Impeachment proceedings against Trump

koobookie wrote:

FredHayek wrote: He is banned off Twitter while Iranian despots who promise death to Israel still have their accounts. Jack Dorsey is more sympathetic to worldwide exporters of terrorism and religious autocrats that an elected leader who received 74 million votes in November. Same with Zuckerberg and Facebook.

How is that restricting his free speech? Twitter is a private company that is under no obligation to provide a platform for anyone.

Again, Trump can call a press conference, he can release a statement to the media, he can give a speech, he can give an interview, he can write a book, he can stand on a street corner and yell into the wind. His free speech has not been suppressed.

To be denied access to Twitter and Facebook is restricting information to two of the largest platforms in social media, so it is restricting his free speech options.
Would you like it if a conservative bought Twitter and chose to ban AOC, Speaker Pelosi, and Majority Leader Schumer? Technically, they still can do press conferences like you said, but the loss of that platform would greatly reduce the ability to get their message out. Plus press conferences appear on other media platforms, so they can be limited, they can have reporters talk over them, and simply not shown.

Social media presented an opportunity for uncensored access to the people. What they have done is an affront to freedom of speech.

FredHayek wrote:

koobookie wrote:

FredHayek wrote: He is banned off Twitter while Iranian despots who promise death to Israel still have their accounts. Jack Dorsey is more sympathetic to worldwide exporters of terrorism and religious autocrats that an elected leader who received 74 million votes in November. Same with Zuckerberg and Facebook.

How is that restricting his free speech? Twitter is a private company that is under no obligation to provide a platform for anyone.

Again, Trump can call a press conference, he can release a statement to the media, he can give a speech, he can give an interview, he can write a book, he can stand on a street corner and yell into the wind. His free speech has not been suppressed.

To be denied access to Twitter and Facebook is restricting information to two of the largest platforms in social media, so it is restricting his free speech options.
Would you like it if a conservative bought Twitter and chose to ban AOC, Speaker Pelosi, and Majority Leader Schumer? Technically, they still can do press conferences like you said, but the loss of that platform would greatly reduce the ability to get their message out. Plus press conferences appear on other media platforms, so they can be limited, they can have reporters talk over them, and simply not shown.

Yet, Trump has not lost his ability to speech. These are private companies with absolutely no obligation to provide a platform to any person. Why is this so difficult to understand? Conservatives keep crying that he is being denied free speech, but he is not. Trump has outlets for his thoughts.

Pony Soldier wrote: Social media presented an opportunity for uncensored access to the people. What they have done is an affront to freedom of speech.

How? How is this an affront to freedom of speech? He still has access to multiple outlets for his thoughts.

These social media platforms are private companies. They are under no obligation to provide a platform to anyone.

Yes they are. Please read Section 230 and get back to me.

Trump still has access to his campaign email list. His freedom of speech is not being suppressed. Multiple outlets are available to him should he want to get out his message.

Bottom line is that Trump violated the policies of the free social media platforms he was using. This is not a freedom of speech issue, as much as conservatives want to make it so.

I'm trying to understand why conservatives think these social media sites owe Trump a free platform for his message. It doesn't make sense.

Why could they be compelled to give him access for his opinions when a bakery cannot be compelled to bake a cake for a gay couple?

BTW - "section 230" has nothing to do with this.

koobookie wrote: I'm trying to understand why conservatives think these social media sites owe Trump a free platform for his message. It doesn't make sense.

Why could they be compelled to give him access for his opinions when a bakery cannot be compelled to bake a cake for a gay couple?

BTW - "section 230" has nothing to do with this.

So you have no problem if Twitter and Facebook were bought by conservatives and started locking the accounts of liberals? Lock Omar out since she is a confirmed anti-Semite. Right?

FredHayek wrote:

koobookie wrote: I'm trying to understand why conservatives think these social media sites owe Trump a free platform for his message. It doesn't make sense.

Why could they be compelled to give him access for his opinions when a bakery cannot be compelled to bake a cake for a gay couple?

BTW - "section 230" has nothing to do with this.

So you have no problem if Twitter and Facebook were bought by conservatives and started locking the accounts of liberals? Lock Omar out since she is a confirmed anti-Semite. Right?

It's not that the social media platforms are banning people because they are conservative, it's because they are posting misinformation and lies. Why is this a difficult concept to understand? You break the rules, you get shut down. It's a private business. Geeez.

koobookie wrote:

FredHayek wrote:

koobookie wrote: I'm trying to understand why conservatives think these social media sites owe Trump a free platform for his message. It doesn't make sense.

Why could they be compelled to give him access for his opinions when a bakery cannot be compelled to bake a cake for a gay couple?

BTW - "section 230" has nothing to do with this.

So you have no problem if Twitter and Facebook were bought by conservatives and started locking the accounts of liberals? Lock Omar out since she is a confirmed anti-Semite. Right?

It's not that the social media platforms are banning people because they are conservative, it's because they are posting misinformation and lies. Why is this a difficult concept to understand? You break the rules, you get shut down. It's a private business. Geeez.

So CNN should be taken off cable systems for lying about the Covington kids?
They lost their court case and had to pay the poor underage kids for slander.