Yes Donald. Twitter has the right to fact check you

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Balto, May 29, 2020.

  1. Balto

    Balto Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2013
    Messages:
    10,094
    Likes Received:
    2,252
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It isn’t a violation of free speech to add fact check links to a tweet that is nothing but a conspiracy theory with no substance behind it. Threatening the move with an executive order, as Trump has done, isn’t just showing how Trump would like to turn our govt into a authoritarian mess, it’s another reminder that Trump doesn’t have any regard for the checks and valences in our country.

    Honestly, Twitter should have started doing this with Donald a long time ago, even before the presidency. They should have started with the nonsense that Obama was born in Kenya without evidence that became birtherism and gave Trump his political rise. Maybe Donald will think twice about spreading mindless gibberish.

    But I wouldn’t count on it.
     
    PARTIZAN1 and Bowerbird like this.
  2. rkhames

    rkhames Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    Messages:
    5,227
    Likes Received:
    1,285
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Obviously, you are not following this story. It was not individuals that were fact checking the President's tweet. It was Twitter itself. For the social media to post links to the tweet, it is violating the President's first Amendment rights, and is now illegal under the President's Executive Order signed yesterday.

    Most times, liberal fact checking leaves a lot to be desired. They are based on liberal talking points, or they leave key facts out that disproves they supposed fact checking. Annenberg's Fact Check website is notorious for that.
     
    garyd, Polydectes and nra37922 like this.
  3. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,175
    Likes Received:
    62,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    they also have the right to ban Trump when he violates the TOS.... they been pretty tolerant of Trump's misuse of the service
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  4. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,175
    Likes Received:
    62,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Trump is violating their first amendment rights by trying to silence them
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2020
    Bowerbird likes this.
  5. Daggdag

    Daggdag Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    Messages:
    15,668
    Likes Received:
    1,957
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I have to agree even though I don't like it. Twitter markets itself as a public forum and therefore they do not have the authority to regulate speech. Just like Facebook can get in trouble for deleting accounts for people they don't agree with

    however that doesn't change the fact that Donald Trump typically lies in his tweets. Such as claims that drinking bleach can kill the Coronavirus. Which he tweeted a lot. Mal Twitter will actually have the authority to delete those tweets and to ban him for making them to begin the begin with if they wanted to. because of the fact that the information could have cost human life.
     
    Bowerbird and Facts-602 like this.
  6. Sirius Black

    Sirius Black Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2011
    Messages:
    7,557
    Likes Received:
    6,403
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So the President has made it illegal for social media to point out when he is not truthful. Simple solutions:
    1. Tell the truth and point out when others who are biased against you and are not telling the truth.
    2. Don't use social media so they can't question your facts.
    3. Admit that even social media has the right to free speech and agree to disagree.

    I would question your statement about the Annenberg Foundation which is run by the Annenberg Family. The founder, Walter Annenberg and his wife Lenore were lifelong Republicans. He was an American diplomat, a businessman, advisor to President Nixon and a philanthopist that was awarded The Presidential Medal of Freedom by Ronald Reagan. His daughter Wallis who now runs the foundation worked with Rupert Murdoch for a short while, help develop and maintain the Annenberg Concourse at Ronald Reagan Medical Center. She has given financial support to the campaigns of Mitt Romney, Barak Obama, and John Boehner. I see no liberal bias in the Annenberg family.
    I am willing consider liberal bias if you have support for it.
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2020
    Bowerbird likes this.
  7. dadoalex

    dadoalex Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    10,622
    Likes Received:
    2,046
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just for the sake of discussion...

    Exactly what part of

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    Does ANYTHING Twitter does violate.

    For those Trumpinistas who don't recognize it that is the text of the 1st amendment.

    So, please, illuminate us with your Constitutional law knowledge.
     
    Phyxius and Bowerbird like this.
  8. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, he is just pointing out that if they decide to be a publisher they lose the protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.....which would open them up to civil liability

    Ironically, just a few months ago Dems were for this...I guess when the President agrees, you all decided to flip flop
    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/17/biden-wants-to-get-rid-of-techs-legal-shield-section-230.html

    “Section 230 should be revoked, immediately should be revoked, number one. For Zuckerberg and other platforms,” Biden said in the interview published Friday.
     
    Antiduopolist and Idahojunebug77 like this.
  9. dadoalex

    dadoalex Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    10,622
    Likes Received:
    2,046
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Twitter has the right but more importantly Twitter has the obligation to enforce its own TOS.
    Trump's tweets violate the TOS. Most of the time those tweets would just be deleted/blocked. Sometimes the user is suspended. Sometimes banned.

    But Twitter does have the obligation to enforce the TOS on all its users.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  10. dadoalex

    dadoalex Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    10,622
    Likes Received:
    2,046
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Adding a fact check is not regulating speech
    Adding a warning that particular speech is "glorifying violence" is not regulating speech.
    Twitter has simply ADDED speech to existing speech.

    Perhaps if the speech were more honest.
    Perhaps if the speech were less abusive.
    Twitter would not see the need to enforce the TOS that everyone, including Donald Trump, has agreed to.
     
