Jack Dorsey Defends Twitter's Trump Ban, Then Enthuses About Bitcoin (theverge.com) 171
After Twitter banned President Trump's account last week, the site and its executives, including Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, were largely silent in justifying their decision. That changed last night when Dorsey, in a series of tweets, explained that he felt banning Trump's account was the right move for the social network. The Verge reports: "Offline harm as a result of online speech is demonstrably real, and what drives our policy and enforcement above all," he wrote. Dorsey blamed Twitter's failure "to promote healthy conversation," acknowledged that Twitter needs to "look critically at inconsistencies of our policy and enforcement," and said that social platforms needed more transparency around moderation. Then, Dorsey plugged an effort to build a decentralized standard for social media he began in 2019 when he sought to hire five engineers to work on it. That's how, eight tweets into a thread on why his company banned Donald Trump, the CEO of Twitter managed to change the subject to his passion for bitcoin.
Banning the RealDonaldTrump Twitter account had "real and significant ramifications," Dorsey wrote. Dorsey said that the widespread suspension of the president by many platforms challenged the notion that if people didn't like Twitter's rules, they could simply go somewhere else. And though the president can issue a press release or call a press conference whenever he wishes -- or simply go on television -- Dorsey expressed concern that the enforcement actions might "erode a free and open global internet."
And that was when bitcoin came up. Dorsey is also CEO of Square, an internet payment company, that bought $50 million of bitcoin as part of a bet on cryptocurrency. Square has accepted bitcoin since 2014. According to Dorsey, bitcoin provides a model for a decentralized model for social media. Dorsey did not elaborate on how such a network might address Twitter's failures in moderation, creating healthy conversations, or provide for more consistent policy enforcment. "It's important that we acknowledge this is a time of great uncertainty and struggle for so many around the world," Dorsey wrote on Twitter. "Our goal in this moment is to disarm as much as we can, and ensure we are all building towards a greater common understanding, and a more peaceful existence on earth. I believe the internet and global public conversation is our best and most relevant method of achieving this."
Banning the RealDonaldTrump Twitter account had "real and significant ramifications," Dorsey wrote. Dorsey said that the widespread suspension of the president by many platforms challenged the notion that if people didn't like Twitter's rules, they could simply go somewhere else. And though the president can issue a press release or call a press conference whenever he wishes -- or simply go on television -- Dorsey expressed concern that the enforcement actions might "erode a free and open global internet."
And that was when bitcoin came up. Dorsey is also CEO of Square, an internet payment company, that bought $50 million of bitcoin as part of a bet on cryptocurrency. Square has accepted bitcoin since 2014. According to Dorsey, bitcoin provides a model for a decentralized model for social media. Dorsey did not elaborate on how such a network might address Twitter's failures in moderation, creating healthy conversations, or provide for more consistent policy enforcment. "It's important that we acknowledge this is a time of great uncertainty and struggle for so many around the world," Dorsey wrote on Twitter. "Our goal in this moment is to disarm as much as we can, and ensure we are all building towards a greater common understanding, and a more peaceful existence on earth. I believe the internet and global public conversation is our best and most relevant method of achieving this."
The Arguments (Score:5, Insightful)
/. back in the day would defend free speech as a fundamental requirement for a society to function. /. saying, well they are a private company, so they can censor whomever they like.
Now I'm seeing a majority on
There are several problems with this notion
1- When you become a default platform for communication, you are close to being a 'common carrier', so your censoring actions have big almost totalatarian effects.
2- Forcing people off 'common carrier' forums forces them underground or onto platforms where the 'group speak' effect is worse. Ideas need rational counter arguments to force bad ideas to wither and good ideas to grow.
3- You may nod your head at silencing trump, but next it will a Christian who believes marriage should be man/woman, or someone who argues an adult lusting after a child is wrong, or that merit trumps group identity. Its a slippery slope.
Thus, the bar for free speech should be governed by law, not what the 'feelings' of a large social media company are.
This bar should be high. eg Incitement to cause physical harm or engage in illegal activities.
