Yes Donald. Twitter has the right to fact check you

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

  1. dadoalex

    dadoalex Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    10,657
    Likes Received:
    2,063
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Section 230 is part of a law passed by Congress.
    Trump's via EO wants to invalidate part of that law as it pertains to a specific entity.
    Trump cannot do it without legislation.
    Any attempt to to so would be immediately found unconstitutional as a Bill of Attainder.
    Send it to Congress.
    Congress passes what Trump wants.
    Fails on the same grounds.

    Twitter is only enforcing the ToS to which Trump and every Twitter user agreed.
    If Trump is unhappy with that he can leave Twitter.
     
    Phyxius likes this.
  2. dadoalex

    dadoalex Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    10,657
    Likes Received:
    2,063
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Obviously needed.
     
  3. Grey Matter

    Grey Matter Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2020
    Messages:
    4,401
    Likes Received:
    2,579
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Twitter? The President that rules by tweet? Literally, this ****ing ****up rules by tweet. Let that sink in. I reckon we now need a Constitutional amendment that no elected member of the federal government, or candidate to a position thereof, shall be denied a Twitter account, or be subject to little screen icons that offer one the ability to click to know more.....

    Twitter is for twits.
     
  4. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Trump's EO isn't limited to Tweeter

    The issue is if Tweeter and others like it are still protected by Section 230.

    No, they are not they never had editorial views before. The "fact check" feature is new.

    With that said Congress can easily revoke 230. It's not a Bill of Attainder because it's not making anything criminal
     
  5. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Trump's EO isn't limited to Tweeter

    The issue is if Tweeter and others like it are still protected by Section 230.

    No, they are not they never had editorial views before. The "fact check" feature is new.

    With that said Congress can easily revoke 230. It's not a Bill of Attainder
     
  6. rkhames

    rkhames Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    Messages:
    5,227
    Likes Received:
    1,285
    Trophy Points:
    113
    9 times out of 10, claims that the President lied is based on liberal talking points. Like the claim that he is against absentee voting, when he call out Democrats for pushing for everyone to vote by absentee ballots. The fake claim that voter ID is designed to hurt minorities. Minorites can show an ID to buy alcohol, or to cash a check, but they do not have it available for voting? Other fake fact checking has to do with immigration, putting kids in cages, and the border wall just to name a few. Before parroting that the President is lying, maybe you should double check the fact checkers. Then maybe you would not make unsupportable claims.
     
  7. dadoalex

    dadoalex Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    10,657
    Likes Received:
    2,063
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This

    "Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician's tweet. As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets. Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called "Site Integrity" has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets."

    Is enough to sink Trump's efforts.

    And a Bill of Attainder does not necessarily refer to criminal charges. A bill intending to punish a specific entity (in this case internet platforms) is sufficient.

    Do you see Twitter quaking in its boots?

    Betcha their lawyers are licking their chops over destroying Trump on this one and collecting legal fees from him in the process.
     
  8. perotista

    perotista Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2014
    Messages:
    16,904
    Likes Received:
    5,681
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This is an all or none thing as I see it. If twitter does it to all it users, I haven't a problem with it. If not, if twitter is selective, then it's wrong. I'll even narrow this down a bit. either fact check all politicians, elected leaders, candidates for elected positions or fact check none.

    But somehow, I think this is exactly what Trump wanted. He can now play the victim card up the ying yang since twitter is only fact checking him. I don't know the legal aspects of this, if a platform stating they're nothing more than a message board can add, delete, change things posted or tweeted using their platform.

    But that is for someone else to figure out. I don't speak nor understand lawyerese. As far as I'm concerned, either fact check all sides of the political spectrum or fact check none.
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2020
    Antiduopolist likes this.
  9. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not at all...that's simply giving an example of the behavior of one company

    Nope, Bill of Attainder is all about crimes...yes crimes are what we punish in this country. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/bill-of-attainder

    With that said nobody is even talking about punishing anyone as it relates to this topic. They are simply saying that companies that are acting like Tweeter are not protected by the current Section.

    Not sure what you mean, or why you are asking that question.

    Collect legal fees? Has Trump filed a lawsuit? I don't think so. It's ripe though for a challenge, and Trump's EO has bipartisan support...the Dem nominee for President, just five months ago, was saying it should be revoked, and he was specifically referring to Facebook....
     
  10. dadoalex

    dadoalex Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    10,657
    Likes Received:
    2,063
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Check the ToS.
    The one Trump agreed to.
    Guess they could just delete the tweet IAW the ToS as they do to so many others.
    Guess they could suspend Trump's account IAW the ToS as they do to so many others.
    Guess they could ban Trump's account IAW the ToS as they've done to others.

    Bill of Attainder. Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.

    Doesn't have to be criminal.
     
  11. rkhames

    rkhames Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    Messages:
    5,227
    Likes Received:
    1,285
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh look, another person that did not research what they are posting before posting.

    No he made it illegal for the social media to censor free speech, and use a political agenda as the basis of fact checking. That was clearly what Twitter was doing to the President.

    Again, most claims that the President is lying is based on liberal talking points and tailored facts. That is not legal under this Executive order.

    So, social media can censor who can, and can not, post based on the so-called fact checking.

