Agreed - Banning Trump an assault on democracy and free speech.

[RV Pundit]

• Tweet

Twitter, Facebook and other social forums that have attained more than mainstream media would dream should realize they have huge responsibility to promote and foster free speech - in almost it's form.

If it's inciteful - it's really gov job to deal with hate speech.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56952435

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

A private entity cannot violate free speech in the US.  When you sign up, you agree to their terms and that includes their right to ban you for any reason.   This is going to be successfully thrown out by a legal challenge.

[RV Pundit]

I don't think facebook is a private entity anymore than is CNN.

A private entity cannot violate free speech in the US.  When you sign up, you agree to their terms and that includes their right to ban you for any reason.   This is going to be successfully thrown out by a legal challenge.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

I don't think facebook is a private entity anymore than is CNN.

A private entity cannot violate free speech in the US.  When you sign up, you agree to their terms and that includes their right to ban you for any reason.   This is going to be successfully thrown out by a legal challenge.

They both are.   They are not government entities.  They get to choose who can use their platform.  In fact, the real attack on free speech is the bill itself.  There are very few exceptions to that rule and they all apply to protected groups; Donald Trump does not fit into any of them.

[Kadudu]

The US is not N. Korea. These are private enterprises and can decide who is allowed to share his views on their plattform. If Trump is dissatisfied with the enterprises, he is free to form his own.
Trump is not the only person banned from FB and Twitter. Who is he to be given special treatment?

I don't think facebook is a private entity anymore than is CNN.

[RV Pundit]

Surely Media Houses cannot behave like private home. Even the duka near your hapo Germany cannot decide to discriminate against people it's doesn't like..otherwise Kadudu you'll have few places that would welcome your black behind in the Nazi country.

Media who get privileged  license  to broadcast have a civic duty to be fair and balanced. The same with Twitter and Facebook. They cannot behave like a private club.They need to be somehow regulated. Gov can decide they are media house - and they fall under say Communication Authority and Media council - so whatever measure they put - should be fair and objective- for they have a civic duty to fairness.

Private home or club - private - totally.
Shop or pub or supermarket - private but somewhat regulated by public rules - so people don't put dogs or irish or blacks not allowed...at least you need a license to operate.
Media - almost totally public with private ownership - should be heavily regulated - more power - more responsibility- more regulation.

The US is not N. Korea. These are private enterprises and can decide who is allowed to share his views on their plattform. If Trump is dissatisfied with the enterprises, he is free to form his own.
Trump is not the only person banned from FB and Twitter. Who is he to be given special treatment?

I don't think facebook is a private entity anymore than is CNN.

[GeeMail]

Very sound reasoning by Pundit on this one. Media are public good and are subject to public regulations by that virtue even if in private hands. Certain concessions come to media business - cost of transmission, use of public airwaves etc, to provide public good (news, information, advertisement, entertainment). FaceBook are entering a shaky world by making themselves media houses rather than mere instruments of communication. If they behave like media houses then they must be subject to media laws of freedom of speech, fairness, independence, balance... Right now they are behaving like appendage of W/House seeing Trump ghosts everywhere. They must be regulated.

Right now the shoe is on the anti-Trump foot. Once Biden gets out of office FaceBook, Twitter will use the same excuses to suppress black consciousness, voices of the poor, immigrants, religious minorities.... Who knows where it will end?

[RV Pundit]

Absolutely. Succinct. I may not like Trump but we have to defend his right to say whatever he wants. If it's criminal - let him be charged with inciting hate. Otherwise shutting a whole opposition candidate - who won million of votes - is the most horrendous assault on freedom of free speech the US has seen in recent history. This is why some of his supporters resort to violence and guns. If both mainstream and social media shut you down - what avenue do you have. Start you own media house? How feasible is that? Everytime you disagree - you start you own facebook?

Very sound reasoning by Pundit on this one. Media are public good and are subject to public regulations by that virtue even if in private hands. Certain concessions come to media business - cost of transmission, use of public airwaves etc, to provide public good (news, information, advertisement, entertainment). FaceBook are entering a shaky world by making themselves media houses rather than mere instruments of communication. If they behave like media houses then they must be subject to media laws of freedom of speech, fairness, independence, balance... Right now they are behaving like appendage of W/House seeing Trump ghosts everywhere. They must be regulated.

Right now the shoe is on the anti-Trump foot. Once Biden gets out of office FaceBook, Twitter will use the same excuses to suppress black consciousness, voices of the poor, immigrants, religious minorities.... Who knows where it will end?

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Very sound reasoning by Pundit on this one. Media are public good and are subject to public regulations by that virtue even if in private hands. Certain concessions come to media business - cost of transmission, use of public airwaves etc, to provide public good (news, information, advertisement, entertainment). FaceBook are entering a shaky world by making themselves media houses rather than mere instruments of communication. If they behave like media houses then they must be subject to media laws of freedom of speech, fairness, independence, balance... Right now they are behaving like appendage of W/House seeing Trump ghosts everywhere. They must be regulated.

