Trumpled (Alternative Leading)

[PaulP]

https://theconversation.com/why-free-spe...ets-152919

[Mav]

When? I can’t remember that. But of course he likes to throw out a comment which he buries in a landslide of comments to the contrary just so he can have a bit of plausible deniability. Then his spokespeople latch on to the earlier comment as if it’s all he ever said. Obvious examples are the highly infrequent occasions where he was forced to condemn David Duke and white supremacists in the wake of Charlottesville.

[PaulP]

When? I can’t remember that. But of course he likes to throw out a comment which he buries in a landslide of comments to the contrary just so he can have a bit of plausible deniability. Then his spokespeople latch on to the earlier comment as if it’s all he ever said. Obvious examples are the highly infrequent occasions where he was forced to condemn David Duke and white supremacists in the wake of Charlottesville.

I agree.

[Mav]

So, Trump is going to visit the Alamo as he agitates against the end of his Presidency. Yep, the place that is emblematic of the willingness of patriots to fight to the death. And that’s in the wake of warnings that right-wing extremists are planning to attack the Capitol again but also all of the 50 State Capitol buildings. But yeah, Trump’s not inciting insurrection  :

EDIT: Seems the trip is to Alamo, Texas, and the Alamo isn’t located there. But I doubt Trump’s aides were unaware of the likely furore that would be unleashed. And we’ve previously seen apparent confusion of places from Trump & his allies. Just about everybody thinks the press conference held at Four Seasons Landscaping was supposed to be held at the Four Seasons Hotel. Will he invoke the Alamo during his visit?

[Mav]

Liz Cheney, the no. 3 in GOP Congressional leadership has come out with this:

The President of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack. Everything that followed was his doing. None of this would have happened without the President. The President could have immediately and forcefully intervened to stop the violence. He did not. There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution."

She’ll vote to impeach!

Apparently, Mitch McConnell is open to voting to convict!

[madbluboy]

https://www.theage.com.au/national/twitt...56thk.html

Twitter’s decision to kick US President Donald Trump permanently off its platform “due to the risk of further incitement of violence” following earlier similar moves by Facebook and Instagram has set off a free-speech firestorm.

On the facts, Twitter had a strong case. The violence and desecration at the Capitol on January 6 had not been seen since the British burnt down the White House in 1812.
Trump had stirred his supporters into a fury with incendiary remarks beforehand, urging them to “stop the steal” under way as Congress was ceremonially counting President-elect Joe Biden’s win.

Trump urged his supporters to “fight much harder”, warning them that “you’ll never take back our country with weakness ... you have to show strength”, and telling them “if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore”.

Trump took to Twitter the following day to assure his supporters that they would never be “disrespected”, and inform them he would not be attending Biden’s inauguration on January 20.

Twitter acted, concerned that Trump’s supporters would see his tweets as a green light for further violent protest.
Even if you believe Twitter acted appropriately in this instance, anyone with a commitment to free speech should find the whole episode chilling: a private technology company, answerable to no one other than shareholders, acting on policies and principles that are self-formulated and ill-defined, and with no safeguards or due process that accompany a judicial process, takes a decision to “de-platform” the President of the world’s most powerful country from the most important political medium of the day.

When Socrates, the free-speech gadfly of the Athenian elite, was “de-platformed”, it was done by a citizen jury, and Socrates spoke in his defence.

Trump has been stripped of his political voice, silenced, without reference to any law, and without the involvement of any court. Should this happen in a liberal democracy?

Free speech has its limitations in a free society. But when such limitations are imposed, it is normally done by a publicly accountable body, usually a parliament, passing legislation in a transparent and contestable manner.

And when such limitations are enforced, it is done so transparently by a judicial body, on the basis of laws and principles which are well-understood, and in which the accused party can mount arguments in defence.

There are those on the political left who applaud Twitter’s action because their dislike of Trump overrides their commitment to free speech.

But they should imagine if the tables are turned. What if the next time it is their champion, seeking to mobilise their supporters to declare a climate emergency or demand racial justice, who is silenced?

What if Twitter is bought out by a climate sceptic who decides to de-platform anyone promoting climate action?



This fundamentally misunderstands the ubiquitous, dominant and indispensable nature of digital platforms today, especially in the world of political communication.

They are more akin to monopolistic utilities, where denial of service constitutes the denial of a right, and where free-market advocates would usually concede government regulation is needed.

Just imagine Twitter and Facebook had taken the decision to de-platform Donald Trump before the presidential election, rather than afterward. Can anyone seriously contest that this would not have had a profound political influence on the election?

The Twitter decision opens a veritable Pandora’s box which will be very hard to close.

Why is Trump silenced but not Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei when he calls for the extermination of Israel? Or the Chinese Communist Party when it claims its policies of ethnic cleansing in Xinjiang instead constitutes a gender equality program?

Stung by earlier criticism, social media self-regulation has skyrocketed. Facebook’s removal of hate speech has risen tenfold in two years. Twitter removed 2.9 million tweets in the second half of 2018. YouTube removed 11.4 million videos in just the last quarter of 2018. The platforms are slowly acknowledging some responsibility as publishers.

But it is unfair of us as societies to expect digital platforms to self-censor and get it right. Nor should they be the arbiters of truth, a role they were increasingly forced to play in the context of the US presidential election.

They lack the expertise to perform these roles properly. But more seriously, they lack the legitimacy to do so. Only representative governments and lawmakers can fulfil this role.

The digital platforms are filling a void left by public policy. But the limitations that should be placed on free speech must be taken by society collectively, not left to the tech titans.

[PaulP]

Free speech is never free. There are standards that ought and need to be maintained. I would dare anyone to come on here and start peddling racist crap against Indigenous folks, Asians etc., and see how long it takes you get banned. Then you can complain about how your right to free speech has been eroded.

Trump has a rap sheet as long as your arm. He has plenty of other avenues to peddle his shyte.

[Mav]

That Age opinion was written by a Liberal MP.
If only right-wing politicians had stood against the use of a firehose of lies and disinformation to whip up grievance and hostility, it wouldn’t have fallen on social media and corporations to staunch the flow.

[Baggers]

https://www.theage.com.au/national/twitt...56thk.html

Twitter’s decision to kick US President Donald Trump permanently off its platform “due to the risk of further incitement of violence” following earlier similar moves by Facebook and Instagram has set off a free-speech firestorm. Sensible and correct decision.

Trump has been stripped of his political voice, silenced, without reference to any law, and without the involvement of any court. Should this happen in a liberal democracy? Bullshizen. He was not stripped of his political voice. The author of this should have checked the facts... as President the Orange One has his media crew who in fact filmed him in the past 14 hours coming out with all kinds of cr@p that was picked up by all networks. Again, poor journalism making dumb assumptions. He's simply been robbed of his toy to incite and make outrageous and inflammatory comments.

[Baggers]

Free speech is never free. There are standards that ought and need to be maintained. I would dare anyone to come on here and start peddling racist crap against Indigenous folks, Asians etc., and see how long it takes you get banned. Then you can complain about how your right to free speech has been eroded.

Trump has a rap sheet as long as your arm. He has plenty of other avenues to peddle his shyte.

Exactamundo.