US Election 2020

[Nearly Sane]

The flip-side of the Voltaire non-quote is that no-one is obliged to give anyone a platform. I'm sure he'd be welcome on Parler.

Which is being removed from Google Play, and being restricted by Apple. The problem with the idea of a platform here is social media is not quite the same as a publisher.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

They have done now. And I am a bit uncomfortable with it. The spirit of of the famous quote that Voltaire didn't say haunts this.

Another famous quote though is Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s "falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic", meaning that dangerous and false speech should not be protected. By that standard, the question becomes how dangerous and false the orange narcissist’s words just prior to the riot (and, presumably throughout his term in office too) were. Twitter’s call seems to be that they were indeed sufficiently dangerous and false to justify the ban. 

[jakswan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olefVguutfo

[bluehillside Retd.]

jakswan,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olefVguutfo

God but I miss him. What would have had to say about Trump et al now I wonder?

Thanks for posting the link. 

[Nearly Sane]

This is on IMDB as a piece of trivia about Home Alone 2


'As of January 2021, Donald Trump is the only cast member of Home Alone 2 to both attempt a violent overthrow of the American democratic system and get banned from Twitter in the same week.'

[Steve H]

This is on IMDB as a piece of trivia about Home Alone 2


'As of January 2021, Donald Trump is the only cast member of Home Alone 2 to both attempt a violent overthrow of the American democratic system and get banned from Twitter in the same week.'

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Another famous quote though is Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s "falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic", meaning that dangerous and false speech should not be protected. By that standard, the question becomes how dangerous and false the orange narcissist’s words just prior to the riot (and, presumably throughout his term in office too) were. Twitter’s call seems to be that they were indeed sufficiently dangerous and false to justify the ban.

I don't think that you need to be a free speech absolutist though to be uncomfortable about the position of the large social media platforms. If the President of the US can be removed, then anyone can and we cannot assume such platforms will act benignly. I had my twitter account suspended for a week for arguing that a specific biological male should not have been given a prize for women writers. It was 'hate speech'

Social media platforms are protected in the US from having the sane duties as publishers so it puts them in a different position to other media. In part that protection is given due to huge democratisation that social media brings to the area. It gives them great power and all students of Spiderman know what follows.

I think the case of Trump illustrates the great power and the great responsibility they have bit also that that power is not simething I want to see in the control of a private company.

[jakswan]

jakswan,

God but I miss him. What would have had to say about Trump et al now I wonder?

Thanks for posting the link.

Yes a legend.

I have no doubt Hitchens would have had something devastating to offer!

There is a new generation emerging though, you can see many on the YT Channel Modern Day Debate https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_cd4oF2phaIBD3WsU3f7Xg

Warning: Some debates are pretty dire

[Roses]

The impeachment process is supposed to start tomorrow, if it goes against him I hope he is prosecuted and thrown into prison for a good long time.

[Nearly Sane]

The impeachment process is supposed to start tomorrow, if it goes against him I hope he is prosecuted and thrown into prison for a good long time.

Being impeached and also convicted in the Senate does not mean he would be imprisoned, nor if the Senate did not convict would it mean that a criminal case could not be brought separately after he leaves office.

[Steve H]

The impeachment process is supposed to start tomorrow, if it goes against him I hope he is prosecuted and thrown into prison for a good long time.

That sounds like vindictiveness. He's going to be out of power in a few days, and may be prosecuted and even jailed, but I think most of us are happy to leave that to the American justice system.

[Roses]

I make no apology whatsoever for my thoughts about that evil piece of the proverbial!

[Steve H]

I didn't think you would.

[Roses]

Trump incited the riot in which 5 people were killed, including a police officer, he should be held to account.

[ProfessorDavey]

That sounds like vindictiveness. He's going to be out of power in a few days, and may be prosecuted and even jailed, but I think most of us are happy to leave that to the American justice system.

I don't think we have any alternative but to leave the matter to the American justice system. That's doesn't meant that we cannot have a view on the outcome we might wish to see.

