Because they're going to fact check everyone, right? Otherwise that would be prejudicial.easyrider16 wrote:Okay, so you agree then that Twitter has the right to post fact checks of Trump tweets?
They allow some of Trump's tweets that they would otherwise delete if they were from John Doe Twitter user. Do you think they should start deleting Trump tweets that violate their policy?Mister Moose wrote:Because they're going to fact check everyone, right? Otherwise that would be prejudicial.easyrider16 wrote:Okay, so you agree then that Twitter has the right to post fact checks of Trump tweets?
And who is going to do the fact checking? Just because the first 2 words of your company starts with Fact Checker doesn't make you a truth teller. You're still in editorial land. MH is correct on this.
yes it is protected free speech...it also makes them a publisher no matter who they do or don't do it for...it's opinion...not sure why you can't comprehend that?easyrider16 wrote:Not sure why these questions matter. It is protected free speech whether they do it for the President only or every politician in the country.
I don't know their policy.XtremeJibber2001 wrote:They allow some of Trump's tweets that they would otherwise delete if they were from John Doe Twitter user. Do you think they should start deleting Trump tweets that violate their policy?Mister Moose wrote:Because they're going to fact check everyone, right? Otherwise that would be prejudicial.easyrider16 wrote:Okay, so you agree then that Twitter has the right to post fact checks of Trump tweets?
And who is going to do the fact checking? Just because the first 2 words of your company starts with Fact Checker doesn't make you a truth teller. You're still in editorial land. MH is correct on this.
I'll ask the question differently. Should Twitter enforce their policy consistently and without exception?Mister Moose wrote:I don't know their policy.XtremeJibber2001 wrote:They allow some of Trump's tweets that they would otherwise delete if they were from John Doe Twitter user. Do you think they should start deleting Trump tweets that violate their policy?Mister Moose wrote:Because they're going to fact check everyone, right? Otherwise that would be prejudicial.easyrider16 wrote:Okay, so you agree then that Twitter has the right to post fact checks of Trump tweets?
And who is going to do the fact checking? Just because the first 2 words of your company starts with Fact Checker doesn't make you a truth teller. You're still in editorial land. MH is correct on this.
yer on fvcking drugs...the first amendment doesn't shield you from libel or slander...same rules apply as to any other twitter poster...easyrider16 wrote:Sounds like we pretty much agree, hatter. If they post their own opinions, the CDA doesn't shield them. However, the first amendment does. End result, twitter can continue to fact check POTUS tweets.you keep using "fact check" as if it's some kind of definitive be all end all...
as was said earlier just calling yourself a fact checker doesn't make you an arbiter of truth...it's a differing opinion except in some very clear instances...
So lets see if Trump tries to go after them for it. If he does, you'll have to admit he's trying to censor them.
Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk
I guess it just takes you forever to come to conclusions others garner in a matter of minutes...easyrider16 wrote:Aha - back to defamation, and my original point. So you admit the real goal here is to sue companies like twitter for posting commentary on Trump tweets that Trump doesn't like? I mean defamation suits require proof that the information provided is false, and I don't see where twitter made any false claims.
Pretty sure twitter does allow virtually every tweet, including all potus tweets. They just added some commentary to a few of Trump's because he was saying things that were not true. That is not restricting speech, it is adding speech.
Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk
BLM says newsome out...madhatter wrote:BLM goals...
Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors admitted during a Friday night interview with CNN that "our goal is to get Trump out."
Cullors, who described BLM organizers in 2015 as "trained Marxists," compared Trump to Hitler after refusing to meet with him, and referred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as the Gestapo, told CNN's Jake Tapper (via Breitbart's Josh Caplan):PATRISSE CULLORS: Trump not only needs to not be in office in November but he should resign now. Trump needs to be out of office. He is not fit for office. And so what we are going to push for is a move to get Trump out. While we’re also going to continue to push and pressure vice president Joe Biden around his policies and relationship to policing and criminalization. That’s going to be important. But our goal is to get Trump out.I said," Newsome told the host, "if this country doesn't give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it. All right? And I could be speaking ... figuratively. I could be speaking literally. It's a matter of interpretation.
"Let's observe the history of the 1960s, when black people were rioting," he went on. "We had the highest growth in wealth, in property ownership. Think about the last few weeks since we started protesting. There have been eight cops fired across the country."
"I don't condone nor do I condemn rioting," Newsome added. "But I'm just telling you what I observed."At the conclusion of the interview, Newsome told MacCallum, "I just want black liberation and black sovereignty, by any means necessary."
The Black Lives Matter Global Network distanced itself from an organizer of a Black Lives Matter group, claiming the chapter isn’t officially part of the network.
“Hawk Newsome has no relation to the Black Lives Matter Global Network,” the network’s managing director Kailee Scales told the Associated Press late Thursday.
There’s confusion over Newsome’s exact position. He has been the president of Black Lives Matter Greater New York but was said to no longer be in that position after his remarks were circulated.
The New York group’s website lists him as chairperson and one of its founders.
I mean, that was basically my original point. Scroll up and you'll see what I posted:madhatter wrote:I guess it just takes you forever to come to conclusions others garner in a matter of minutes...
YES that is EXACTLY the point...twitter is trying to hide behind the protections of the CDA to protect it self from being sued for content that it posts...
You took issue with the term "censorship" but that is clearly what this is. By the way, suing twitter for defamation likely wouldn't work, because not only is truth a defense, the plaintiff would have to prove "actual malice." Look it up, it's hard to do, and definitely wouldn't work on twitter's fact checks. This whole move by Trump is more like a shot across the bow of the social media players - he's saying shut up or I will come after you. If he was a private citizen saying that, it would be intimidation. Since he's the President of the United States saying it, it's censorship, and a total disrespect of the First Amendment.He clearly wants to remove the protection so he can sue them and get them to stop publishing this speech. That's the point, here, and if you can't see that it's because you're letting your politics get in the way.