Let the courts deal with speech that goes to far, not what some social media companies current pet whim is.
Re: (Score:2)
Germany does it better, the government sends the platform a takedown notice to remove speech that is not protected.
As for the /. change, I'm afraid it's the new generation, people that grew up with the notion that it is ok to trade some of the essential liberties for a little temporary safety.
Re: (Score:2)
It could also be more global influences working their way into the /. culture, or US culture in general. The US has a unique history and a unique perspective on liberty and freedom that naturally isn't shared by other countries around the world. Tech companies in particular have a multi-national component to them and in this age of limitless sharing it's natural that those views that were previously isolated and propagated without too much opposition are now impacted simply by exposure to more alternatives.
Re: (Score:3)
And once again, the First Amendment only applies to the government. The Framers never intended that private property owners had to provide platforms for any speech they didn't like. In fact, those property owners enjoy precisely the same First Amendment protections as the people who want to use their property for this purpose. That means, on their property, they can make the rules. What are you, a Communist?
Re: (Score:2)
The Framers were men of their time. They had no way to foresee the circumstances we now face.
Re: (Score:2)
The Framers were men of their time. They had no way to foresee the circumstances we now face.
They didn't see the specific circumstances that are now in existence. But they knew all about the suppression of free speech, and limitations on assemblies. They organized themselves against their own government, and when they were done throwing off that government, they set up a government that explicitly made what they had chosen to do (illegally under their former government) legal under the government they set up, despite the fact that they were now in charge of that government. Unlike what many othe
Re: (Score:2)
This is cool as long as they don't take government money.
The same goes for free speech on college campuses. Hillsdale and Liberty are basically the only two schools that refuse government money so they don't have to abide by the strings attached - it is possible.
Meanwhile, Big Tech is balls-deep in government money. So, these aren't the "private companies" you're looking for.
Anyway, our society values free speech which is why we insist on the government respecting it. The government neither creates free
Re: (Score:2)
This is cool as long as they don't take government money.
This is cool as long as they don't take government grants to make their network accessible to all. Otherwise, don't like the government being their customer? Stop your government from giving them money. It's not like they're holding your government up at gunpoint. That's what governments do.
Re: (Score:2)
And once again, the First Amendment only applies to the government. The Framers never intended that private property owners had to provide platforms for any speech they didn't like.
The 1st Amendment to the US Constitution protects, among other things, the people of the United States of America from having the government suppress speech. That amendment made it into the Constitution because the framers thought that the ideal of free speech was worth protecting. At the same time, those framers understood that people could be held accountable for their speech; we have libel and slander laws for this reason. Public courts using transparent procedures weigh in and determine whether someo
Re: (Score:2)
Is this from the Gospel According to Q?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The Arguments (Score:5, Interesting)
I disagree.
For example, my wife uses Facebook as her primary communication channel personally and for business. Banning her from that platform would have big social and economic consequences for her.
For her demographic, Facebook IS a common carrier. Thus 'common carrier' rules should apply to services that become a default platform for communication.
you, argue... well just use another platform... but there is no other platform for her business case and demographic... Facebook is it.
Last week She asked her family to swap to Signal from Whatsapp. The response from all family was... too hard, were too old, oh but my husbands family are all on whats app so its too hard to change.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Facebook isn't a common carrier just because you believe it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook isn't a common carrier just because you believe it is.
For all practical purposes it is. Facebook OWN my wifes demographic. When you become that powerful, different rules should apply (ie common carrier rules)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The Arguments (Score:4, Informative)
Facebook isn't a common carrier just because you believe it is.
For all practical purposes it is.
It only superficially resembles a common carrier, but it clearly isn't one. A common carrier is either "a person or company that transports goods or passengers on regular routes at set rates" or "a company providing public telecommunications facilities." But they aren't providing telecommunications facilities, they are providing a service which you access via telecommunications facilities.
Facebook is definitively not a common carrier by any definition.