    Phyxius and Bowerbird like this.
  11. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wow...this isn't about free speech....Tweeter is free to say what it wants.

    The issue here is currently Tweeter and companies like it are protected from liability of the content it provides by Section 230 of the Communcations Decency Act, because it's treated as a "bulletin board" of ideas....when it starts to provide editorials to people's post, it then becomes a publisher and loses that protection and opens itself up to liablty of it's content...all of it
     
    Rush_is_Right likes this.
  12. pol meister

    pol meister Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2013
    Messages:
    5,903
    Likes Received:
    2,273
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Who made you or Twitter the arbiter of truth?
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2020
  13. dadoalex

    dadoalex Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    10,622
    Likes Received:
    2,046
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Trump has done nothing.
    I read his EO.
    Then I read it again.
    Then i finished up and the TP I used has more legal standing than his EO.

    Willing to be that any attempt to enforce this stinking pile results in a major slapdown from each and every court.
     
    Phyxius likes this.
  14. dadoalex

    dadoalex Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    10,622
    Likes Received:
    2,046
    Trophy Points:
    113
    While looking to enforce his joke perhaps a quick look at "Bill of Attainder."
     
    Phyxius likes this.
  15. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Bill of Attainter? hahah what are you even talking about? What does Trump suggesting (and in fact agreeing with Biden on, about) in revoking this section of the law have to do with a Bill of a Attainder?" Nobody is suggesting that Congress is going to declare Tweeter or the like is guilty of some crime by revoking this protection Congress gave them to begin with

    Geez....So, please, keep illuminating us with your Constitutional law knowledge.
     
  16. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,118
    Likes Received:
    30,613
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Complete BS, in every conceivable way. The First Amendment does NOT prevent private publishers from making decisions about their property. It prevents the government from interfering. Surely you understand that it isn't a violation of your rights for PoliticalForum to take down one of your posts for violating their rules . . . you do get this, right . . . right? You and Trump are COMPLETELY misrepresenting the 1st Amendment, and you are cheering him on as he ACTUALLY tries violating the First Amendment rights of Twitter, who has the Constitutional right to moderate their platform.

    And the President's EO has no legal force. He can't just revoke free speech or property rights with an EO. Congress can make something illegal, not the President, and even they can't take away the 1st Amendment without a new amendment.
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2020
    Phyxius likes this.
  17. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No he has not made it illegal for them to do anything of that....he simply is saying they are not protected under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act because they are no longer acting simply as a board for opinions but now acting as an editor providing their own editorial views, and thus a publisher and open to liability. It's not illegal for them to do it, and they are free to do it...they can just now be held liable for the content

    Ironically before the President did this...it had bipartisan support...just a few months ago in January the nominee for President Joe Biden very vocally supported it...and the Dems nominated him.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/17/biden-wants-to-get-rid-of-techs-legal-shield-section-230.html
     
  18. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,118
    Likes Received:
    30,613
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's what Trump *wants* to have happen. Realistically, it never will. The EO was nothing more than a temper tantrum that will amount to nothing.
     
    Phyxius likes this.
  19. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    THis is not about the first amendment...nobody is saying they don't have a right to speech...the EO doesn't revoke free speech or property.

    They can say what they want, and make whatever choice they want to with their property. The issue is currently they are protected under Section 230 from any liability of the content in their property....however, that is only if they and companies like them act as boards for opinions...when they start to act as editors they become publishers and are open to liablity

    Trump's merely echoing the same points Biden did in January of this year, right before the Dems nominated him,
    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/17/biden-wants-to-get-rid-of-techs-legal-shield-section-230.html
     
  20. dadoalex

    dadoalex Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    10,622
    Likes Received:
    2,046
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My response was to a person claiming Twitter's actions in enforcing its ToS violated Trump's 1st rights.

    Try following along.
     
  21. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes he wants Congress to act...of course that's true.

    The EO hopefully gets some fire under them...and gets them to that point...or at least gets a case against Tweeter in the Court so the Court can see if they still fall under Section 230. Brilliant move by the President really
     
  22. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why doesn't Trump's EO have legal standing?

    It maybe that a Court says that Tweeter still is protected under Section 230...I am not sure....there is a good argument that once they start acting as a publisher, and editorializing certain people's post they are in fact not protected and open to liability.

    I know Joe Biden agrees.
     
  23. dadoalex

    dadoalex Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    10,622
    Likes Received:
    2,046
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Obviously you fail to understand that Trump's EO has no legal standing without legislation.
    Legislation that would be intended to target Twitter.
    That is a Bill of Attainder.
    It is unconstitutional.

    Geez.
     
  24. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry, hard to follow along with someone that thought Bill of Attainder has something to do with this....please, keep illuminating us with your Constitutional law knowledge.
     
  25. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    hahaha no....and Executive Order has legal standing

    Two....a bill of attainder is when the legislature says a person or group of people are guilty of a CRIME.

    Legislatures make laws targeting businesses all the time.....all the EO is saying and all the legislature would be doing is revoking a section of a law, that granted these businesses immunity from liability.

    please, keep illuminating us with your Constitutional law knowledge.
     

Share This Page