Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[Alan Klein]

Twitter and facebook are free to choose who uses their stage. As said they are private firms. In a way they are expressing their freedom of choice.
Of course their choices will be debated in other media and controlled by lawmakers.

Trumps government using 'alternative facts' is more equal to burning books.

Denying facts, even those as simple as 1+1=2; and then presenting alternative facts instead.
Imposing this fake reality repeatedly at a Presidential level with the result that many millions start to believe them. Dividing the country in two.
The examples are plenty- Let's start with denying the election result. A result that was controlled indendently by all the (United) States and many courts.

This man should be impeached in a way he cannot become president ever again.

The point is that CNN and other media who know something about free speech should be the very ones who should encourage the Twitters to allow people to say what they want.  Especially the president of the US.  After all, 47% of the people voted for him and want to hear what he has to say.  Even the other 47% or didn't vote for him want to hear him.  I want to hear Biden even though I didn't vote for him.  He's my president too.

We all should be encouraging free speech and open debate,  This shows why we need a 1st Amendment. Even so-called liberals who claimthey support free speech can turn into book burners when it politically suits them.

The marketplace will sort this out.  They'll be another Twitter that will come along and allow you to say whatever you want.  Twitter will take a huge hit and their stock's value will drop.  Rightfully so. 

As an aside, I'm not too sure that Twitter is protected.  After all, the cellphone carrier can't censor your phone calls even though they're a private company.  Why should tweets between people be allowed to be censored? It doesn't seem that different to me.  I don't use Facebook or Twitter so I'm not familiar with what goes on there.  How are they different than making phone calls, messages, and emails using the phone company?

[Alan Klein]

Twitter and facebook are free to choose who uses their stage. As said they are private firms. In a way they are expressing their freedom of choice.
Of course their choices will be debated in other media and controlled by lawmakers.

Trumps government using 'alternative facts' is more equal to burning books.

Denying facts, even those as simple as 1+1=2; and then presenting alternative facts instead.
Imposing this fake reality repeatedly at a Presidential level with the result that many millions start to believe them. Dividing the country in two.
The examples are plenty- Let's start with denying the election result. A result that was controlled indendently by all the (United) States and many courts.

This man should be impeached in a way he cannot become president ever again.

Lying is free speech and protected unless you're under oath.  If we were to censor lies, politicians would have little to say.   

All politicians adjust the truth to fit the outcome they want.  It's naive to think your guy doesn't do that.  The answer is for the other side to present their side's counter-arguments.  That's how free speech works.  Just like we argue here.  You make your point.  I make my point.  Then people decide. 

[PeterAit]

An interesting point made by a Lincoln Project leader on CNN. If the House impeaches Trump, he could actually be tried by the NEXT Senate. Just because he leaves office doesn't mean that he can't be tried, and if convicted, he would be barred from ever holding another federal office. Something worth doing, IMHO.

Fact is, impeachment and conviction do not automatically disqualify a person from running for office. The Senate must vote separately on that. Of course, a Senate that just voted to convict is almost sure to do this.

[Alan Klein]

Fact is, impeachment and conviction do not automatically disqualify a person from running for office. The Senate must vote separately on that. Of course, a Senate that just voted to convict is almost sure to do this.

They'll be no conviction.  Didn't we just go through that?  Let's move on.  He's gone in less than two weeks.  We have more important issues to deal with.  This is TDS.  It's just the Democrats still angry Hillary lost four years ago.  They're still not over it. 

[LesPalenik]

They'll be no conviction.  Didn't we just go through that?  Let's move on.  He's gone in less than two weeks.  We have more important issues to deal with.  This is TDS.  It's just the Democrats still angry Hillary lost four years ago.  They're still not over it.

Once he is out of the office, it will be easier to convict him on number of charges.

[jeremyrh]

A lot of people spew toxic waste in what they say and write. Free speech protects that.  You don't need protection if it's not controversial.  Speech that upsets people is the very speech you need to protect.

You seem to be a bit mixed up about the concept of free speech.  Trump can say what he wants but Twitter and Facebook are not obliged to publish it, just like National Geographic are not obliged to publish my photos.

[D Fuller]

Oh please.  Those people weren't conspiring to overthrow the government of the United States.  I don't know how many times people interrupted hearings in Congress and then were led away by Capitol Police.   It even happened during one of Obama's State of the Union speeches in Congress.  Okay, this was a little worse.  But they were basically demonstrating and got unruly.  They violated trespass laws, maybe assault, damage to government property, etc. but did not commit sedition.  I know you'd like to throw all republicans in jail for twenty years.  But your claims are specious.

What part of “or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof,” is unclear to you?

Look, Alan, you either believe in the rule of law or you do not. It really is that simple.

[chez]

A lot of people spew toxic waste in what they say and write. Free speech protects that.  You don't need protection if it's not controversial.  Speech that upsets people is the very speech you need to protect.

Surely the president needs to be held to a higher standard than some of his useless followers. You think inciting a coup attempt is a form of free speach that must be protected. What about holding a meeting in a city park laying out plans of a nuclear attack? How about tweeting and exciting a group regarding assassinating the president. Should all these be allowed under you freedom of speech you so often bring up.

[Peter McLennan]

Why should tweets between people be allowed to be censored? It doesn't seem that different to me.  I don't use Facebook or Twitter so I'm not familiar with what goes on there.  How are they different than making phone calls, messages, and emails using the phone company?

Willful ignorance and false equivalence don’t make for valid arguments, Alan.

Twitter et al are mass telecommunications media.  Telephone calls and emails are private conversations.