Right now the shoe is on the anti-Trump foot. Once Biden gets out of office FaceBook, Twitter will use the same excuses to suppress black consciousness, voices of the poor, immigrants, religious minorities.... Who knows where it will end?

The First Amendment only relates to government entities abridging the right to free speech.  Facebook/Twitter do not owe Trump(or anybody) a platform.  The same thing with New York Times, Washing Post etc.  They ultimately get to decide what is acceptable on their platform.  There is things you agree to before you join, and I am sure the orange turd did agree to them.  Jack Dorsey can shut down twitter in a fit of rage and he would not be in violation of anybody's rights to speech.

At the end of the day, twitter is no different than nipate.net, merely having a wider reach.  They are just websites.  Veritas has the right to kick out anybody on this forum for any reason contained in the agreement that you accept before you register.

[MOON Ki]

Absolutely. Succinct. I may not like Trump but we have to defend his right to say whatever he wants. If it's criminal - let him be charged with inciting hate. Otherwise shutting a whole opposition candidate - who won million of votes - is the most horrendous assault on freedom of free speech the US has seen in recent history. This is why some of his supporters resort to violence and guns. If both mainstream and social media shut you down - what avenue do you have. Start you own media house? How feasible is that? Everytime you disagree - you start you own facebook?

You---and surprisingly quite a few (ignorant) Americans too---have a serious misunderstanding of freedom-of-speech laws in the USA (and other countries with similar laws), despite numerous legal rulings that ought to have made things clear by now.   

Such laws are largely about constraining government, and that has been made clear over, and over again, that they are not about constraining private entities.

Trump is certainly free to say whatever he wants; nobody is trying to stop him there.   But he is not free to say it wherever he likes, and nothing entitles him to a right to say whatever he wants on media owned by others.   

You disagree?  Try getting getting to publish whatever you like in a newspaper or saying whatever you like on some TV or radio station, and if they don't allow you, sue them for violating your right  to free speech.  The fact that you cannot start your own newspaper, TV, or radio station in no way imposes an obligation on others to allow you to use their platforms in whatever manner you might wish. 

If his rights are being violated, as you seem to suggest, why do you think Trump himself, a litigious fellow by any account, is not in court over it?  Do you think it is because he and all the legal talent his money can buy ---not to mention his supporters, some of whom are serious and seriously-financed people---can't see the terrible violations of law that Nipate experts can obviously see? 

If you let Google be your friend, you can easily find a lot of material to clarify the matter.  In the meantime, here is a random short article for you:

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/the-first-amendment-where-it-is-3482126/

[MOON Ki]

Very sound reasoning by Pundit on this one. Media are public good and are subject to public regulations by that virtue even if in private hands. Certain concessions come to media business - cost of transmission, use of public airwaves etc, to provide public good (news, information, advertisement, entertainment). FaceBook are entering a shaky world by making themselves media houses rather than mere instruments of communication. If they behave like media houses then they must be subject to media laws of freedom of speech, fairness, independence, balance...

What are the so-called "media laws of freedom of speech" in the USA?  Please point us to the specific laws that you have in mind---e.g., cite the specific laws and legal rulings---so that we may then have a properly informed decision.

"must be subject to ... fairness, independence, balance".  Ha ha ha!  That one really is funny.  Try telling it to the owners of Fox News, the National Enquirer, etc. 

[MOON Ki]

A homework starting point for the Nipate experts:

Just a couple of years ago, the US Supreme Court ruled, contrary to what some had expected, that even when a private entity has been hired, by a government entity to  to provide a public media service, it is not constrained by freedom-of-speech laws.   

The first part of the ruling should, hopefully clarify some basic matters (and similar statements can be found in many legal rulings at all levels of the judicial system):

You can read the rest here:   

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1702_h315.pdf

[RV Pundit]

You do not need to know US constitution or laws to know that banning Trump by powerful mass media (social media inclusive) smells bad. You need common sense. It's time that social media is regulated. When US constitution was enacted two hundred years ago - I doubt there was mass media - maybe there were a few newspapers - but certainly the TVs or cathode tube had not been invented - and distributed in mass - neither had the radio. And yet those sectors are now regulated.

It upon the US states and congress to come up with regulations to control what Facebook and Twitter can and cannot do. They are now too powerful to be left alone - to be run by idiots like Maina Kia MOONKI. This is what Florida State has started to do.
 
I see the communication act of US was enacted in 1930s to deal with new mass media of Radio/Telephone and later TV was added - and now it's time to add social media - with certain reach!