Facebook is not a common carrier (Score:2)
But they're also not a publisher, they don't write your wife's comments nor can they dictate to your wife what she writes beyond some high level Terms of Service.
This is why Section 230 exists. FB & Twitter and
Re: (Score:2)
For example, my wife uses Facebook as her primary communication channel personally and for business.
Your wife has chosen to put herself at Facebook's mercy. That choice was deliberate.
For her demographic, Facebook IS a common carrier.
No, it is not. Common carriers carry packages (or packets) whose contents they are not familiar with. That's why ISPs using DPI should not be considered common carriers.
you, argue... well just use another platform... but there is no other platform for her business case and demographic... Facebook is it.
So facebook makes available to her a whole market she otherwise wouldn't have access to her, and at no cost, and you don't think she should have to avoid inciting insurrections?
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter is private property. This isn't a free speech issue, and the fact that you seem to think it is speaks poorly of your understanding of the issues.
No that means it isn't a first amendment issue. Most people accept that censorship is bad in itself, regardless of whether or not it is legal. Just because Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg can legally censor people they don't like doesn't make it morally okay to do so.
This is the crux of the issue because for years these social media companies have proclaimed themselves to be champions of free speech. In fact just this week twitter itself put out a tweet crying freedom of expression [twitter.com] and the importance of ha
Re: (Score:2)
Gab was not only kicked off all hosting platforms, they also had visa and mastercard refuse to allow them to use credit cards to collect payments. They went so far as to even shut down card processing for the founder's wife's business that was unrelated to gab.
This is serious. Really serious. You can argue that someone can always find hosting elsewhere (which at the scale Parler needs isn't easy) but card processing? No.
And, no, this isn't like the religious freedom case with the Colorado bakery. There
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
First they came for the Qtards, but I said nothing because I wasn't a Q or a Tard.
Then they came for the white supremacists, and I said nothing because I'm not a racist.
Then they came for the Trumpers, and I said nothing because fuck those guys.
Finally they didn't come for me, because I'm not an asshole who incited a coup attempt.
Then everything went back to normal.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I will never stop posting this link because people are too thick headed.
https://i.redd.it/uazhmn3neta6... [i.redd.it]
Nobody owes you a platform to speak from. Bottom line. Gab accepted him and he could use whitehouse.gov so what is the problem? Hell he could do a sit down with 60 minutes again.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
2. But that means you don't have access to FB & Twitter's user base. You don't want speech, you want an audience.
3. I have a right to be free of your speech. You can't, for example, force Netflix to carry and promote your film.
4. Section 230 was explicitly created because the Internet created an entirely new form of mass communication. Companies that were nei
Re: (Score:2)
1- Common carriage is taking a thing or a
Re: (Score:2)
That's quite a stretch, to assert that twitter is a common carrier. It's not the definitive default for everyone and there are countless other ways to get a message out there. Half a billion users seems like a lot, but no doubt a huge number of those are automated account. Plus there is the commonly repeated notion that most of the tweets come from quite a small percentage of users. Yes it's popular and you can argue its importance, but even before this administration it wasn't much of a tool for the Presid
Re: (Score:2)
There are several problems with this notion 1- When you become a default platform for communication, you are close to being a 'common carrier', so your censoring actions have big almost totalatarian effects.
So, monopolies are bad. What a surprise!
Re: (Score:2)
Your memory is faulty. Back in the day Slashdot was fed up with trolling and spamming and supported efforts by Taco to clamp down on them.
One particular thing that Taco spent a lot of time trying to stop was pornographic stories about himself and other staff. They kept re-wording them to get past the filters. Oh and how could we forget the GNAA.
Re: (Score:2)
There are several problems with this notion
There are several problems with your notions.
1- When you become a default platform for communication, you are close to being a 'common carrier', so your censoring actions have big almost totalatarian effects.
No, that's when you become a telco or equivalent, e.g. an ISP. Or, of course, a deliverer of packages. What do these types of entities have in common? They don't know what you're sending. So absolutely not.