[Steve H]

I don't think we have any alternative but to leave the matter to the American justice system. That's doesn't meant that we cannot have a view on the outcome we might wish to see.

Obviously, but LR's post nevertheless sounded vindictve.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I don't think that you need to be a free speech absolutist though to be uncomfortable about the position of the large social media platforms. If the President of the US can be removed, then anyone can and we cannot assume such platforms will act benignly. I had my twitter account suspended for a week for arguing that a specific biological male should not have been given a prize for women writers. It was 'hate speech'

Social media platforms are protected in the US from having the sane duties as publishers so it puts them in a different position to other media. In part that protection is given due to huge democratisation that social media brings to the area. It gives them great power and all students of Spiderman know what follows.

I think the case of Trump illustrates the great power and the great responsibility they have bit also that that power is not simething I want to see in the control of a private company.

Yes, quis custodiet ipsos custodes? after all. Who are private companies to decide what is and isn’t acceptable speech? I’m not a free speech absolutist either (though I’m close to it), but incitement to violence seems to me to be obviously problematic. The absolutist would say, “let it be said, and let others expose it for what it is”. That was the argument re David Irving – “let him publish and speechify holocaust denial, but in return he must expect to be falsified by the evidence”.

As you say, social media platforms are treated differently from publishers and the technology involved presents different issues too. It’s one thing to publish a book and for someone else to publish another book in response, but when tweets are around the world instantly and people act on them what space is there for falsifying arguments to be made, let alone to have effect?

Oh, and no of course arguing that a specific biological male should not have been given a prize for women writers wasn’t hate speech, and should not have led to a suspension. No-one would (or could) have been killed for you saying it, whereas Trump’s speech likely led to exactly that.                       

[jakswan]

Obviously, but LR's post nevertheless sounded vindictve.

I think they should make an example of Trump, this is not vindictive, I think it is simply pragmatic.   

[jeremyp]

Anyone else worried about the inauguration in 12 days' time? After the recent appalling events, I'm sure the far-right knob-jobs will try something. I'm sure the security will be heavy, but with a big crowd, it'd be impossible to prevent really determined nutters.

Everybody is worried about the inauguration. You can bet the security will be a bit tighter for that than for the vote counting.

There won't be a big crowd because the Democrats want to get the pandemic under control.

[jeremyp]

I see Twitter has permanently banned Trump, they are concerned about him inciting more violence. He won't be happy about that as Twitter is his main social media site for communicating with the world!

It is a shame they weren't so concerned when he started inciting violence.

[Roses]

It is a shamed they weren't so concerned when he started inciting violence.

Agreed.

[jeremyp]

NS,

Another famous quote though is Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s "falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic", meaning that dangerous and false speech should not be protected. By that standard, the question becomes how dangerous and false the orange narcissist’s words just prior to the riot (and, presumably throughout his term in office too) were. Twitter’s call seems to be that they were indeed sufficiently dangerous and false to justify the ban.

And he coined that phrase when he was ruling that First Amendment rights didn't cover people who were protesting against conscription in the First World War. Its very first use shows how problematic the argument is.

That's not to say I disagree with Trump's banning from Twitter. They have finally decided that the rep they get for helping Trump destabilise the country is not worth the dollars that he brings in. I only wish they had decided so sooner.

[Steve H]

Everybody is worried about the inauguration. You can bet the security will be a bit tighter for that than for the vote counting.

There won't be a big crowd because the Democrats want to get the pandemic under control.

That's true - how could I forget the pandemic? If 'twas me organising it, I'd do it indoors, with only the essential people present, and televise it. Wouldn't be surprised if that's what they do.

[Nearly Sane]

Even Trump's golf courses being affected

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/golf/55615022

[Anchorman]

Even Trump's golf courses being affected https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/golf/55615022

Behind the times, at least a bit. Didn't the R&A remove Turnberry from potential Open Championships two years ago?