US Politics - 2020 Presidential Election - GOP v Dem cage fight (ENTER AT YOUR PERIL)

[dpatnod]

That it's a demonstration of limits on just saying whatever the hell you want regardless of the situation because your right to "free speech" doesn't grant you impunity from consequences if your free speech gets others hurt or killed?

Not sure what's so hard to grasp about that. If you can't see the "real world implications," it's only because you don't want to see them.

Yeah, if only we could all agree on certain behaviors. We wouldn't need the state.

We should just all agree all behavior is acceptable. Or whatever ULF says is. I guess.

Jeebus!

[dpatnod]

Did you just refute my query as to why, in any system of justice, a social media provider should be responsible for what people say...

with a statement that Donald Trump supports it?

Do you not see a disconnect here?

The point was that DT is so fukkin stupid, he doesn't even realize getting what he wants that he thinks would prevent disclaimers on his bullshit, would ACTUALLY get him instantly shut down completely. He thinks it would give him free range to do whatever he wants somehow. It doesn't make sense.

His argument and yours (both trying to be anti-censorship) are about equally stupid.

[unknown lions fan]

If Twitter publishes your screed to say, I dunno, kill all minorities (not that I'm calling you racist specifically, just for the hypothetical), and your followers actually do it... yeah... Twitter was aiding and abetting your murderous rampage. That's why they are banning him now... because they could be held accountable for the content they host if they can't demonstrate they took reasonable measures to remove it or report it to the proper authorities. Rule 230 protections are actually quite limited in that regard, especially for such a public-facing account like the President's.

No.

That's just a confused mess.

If you go on Twitter and chant "Kill all Minorities!," and someone goes out and kills a minority, who is responsible? This is pretty simple...the person who killed someone.

I'm pretty sure, somewhere in the printed word, someone has written "Kill the Minorities." Shall we determine that every death of every minority since was someone acting on the advice of that person, and that he was ultimately responsible for every death of a minority?

Words are not crimes. Individuals who commit murder are murderers. The only way another person can be held responsible for the actions of another is if it can be proven that one person was acting as an agent of another, whereby he is commissioned, hired, paid to carry out the act of violence. Just because you believe something, it doesn't make you responsible for the actions of others who believe in what you believe in.

I can't believe I have to even write this...

[unknown lions fan]

I guess I need to add that implicating Twitter is even farther from reality in any system of justice. Calling them a "publisher" and holding them liable for the content of the people that post there is ridiculous by any standard, and even in this twisted, sick society one can not make any legitimate argument that such an accusation should stick.

[dpatnod]

No.

That's just a confused mess.

If you go on Twitter and chant "Kill all Minorities!," and someone goes out and kills a minority, who is responsible? This is pretty simple...the person who killed someone.

I'm pretty sure, somewhere in the printed word, someone has written "Kill the Minorities." Shall we determine that every death of every minority since was someone acting on the advice of that person, and that he was ultimately responsible for every death of a minority?

Words are not crimes. Individuals who commit murder are murderers. The only way another person can be held responsible for the actions of another is if it can be proven that one person was acting as an agent of another, whereby he is commissioned, hired, paid to carry out the act of violence. Just because you believe something, it doesn't make you responsible for the actions of others who believe in what you believe in.

I can't believe I have to even write this...

Here is a 30 year Federal Prosecutor to explain to you why you are wrong. God I can't believe I even have to post this.

[unknown lions fan]

Twitter provides a connection. A platform for people to communicate. You want to hold the phone company responsible for a crime resulting from the interaction between individuals?

[dpatnod]

Twitter provides a connection. A platform for people to communicate. You want to hold the phone company responsible for a crime resulting from the interaction between individuals?

I suggest you print out some brochures and storm the capitol for Trumps twitter matters.

[unknown lions fan]

Alright, before I spend 10 minutes watching one of the worst people in the world (a federal prosecutor) rationalize state violence...I'm going to address Yelling Fire in a Theatre.

There are consequences for yelling fire in a theatre. It is not an issue of "free speech." That was programmed into your brain since you were a child. The fact that, as an adult, you still bark it out every time someone mentions free speech should concern you, especially when you read my analysis:

Rights are based on property. If you want to come into my house, I can demand you wear a pointy hat. You can't cry about your rights because it's my property. You have the full right to refuse entry into my property based on my rules.

When you yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater, we have a clear violation of property rights, and we can show liability for your actions. The theater owner has a policy against disrupting the presentation, and that is a condition of your entry. When you violate his rule, he suffers lost revenue. You ruined the show for the audience, and they all lost their admission fee because they didn't get to see the movie. If any of them got hurt in a scramble for the door, you're probably liable for damages.

This is elementary stuff regarding property rights, liability, and consequences.

Yelling FIRE in a theater has nothing whatsoever to do with free speech.

[dpatnod]

OK. Twitter's cyberspace is the 'theater'. Get it?

[unknown lions fan]

Alright, I watched the big bald authoritarian sociopath. Here's your feedback:

In his hypothetical, he tells some stupid people he lives near that their other neighbor stole their stuff. Then, base on his statements, they went over and burglarized their neighbor in turn.

They didn't bother to investigate his accusation. They didn't attempt to resolve the alleged crime against their property done by their neighbors. They went over and committed a property crime against their neighbors. And the cherry on top was, he LIED to them!1! They were never burglarized at all!1!

He never mentions their responsibility to investigate his claims, nor their responsibility for their own actions. Only that he incited them to do something, therefore he's guilty.

I lost 10 IQ points watching this.

THESE HANDS....THESE DIRTY HANDS!!!

ren these dirty hands.png

[unknown lions fan]

OK. Twitter's cyberspace is the 'theater'. Get it?

Now, explain how someone tweeting something they disagree with causes them a loss.

[unknown lions fan]

Again, I agree that they "own" their space and can ban any speech they want. I'm just wondering why anyone would want to participate in such a platform...and I'm challenging any stupid statement that they could or should be held liable for what someone says.

[unknown lions fan]

...and I'm raising a cautionary flag because the narrative via social media is increasingly in the hands of a few tech giants who are obviously, and without apology, becoming agents of the state.

That is horrific.

Do all of the warnings you've been given about Big Brother become invalidate if the control is carried out by private institutions in alliance with Leviathan?

I should think that a serious contemplation of that statement by any left-statist should cause some concern.

[dpatnod]

I don't have a twitter, so no need to wonder. If you want to be obtuse, feel free.

Twitter doesn't want their product associated with organizing criminal activities. Bad for branding. The younger generation is not as out of touch with these things. I am sure they are willing to turn you off in favor of appealing to the larger market share of people who don't want chaos and insanity vs. those who refuse to understand this 'new fangled 'puter stuff'.

[unknown lions fan]

Aren't you left-statists supposed to be against corporations and corporate control of the state?

Bonus question: Ever heard of Gabriel Kolko?