2- Forcing people off 'common carrier' forums
THERE IS NO SUCH THING, and you are deliberately abusing a phrase with specific legal meaning to try to make an invalid argument. So absolutely fucking not.
3- You may nod your head at silencing trump,
Yes, I definitely approve of removing those who incite insurrections meant to destroy democracy from the
Hollow (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
And that's most definitely a reason you should find another platform. If you don't like that the bar throws some patrons out for being rowdy, but Mr. Jones, who leaves three digit tips every night, is allowed to stay even if he's banging on the table all night long, is certainly not fair, but your remedy is to find another bar.
This freedom thing is tough, particularly when you grow up and found out you're not the only one with rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if it is possible to ever enforce rules consistently on such a large platform. Facebook tries, it has training for staff but they still get it wrong. Sometimes it's mistakes, sometimes it's the cumulative effect of being exposed to the worst of humanity 8 hours a day and just wanting to do a tiny bit of good.
Time for him to "pivot"? (Score:2)
The idea that a company built up in one market can "pivot" and switch to a new market is taught extensively in modern business schools. It doesn't work well in practice. Is that what this CEO is trying? It may be effective for him, personally, though quite useless for other Twitter employees. President Trump has been generating revenue for them thorugh his blunt and often controversial messages since long before his political campaign began.
What if the word Trump was replaced? (Score:5, Insightful)
I am part Native American. If the same logic was going against some protected class like ours, everyone would be on our side. Even if some of our fellow people committed stupid violence.
The best way to preserve freedom is to make sure you can have a vigorous debate in the public square. Even if I do not support Trump, I would need to acknowledge that the best chance for peace in society is to not censor ideas. It is better for everybody to keep a healthy discussion, not just push ideas underground.
When people stop feeling like their ideas matter, they lash out and hurt people. We need to make sure we can always talk to each other.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you did what Trump did you would've been banned (Score:2)
As for "protective class", in general those are things you have little to no control over. Race, Sex, Age, Sexual Orientation, etc, etc. "Being a racist asshole who incites violence" isn't a protected class because, well, you can just stop, and you lose nothing except the support and adoration of racist assholes looking to be incited to viole
Re: (Score:2)
The best way to preserve freedom is to make sure you can have a vigorous debate in the public square.
That's the traditional argument in favor of free speech. However, in recent years we've seen instances where this breaks down. Because of the way news spreads these days, people can get caught up in lies and conspiracy theories, and no matter of debate or free exchange of ideas seems to be capable of changing their minds.
The free exchange of ideas, in combination with certain technical capabilities and pressure on companies to make money while not caring about the damage this causes, has damaged societies.
First Amendment (Score:3)
That's justification for abolition of the First Amendment — this argument applies equally to government and private organizations alike.
To me, this automatically invalidates the argument entirely. Evidently not to Mr. Dorsey — nor the majority of Slashdotters. A shame, really.
Re: (Score:3)
You need to recognize America and it's constitution are a dead letter. Believe me, I'm old enough to have lived in America, and freedom of speech was so foundational to that country that this could never have been a question there.
The fact that it is tells me I'm no longer there.
Re: (Score:2)
That's justification for abolition of the First Amendment
No it's not you anti-freespeech moron.
Free speech is massively powerful. Anything powerful can be used for good or ill. If you deny its power you deny its importance. Denying its importance is the first step for genuine state driven censorship.
So from all of those who love free speech: kindly fuck off and stop trying to convince people it's unimportant.
MUST eat kibble, but it tastes like dog food :( (Score:4)
Am the only one who thinks it's hilarious that he's having to use a series of tweets to explain something? It's almost as though 140 characters is a bizarre, arbitrary, and crippling constraint. Imagine how he felt, having to do that, thinking "this sure would be easier to do, if I could just write it, instead of having to tweet it."
Re: (Score:2)
Going in front of the media would require him to answer questions. That sure as hell won't be happening.
It's a great way to get a message out (Score:2)
There's nothing really all that limiting about it for political discourse (it wouldn't work for in depth analysis, but that's not what this is).
