Yes Donald. Twitter has the right to fact check you

What?

nope we are all right

maybe..

trump isn’t say they can’t..he is saying they lose their immunity from liability when they do. Biden agreed, at as to Facebook

 

Not according to constitutional law. Sorry.

And he can’t do that without amending the constitution. As you know, Twitter is not a publisher. Just like this forum isn’t a publisher. They are private companies than can fact check anyone they wish, and there is exactly nothing trump or anyone else in government can do about it.

 

What are you talking about? The constitution has nothing to do with it. The constitution doesn’t say people or companies can’t be liable for their content. Congress actually passed a law giving internet message boards immunity so long as they meet certain requirements...if they don’t they lose that immunity.

 

the incorrect claims you keep making.

the constitution precludes trump from punishing twitter for fact checking him.

 

I am not making any incorrect claims

Trump isn't punishing them for fact checking him, They are free to do it...but when they do it, they lose the protection under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

The Constitution has nothing to do with this. The First Amendment always Tweeter the right to free speech...and they are allowed that speech...it however doesn't give them immunity from potential lawsuits Trump isn't punishing them...he merely is enforcing the law Congress passed, and highlighting they are no longer protected because they are now acting as a publisher.

I really wish you would understand what this is all about. The problem is so many Dems don't, because they get their news from CNN etc, and have no clue what the issues really are.

 

You've made several, which I've had to correct.

that is a punishment, and he can't do that as the constitution precludes him

the constitution precludes him from doing it.

I fully understand what this is all about. It's why I keep correcting you.

I do not watch or get my news from any alphabet news agencies.

 

You've made a lot of incorrect claims...

hahahah what? How is it a punishment? They are either following the law or not....the Constitution doesn't forbid the President from enforcing a law.

No you clearly don't Its' painfully obvious. You really think the Constitution of the United States forbids the President from enforcing a law passed by Congress! hahahhahahahhahhahahhahh Like really how silly can you get? Congress gave certain websites an immunity...not the US Constitution, and they have that immunity because of the law, as long as they do certain things. Once the company starts not doing or behaving within the law, they lose that immunity. Not sure why that is so hard for you to grasp....maybe you aren't getting the news from CNN.....but Slate and Huffington Post are wrong too

 

Twitter can change how they do things but it changes their status. Instead of being an unbiased platfor twitter is now engaged in publishing opinion. They are now liable for the content they allow. Bring on the lawsuits!

 

no doubt. everyone does. but I've not made an incorrect claim in this thread. I've pointed out constitutional law.

They aren't breaking the law. If they were he wouldn't need an EO. His EO is null and void at inception, as it is a direct violation of the first amendment.

you really need to take a basic civics class.

 

What Constitutional law has to do with this? Where in the Constitution does it say Tweeter or other companies like it have immunity from civil litigation?

How is it a violation of the 1st Amendment? I once again refer you to the comment above. All the EO does is direct the FCC and FTC to examine if the companies have violated the law. Apparently, you have no read the EO. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/

I have....once again....show me where the First Amendment gives immunity from civil litigation. If it did there would be no need for Section 230. Read the EO, it gives a history of why it was needed

 

first amendment

The president can not do that, unless he can get an amendment to the US constitution.

strawman

the president can not threaten or punish twitter for fact checking him by removing congressionally approved legal protections. That is a violation of the first amendment.

 

Show me where in first amendment it grants immunity from civil litigation?

No it's not...hahahh again...highlighting how little you know about the issue. The entire EO is about the law that grants them immunity and simply ask that the FCC and FTC examine it.

The law would be unncessary if the first amendment granted...and certainly the Executive (the law enforcement branch) can examine if someone is violating the law, and thus out of the protection. That's what the Executive branch does! hahahh

 

Twitter is a gigantic padded cell for liberal nuts.

Conservatives should just stay away.

 

strawman

the constitution precludes trump or anyone else in government from doing anything to twitter for fact checking him.

and as we know, free speech does not violate the law. Trump can not threaten to withdraw legal protections congressionally approved, because they fact checked him. The constitution doesn't allow him to.

 

No that's the issue,

That's actually not true at all...the first amendment does not give them immunity from civil litigation, Congress gave certain companies that immunity...but if you can provide where in the First Amendment that happens...please once again provide it

Of course it doesn't...but it doesn't mean you have immunity. The immunity from litigation came from the Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act....if the website did and didn't do certain things...if the website doesn't comply they don't have the immunity.

Sorry you have been some competely lost on what the topic is about.

 

Trump has freedom of speech. This gives him the right to say just about anything he wants. It gives the right for about anyone else to say what they want. The problem when twitter gets involved in trying to enforce it, it almost automatically becomes political in the enforcement. They say they are only fact checking. The problem of with fact checking is that it is almost always political in its implementation.

Fairness requires twitter to stay out of it. I saw a perfect example of the political nature of fact checking earlier in this thread. Someone said Trump was advocating drinking bleach to prevent the virus. That is untrue. He never said to drink bleach. If someone else wants to respond to his tweets, have at it. Twitter should limit their participation to removing tweets if they violate their rules. No more. No less.

 

Well, not just Twitter, but any soul with a rational mind. Just as any soul with a rational mind has the right to fact-check Twitter and any who use it.

 

strawman

and the president does not have the authority to remove that immunity because they fact checked him, which they are entitled to do under the 1st amendment. He is precluded from doing so.

I've corrected you at every exchange. Like I always do.

 

Are you saying Trump put his hand around the throat of someone who pissed him off? That's not moral behavior.

 

I agree with everything you said. But the facts remain the same. Twitter has the constitutional right to fact check trump and post about it on their own platform, directly under his comments. And the facts remain there is exactly nothing trump or anyone else in government can do about it, because the US constitution, specifically 1st amendment, precludes them from doing so.

 

The immunity isn't to Tweeter...specifically...it's to internet websites that do and don't do certain things...if a website doesn't do, does do something that violate the requirments and restrcitions they lose it...the President doesn't take it away...they lose it by operation of the law. He is simply asking the FCC and FTC to examine if Tweeter and other companies are still in complying with the law...which is his job. The First Amendment doesn't preclude him from doing so...if it did, there would be no need for the law.

Sorry....try again...another massive swing and a miss. At this time it would likely do you well to simply admit you honestly had no idea what the issue was about, it's obvious you didn't

 

They are a public platform and by its very nature, requires them to treat people equally. When they violate that right, then action can be taken against them. The problem, as I stated earlier, is that fact checking is almost always subject to interpretation and uneven in its implementation. That fact gives the government the authority to step in and take remedial action.

 

sorry, but the 1st amendment precludes him from doing so.

I can't understand constitutional law for your, I can only continue pointing how and why you are wrong. Like I always do.

 

no, they are a private company, just like this forum is. They can not be punished in any way for fact checking trump. The first amendment precludes this. I agree that they should fact check equally and fairly if they are going to do it, but the govn't can do nothing about it if they don't.

it does not. The constitution precludes the government from doing so.

 

Just saying it is Constitutional law does not hack it. They are a public platform and as such, they are required to treat everyone equal. It is nearly impossible for them to do so because the people doing the fact checking are political with their own bias. Unless they are absolutely even in their fact checking, they will lose in court. It will be nearly impossible to prove they are absolutely even in their fact checking. For that simple reason, they should stay out of it.