    No, they don't. AOL lost it's market shares for doing just what you are advocating. No social media site has the right to censor or attack any post based on inherence to liberal talking points or tailoring facts to match their agenda. Again, that was what Twitter was doing to the President, and he made illegal with his Executive Order.

    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.[/QUOTE]

    Of course you do not agree, because Annenberg tailors their fact checking to your liberal position. But for those of us that actually fact checks their so-called fact checking. We can see what they are doing, but you accept anything a liberal site tells you. You then challenge anyone that does not agree with you as your own attempt to control the fake narrative.
     
  12. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sure they could suspend his account and do things that he agreed to...the issue is when they started making editorial remarks and became a publisher.

    hahahah...yeah because there are so many things we punish people for, with trials. Geez...I like how you just ignored Webster and came up with your own.

    Look...face it...your done...your arguments have been destroyed. Just accept the facts, you were wrong.
     
  13. Darthcervantes

    Darthcervantes Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    16,906
    Likes Received:
    17,149
    Trophy Points:
    113
    who fact checks their fact check links?
     
    Antiduopolist likes this.
  14. rkhames

    rkhames Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    Messages:
    5,227
    Likes Received:
    1,285
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is amazing that liberals believe that censoring those that disagree with them is not censoring free speech. But that liberal have the right. Even Zuckerberg who started Facebook agreed with the President the social media should not be limiting free speech. Your claim that it is Trump supporters that are the ones limiting free speech is completely unsupportable. Maybe you should have someone explain to you that limiting free speech is not exercising free speech, because you obviously can not understand the Constitution Amendment that you just quoted.
     
  15. dadoalex

    dadoalex Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    10,657
    Likes Received:
    2,063
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Destroyed? Hardly.

    But this isn't the first time Trump tried to distract you from his failures.

    Webster? What Webster law school? or the Webster tv show?

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-9/clause-3/bills-of-attainder

    In essence: The prohibition does not just apply to felonies but to any legislative action that would deprive an entity of due process.
     
  16. dadoalex

    dadoalex Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    10,657
    Likes Received:
    2,063
    Trophy Points:
    113
    First...

    Try rereading the constitution and then describe to me how Twitter could possible violate Trump's 1st amendment rights.

    go ahead. I'll wait.
     
  17. rkhames

    rkhames Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    Messages:
    5,227
    Likes Received:
    1,285
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Another liberal that does not understand the First Amendment of the US Constitution, or the nature of the Social Media. You misquoted both. The First Amendment allows US citizen the right to free speech. It does not allow Public Forums the right to curtail free speech. To call Twitter a "private publisher" is total BS. They are a public forum that is supposed to be available to everyone no matter their opinion or political agenda. Twitter was violating their stated purpose when they attacked the President's posts. No, they do not have the right to do this. A provision in the Communications act of 1934 required that TV and Radio Stations provide "Equal Time" for opposition opinions. This was an attempt to censor free speech, and was mainly used against conservatives. The concept was to force conservative stations to limit what was said, because they would be forced to give liberals an equal time for the opposition opinion. In 1949, the FCC issued a policy known as the Fairness Doctrine Act was passed. The Equal Time doctrine dealt with political candidates, and the Fairness Doctrine dealt with political candidates. Neither law is currently not enforced by the FCC, because they censored free speech. If they were still in effect then CNN, MSNBC and Fox News would not be able to operate as they do.

    Now this Executive Order enforces the right of Conservatives and Liberals to have the right to practice free speech without a public forum censoring that free speech. This is a good thing.
     
  18. rkhames

    rkhames Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    Messages:
    5,227
    Likes Received:
    1,285
    Trophy Points:
    113
    By being a public forum that is attacking his statements based on a political agenda. If you can not understand that, then I can not help you.
     
  19. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Trump? This was also what Biden wanted

    Webster dictionary and your link says what I said...failure again
     
  20. Sirius Black

    Sirius Black Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2011
    Messages:
    7,560
    Likes Received:
    6,403
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Truth does not need arbitration. It exists and is proven by facts.
    Opinion is something that is arguably true and may be supported by facts.
    When something is definitively not true facts are used to show that.
    So you see looking at facts can show whether something is true, may be true, or is false.

    I do not decide what is true or what is false, facts do.
     
  21. Antiduopolist

    Antiduopolist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2016
    Messages:
    24,354
    Likes Received:
    10,858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So called *fact check* yes.

    But they've now censored him.

    Twitter: R.I.P.
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2020
  22. Antiduopolist

    Antiduopolist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2016
    Messages:
    24,354
    Likes Received:
    10,858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope.
     
  23. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,188
    Likes Received:
    62,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    nope what? lol

    you saying Twitter can't ban members for abusing their TOS?
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2020
  24. pol meister

    pol meister Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2013
    Messages:
    5,903
    Likes Received:
    2,273
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So now that we know you are not the arbiter of truth, who made twitter the arbiter of truth?
     
    Antiduopolist likes this.
  25. Antiduopolist

    Antiduopolist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2016
    Messages:
    24,354
    Likes Received:
    10,858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Trump never said drinking bleach kills ChiFlu.

    That you believe he did is incredibly bizarre.

    And scary.
     

Share This Page