Twitter & Facebook off by $51B Since Booting T (Score:5, Informative)
Twitter and Facebook have seen $51 billion in combined market value wiped out since booting Trump [msn.com] from their platforms.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bah (Score:2)
Fuck that guy.
Trump... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The law is that nobody (including Slashdot) owes drooling morons such as yourself and Trump a platform.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
(that's the popular meme right now with tech people and they'll make sure you know that in every post -- could you ever imagine a leftist ever supporting **HUGE** mega corps like this, just 10 years ago? I can't).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Yeah, but YOU are NOT the law! (Score:3)
(that's the popular meme right now with tech people and they'll make sure you know that in every post -- could you ever imagine a leftist ever supporting **HUGE** mega corps like this, just 10 years ago? I can't).
Where do you get the idea that tech people are leftist, because they're smart? Or from the inverse of non-technical people not being leftist because they're dumb? Just curious what your logic is, because that seems shallow minded.
Personally, I hear a lot of libertarian opinions here regarding the internet, computers, tech etc. and what we do with them. I think you're reading a lack of concern for Twitter and what Twitter does as support for "huge mega corp Twitter". Did it never occur to you that we're
Re: (Score:2)
When talking about tech people they aren't referring to your average sysadmin that posts online. They are referring to the silicon valley types who work in web startups. They are overwhelming leftist as is the part of the country they live in. All you have to do is look at election results to see that. In my experience, outside of silicon valley most tech types tend to lean libertarian.
Re: (Score:3)
If you act like that, you are exactly the same as the mob that raided the Capitol
Now that's just stupid. At worst this is like him raiding his own fridge, not somebody else's building.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
He runs a private company. In essence, Twitter's web platform is private property. He doesn't have to justify how he uses that private property, which belongs to the shareholders, to you or anyone else. He isn't the law, but he and his shareholders do enjoy the same property rights you do, and is protected under the First Amendment, just like you are. And banning Donald Trump, in particular after Trump egged on a pack of seditionists and insurrectionists, is his prerogative. He doesn't owe you anything, nor
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Yeah, but YOU are NOT the law! (Score:2)
Nor an oil company to care about a spill, let alone clean it up.
Re:Yeah, but YOU are NOT the law! (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, one can argue that being on twitter is not fundamental to life while access to food is kind of important. But this is where things can get sticky: at what point does a mode of communication become so integral to society that denial of access is a limitation of speech? In a competitive market, you would just go somewhere else, but what if facebook and twitter ban you, apple and google kick you out of the markets, AWS drops you, email providers dump you, and credit card processors wont's serve you? This is being denied access to modern infrastructure.
Again, one can make the argument that in the case at hand, Trump said some Really Bad Things (TM) and that parler enabled similar Really Bad Things. If the punishment is denial of access to modern infrastructure, what is the standard for determining guilt? How transparent and consistent are the standards?
I pose this as a question because I don't think we have an answer as a society. We have a legal system in the USA that is explicitly designed to be fair, consistent, and transparent and even this doesn't always live up to those standards. With a goal in mind, we can try to correct the limitations of the system. Private companies are not the state, however, and letting the government control businesses with a heavy hand has its own set of problems. Similarly, when companies dominate a market, either on their own or through coordinating with others, the normal options in a competitive market no longer apply and the companies can benefit from a massive power imbalance. Finding the right balance here is difficult. People who present this as a solved problem are missing something, one way or another.
Re: (Score:2)
If I had any mod points I would mod the parent up.
When a privately owned mode of communication becomes ubiquitous then it is no longer necessarily just a private company -- it is almost a utility. In this case the mode of communication isn't Twitter, however, it is the internet. In this sense Amazon's refusal to host Parler troubles me more than Twitter's refusal to keep letting Trump twitter on.