[D Fuller]

I answered this quote in an earlier post. Look it up.  What they did isn't sedition.  There was no intent to overthrow the US government or seize property by force.  They were trespassing and fighting with guards....

Alan, they did in fact seize the Capitol building of the United States by force. Maybe they did that without intending to, (though that seems like an argument that goes beyond silly) but intent is not part of the statute.

[Alan Klein]

Once he is out of the office, it will be easier to convict him on number of charges.

What crimes has he committed?

[Alan Klein]

You seem to be a bit mixed up about the concept of free speech.  Trump can say what he wants but Twitter and Facebook are not obliged to publish it, just like National Geographic are not obliged to publish my photos.

I agree with that point of view.  The question is that Twitter is not publishing an article like NatGeo.  They are only a conduit for other people's communications like the phone system.  Verizon can't censor my messaging or email.  How is twittering different?  Now I don't have Twitter, so I'm not familiar with what goes on in it or Facebook for that matter.  But why can Verizon be prevented from not censoring controversial speech or any speech for that matter.  But Twitter and Facebook can?

[Alan Klein]

What part of “or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof,” is unclear to you?

Look, Alan, you either believe in the rule of law or you do not. It really is that simple.

I believe in the rule of law.  But you are incorrectly assigning sedition to acts of vandalism, trespass, and assault.

[Alan Klein]

Surely the president needs to be held to a higher standard than some of his useless followers. You think inciting a coup attempt is a form of free speach that must be protected. What about holding a meeting in a city park laying out plans of a nuclear attack? How about tweeting and exciting a group regarding assassinating the president. Should all these be allowed under you freedom of speech you so often bring up.

Trump didn't incite a coup.  You're leading the witness counselor. When did you stop beating your wife?

Did Democrats assigning blame to cops for violence and racism against blacks incite violence from those blacks on the left who then assassinated cops or burned and looted?  Were you equally concerned with incitement when you favor the cause? Or did you say that people have a right to say what they feel short of real incitement and if some extreme nutty people use that as an excuse to do violence, well, we have to live with those rare results because freedom of speech is more important?  In Europe, Muslim women can't wear face coverings are arguing that may incite other Europeans.  We in America find that those women have freedom of speech to express themselves.  Screw others if they get upset or may move towards violence because of hajibs.  We accept that may happen because we find speech more important.  That's who we Americans are. 

[LesPalenik]

What crimes has he committed?

Among others - sexual harrasment, obstruction of justice, bank fraud, tax fraud, insurance fraud, conspiring with Russians.

They’ll have plenty of potential charges to choose from. Both Mueller and the Senate Intelligence Committee — a Republican-led panel — have extensively documented how Trump committed obstruction of justice (18 U.S. Code § 73), lied to investigators (18 U.S. Code § 1001), and conspired with Russian intelligence to commit an offense against the United States (18 U.S. Code § 371). All three crimes carry a maximum sentence of five years in prison — per charge. According to legal experts, federal prosecutors could be ready to indict Trump on one or more of these felonies as early as the first quarter of 2021.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/donald-trump-criminal-case.html

[Alan Klein]

Willful ignorance and false equivalence don’t make for valid arguments, Alan.

Twitter et al are mass telecommunications media.  Telephone calls and emails are private conversations.

Insults if I don't understand Twitter or Facebook aren't necessary Peter.  Just explain your points. Otherwise, we'll have no conversation. 

Aren't tweets private?   The fact they may go to numerous people doesn't mean they're not private.  I can send an email or message to numerous people too.  How are tweets different?  It's not like LuLa we're the "tweets" are being published on a public forum where anyone can look in.  Aren't tweets closer to email and messaging?

[TechTalk]

But why can Verizon be prevented from not censoring controversial speech or any speech for that matter.  But Twitter and Facebook can?

Twitter et al are mass telecommunications media.  Telephone calls and emails are private conversations.

But you are incorrectly assigning sedition to acts of vandalism, trespass, and assault.

What part of “or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof,” is unclear to you?

Both have been explained, but you are either unable or unwilling to comprehend what was posted—or both.

[Alan Klein]

Alan, they did in fact seize the Capitol building of the United States by force. Maybe they did that without intending to, (though that seems like an argument that goes beyond silly) but intent is not part of the statute.

It would be an overreach to accuse these people of sedition.  A jury won't see their acts as seditious.  This was about a bunch of foolish hot-headed demonstrators who fell in love with the excitement of the moment.  That's what happens in demonstrations when people turn into a mob if there's no proper police control.  This is why I complained about the Capitol Police not being prepared.  If they were there and broke a couple of heads in the beginning, it would have ended right there and we'd be talking about other things. 

[TechTalk]

It would be an overreach to accuse these people of sedition.  A jury won't see their acts as seditious.  This was about a bunch of foolish hot-headed demonstrators who fell in love with the excitement of the moment.  That's what happens in demonstrations when people turn into a mob if there's no proper police control.  This is why I complained about the Capitol Police not being prepared.  If they were there and broke a couple of heads, it would have ended right there and we'd be talking about other things.

You make the same circular argument over and over; appear to be unable to grasp the seriousness of an assault on the U.S. Capitol; and are absolutely intent on diverting and deflecting attention everywhere except where it belongs.

[TechTalk]

This was about a bunch of foolish hot-headed demonstrators who fell in love with the excitement of the moment

This was about a bunch of foolish hot-headed ideologues who fell in love with Trump and believed every lie that he told them—including the ones about the election being stolen and that they had to fight to Save America and democracy from the criminals in government allowing it to happen.