this.
Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Last edited:
I say all of this respectfully.
No disconnect whatsoever.
Either legally or logically. Twitter can let Donald use their services (auditorium) or not as they see fit. IF they let Donald use it, the 2nd Circuit said he can’t block anyone from seeing or responding to his tweets because of the 1st Amendment Rights of the public to seek redress and address grievances to the government are impinged upon if he does..
Citizens-protected, not restricted, by the 1st A.
Twitter-protected, not restricted, by the 1st.
Donald (President/government)-restricted by the 1st Amendment. Government doesn’t have rights under our Constitution. Only limited powers and authorities.
That is the way it works.
This is a legal discussion. Read the decision. Cite to legal authority. Law rarely deals with how something “feels”.
Told you the result of the decision and my interpretation of the law (as an attorney who has actually read the case and other relevant authority). Beyond that, I’m not interested in convincing you. Do with it what you will. *shouldershrug*
No disconnect whatsoever.
Either legally or logically. Twitter can let Donald use their services (auditorium) or not as they see fit. IF they let Donald use it, the 2nd Circuit said he can’t block anyone from seeing or responding to his tweets because of the 1st Amendment Rights of the public to seek redress and address grievances to the government are impinged upon if he does..
Citizens-protected, not restricted, by the 1st A.
Twitter-protected, not restricted, by the 1st.
Donald (President/government)-restricted by the 1st Amendment. Government doesn’t have rights under our Constitution. Only limited powers and authorities.
That is the way it works.
This is a legal discussion. Read the decision. Cite to legal authority. Law rarely deals with how something “feels”.
Told you the result of the decision and my interpretation of the law (as an attorney who has actually read the case and other relevant authority). Beyond that, I’m not interested in convincing you. Do with it what you will. *shouldershrug*
Last edited:
-
1
- Show all
- Status