The other thing that is troubling is, if all the social media companies "collude" (that might be too strong
Re: (Score:2)
Parler was just stupid and forgot the most important rule, never put your business critical stuff in the cloud unless you have a backup that can run the business without cloud.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't true, making the rest of your argument a strawman. There are many reasons you may not be legally allowed to refuse service, unless you refuse service to everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
But this is where things can get sticky: at what point does a mode of communication become so integral to society that denial of access is a limitation of speech? In a competitive market, you would just go somewhere else, but what if facebook and twitter ban you, apple and google kick you out of the markets, AWS drops you, email providers dump you, and credit card processors wont's serve you? This is being denied access to modern infrastructure.
Thing is Amazon, Google, Facebook and Twitter aren't the whole
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
His own website (Score:2)
Why isn’t trump using the whitehouse.gov site to communicate? He can post all the videos and tweets as he sees fit.
Re: (Score:2)
Why couldn't whitehouse.gov's bandwidth provider not cut it off? It's the network's private property. Except the part of it that was publicly funded.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Stop being a wanker. There are plenty of places who will host Trump. Twitter kickbanning him isn't " turning over major Constitutional powers to an oligopoly of large corporations.".
I can't believe slashdot is now infested with commies who want to be able to force people to let them use their private property because it's for "the people" or something.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care about Trump. I care about all those other people who are being banned for such "offenses" as criticizing the bannings.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care about Trump
Sure thing buddy.
I care about all those other people who are being banned for such "offenses" as criticizing the bannings.
[I'm sure that happened]
No you don't. You only care about things like this when you feel it's hurt you tribe in some way. When have you complained about people on whatever you consider the left being banned? You can't even name one, that's how little you care, you've never even taken the time to look.
Re: (Score:2)
The most visible example was Ron Paul:
https://fee.org/articles/faceb... [fee.org]
After massive blowback, Facebook backed down on this one. A lot of other people don't gave Paul's visibility.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Trumpers who demand you cite a specific call for violence are not arguing in good faith (big surprise there, huh).
Here's a much better summary [threader.app] of what went on that day, and what it implies, not just for Trump but for numerous Republican legislators.
Disclaimer: Seth Abramson has a history of lobbing "truth bombs" on Twitter that never quite go off as promised. But if even half of this checks out, the people involved need serious jail time, and are likely to get it.
Re: Dangerous Stupidity (Score:2)
You're not arguing in good faith if you link to tweets by Seth Abramson, who is clearly not a reliable source : https://www.pastemagazine.com/... [pastemagazine.com]
"Seth Abramson is a writer, poet, attorney, editor and assistant professor of English at the University of New Hampshire, but he is most well-known for his unhinged Twitter account. To begin understanding the fraudulent narrative that he spreads across the web like a virus, weâ(TM)ll start with a little anecdote."
Re: (Score:2)
If youâ(TM)re aiming for zero credibility, quoting Seth Abramson is a great way to get there fast.
Re: (Score:2)
Try attacking the content rather than shooting the messenger, see how that goes for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Dangerous Stupidity (Score:2)
Tell us more about how today's internet is dying and you can't register an account on anything while using Tor. And the captchas, the broken captchas. Wahh.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, and that's a problem (hence the disclaimer.)
Hopefully we'll get to see an actual trial this time, in which actual witnesses will be allowed to present actual testimony and actual evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't like the crap Trump said. I didn't like the crap he said eight years ago. I don't like this crap from our leaders.
"I just donâ(TM)t know why there arenâ(TM)t uprisings all over the country. Maybe there will be."
Calling for uprisings all over the country isn't cool, regardless of whether it's Nancy Pelosi during the George Floyd riots or if it's Trump last Wednesday telling his supporters to "stay strong" rather than conceding.
We all need to grow up and starting talking to each other like
Ps - uprisings all over the country is Nancy (Score:2)
PS h the example of "I just don't know why there aren't uprisings all over the country. Maybe there will be." is Nancy Pelosi.
This country needs some real leadership.
I wish Colin Powell or Paul Ryan had run - they wouldn't be saying crap like what we're getting from our leaders today.
Re: (Score:2)
This country needs some real leadership.
I wish Colin Powell or Paul Ryan had run - they wouldn't be saying crap like what we're getting from our leaders today.
I agree with you. I wonder if we ended up with a reality TV show person because Americans want a reality TV show person.
Re: Dangerous Stupidity (Score:3, Interesting)
It sets a dangerous precedent when statements like 'we got to fight for our rights' results in criminal charges brought for "incitement to violence". Or when 'march on the Capitol' is charged as 'calling for insurrection'. People are responsible for their own actions, but taking personal responsibility is not in the playbook for some.
Re: Dangerous Stupidity (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Hitman: Kills Homer.
Mobster, to Police: "I meant that Hitman should take Homer out for dinner! Honest"
Republicans, to everyone: "Mobster never said the word murder! Mobster is a victim of cancel culture!"
Everyone, to Republicans: "Groan"
Re: (Score:3)
It sets a dangerous precedent when statements like 'we got to fight for our rights' results in criminal charges brought for "incitement to violence". Or when 'march on the Capitol' is charged as 'calling for insurrection'.
Trump had already exhausted his legal options for challenging the election. Literally all that was left was armed insurrection, and he incited it by telling his followers that they weren't going to accept the results, and that they had to fight.
If any one of those things wasn't true then it might not be inciting insurrection, but they all were, so it was.
Re: Dangerous Stupidity (Score:5, Informative)
An accusation of inciting a riot is highly contextual. If, in the midst of a public gathering, someone shouts "Go get them!", then one is inciting a riot, and that has always been an actionable offence in the Common Law. Again, there's this nuance that comes into play, something courts have some expertise with.
Re: (Score:2)
But he didn't do that. The people who stormed the capitol also left pipe bombs in DC and showed up with zip tie cuffs - this is clearly not something that someone suddenly decided to do in the middle of a speech.
Re: Dangerous Stupidity (Score:4, Insightful)
Right, Trump spent months telling them that the democrats were "stealing" the election and saying that groups known for violence should "stand by" to be ready to take action against them and then saying that Jan 6 was the big day. His seditious comments and incitement were not confined to the one rally. The violent criminals he had been knowingly whipping up in order to threaten others just finally actually followed through on his threats.
Also Trump's inaction during the insurrection is evidence the result was pretty much what he wanted. That demonstrates that his organization of and comment made at the rally were intended to incite the insurrection. He got the result he was aiming for.
It appears that Trump might have honestly believed that it was possible to physically threaten congress into making him president again. People with a clue know that is nonsense and Jan 6 was a formality by the time it happened because there was no dispute about electors for them to make a decision about. But the fact that the coup attempt he incited would never have worked doesn't change the fact that he incited it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This would have more weight had the other side not spent the last four years literally claiming that the President is a Russian spy who stole the 2016 election...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They are called harvesters, the go and fraudulently obtain postal votes, some to extremely criminal extents and they get paid for the right votes. Both sides do it but this time around the most corrupt corporate Democrats printed theirs already filled in. Chaos ensued as mass vote fraud exposed on both sides, rather than admit to the level of corruption in US elections, they choose to ignore it all and pretend it never happened.
Only the USA could create vote Harvesters and still call itself a democracy, so
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Of course, what other choice did he have? (Score:5, Insightful)
So tell me, this fresh new political philosophy that you espouse, does it involve acts of sedition?
Re: (Score:2)
Evasion noted.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree with some of this, expect perhaps with the terminology. You can simply say that "a progressive agenda looks to impose changes to solve problems while a conservative agenda looks to keep things the same". Dorsey is trying to solve a problem (Trump causes trouble with his insane ranting) with a progressive strategy (limit, regulate or ban Trump). That's the kind of person he is, so I guess you can label him a "liberal" although it's a meaningless term that doesn't even being to describe reali
Re: (Score:2)
"mostly peaceful"
They were mostly peaceful. 26 million people went to protest over many months. What percentage of those were violent. And of those arrested for violence, what percentage were not aligned to the BLM movement in any way and were just there to sow destruction.
Re: (Score:2)