Now it's need new regulation to deal with powerful social media like Twitter/Facebook - they are no nipate - these are incredibly powerful mass media - and Zuckerberg cannot run it like a private club. Not anymore. You cannot muzzle divergent opinions and claim to be a free democratic nation. Who can replicate facebook or twitter in a few days? Just like we expect TVS to give fair or almost equal coverage to democrats and republicans - and so should facebook.

This common sense 101. If it smells. It smell.

[RV Pundit]

US Mass Media are regulated - it's time to include some of the big social media - and control what Mr. Zuckerberg and Maina Kias! cannot do - like muzzling opposing views.

With the advent of television, the FCC was given the same authority to license and monitor television stations. The FCC now also enforces ownership limits to avoid monopolies and censors materials deemed inappropriate. It has no jurisdiction over print media, mainly because print media are purchased and not broadcast.

To maintain a license, stations are required to meet a number of criteria. The equal-time rule, for instance, states that registered candidates running for office must be given equal opportunities for airtime and advertisements at non-cable television and radio stations beginning forty-five days before a primary election and sixty days before a general election. Should WBNS in Columbus, Ohio, agree to sell Senator Marco Rubio thirty seconds of airtime for a presidential campaign commercial, the station must also sell all other candidates in that race thirty seconds of airtime at the same price. This rate cannot be more than the station charges favored commercial advertisers that run ads of the same class and during the same time p

[GeeMail]

Absolutely. Succinct. I may not like Trump but we have to defend his right to say whatever he wants. If it's criminal - let him be charged with inciting hate. Otherwise shutting a whole opposition candidate - who won million of votes - is the most horrendous assault on freedom of free speech the US has seen in recent history. This is why some of his supporters resort to violence and guns. If both mainstream and social media shut you down - what avenue do you have. Start you own media house? How feasible is that? Everytime you disagree - you start you own facebook?

You---and surprisingly quite a few (ignorant) Americans too---have a serious misunderstanding of freedom-of-speech laws in the USA (and other countries with similar laws), despite numerous legal rulings that ought to have made things clear by now.   

Such laws are largely about constraining government, and that has been made clear over, and over again, that they are not about constraining private entities.

Trump is certainly free to say whatever he wants; nobody is trying to stop him there.   But he is not free to say it wherever he likes, and nothing entitles him to a right to say whatever he wants on media owned by others.   

You disagree?  Try getting getting to publish whatever you like in a newspaper or saying whatever you like on some TV or radio station, and if they don't allow you, sue them for violating your right  to free speech.  The fact that you cannot start your own newspaper, TV, or radio station in no way imposes an obligation on others to allow you to use their platforms in whatever manner you might wish. 

If his rights are being violated, as you seem to suggest, why do you think Trump himself, a litigious fellow by any account, is not in court over it?  Do you think it is because he and all the legal talent his money can buy ---not to mention his supporters, some of whom are serious and seriously-financed people---can't see the terrible violations of law that Nipate experts can obviously see? 

If you let Google be your friend, you can easily find a lot of material to clarify the matter.  In the meantime, here is a random short article for you:

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/the-first-amendment-where-it-is-3482126/

FaceBook and Twitter are not "some newspaper". They operate as telecommunications instruments, mere tools. If they want to operate like newspapers then they must subject themselves to uphold freedom of speech. Trump has that right. That's the reason why restaurant owners and bakers who block blacks or gay orders for cakes are sued for discrimination. Twitter and FarceBok are discriminating against Trump and they can't get away with it.

That's what the Florida governor is saying. FarceBooks own oversight board knows the company made a grave error but instead of reversing it, they slapped Suckerbag on the wrist and told him to review in six months. If they were so right, they should have upheld permanent ban.

[MOON Ki]

It upon the US states and congress to come up with regulations to control what Facebook and Twitter can and cannot do.

Feel free to take up the matter with your local legislators.  In the meantime, the law allows them to ban the fellow.
 

Now it's need new regulation to deal with powerful social media like Twitter/Facebook - they are no nipate - these are incredibly powerful mass media - and Zuckerberg cannot run it like a private club. Not anymore.

Not only can he do it---and legally too---he is actually doing it!

You cannot muzzle divergent opinions and claim to be a free democratic nation.

He is not being muzzled; he is free to speak elsewhere.

[MOON Ki]

Trump has that right. That's the reason why restaurant owners and bakers who block blacks or gay orders for cakes are sued for discrimination. Twitter and FarceBok are discriminating against Trump and they can't get away with it.

Really?  In that case Mr. Trump and his supporters  too should get into court real quick.  Perhaps the Nipate experts can give them the legal advice they need to win their cases.   

Here, I await your answer to this one (above):

What are the so-called "media laws of freedom of speech" in the USA?  Please point us to the specific laws that you have in mind---e.g., cite the specific laws and legal rulings---so that we may then have a properly informed decision.

Please go ahead and enlighten us.  Asante sana!

[RV Pundit]

It has started in Florida. The mighty is not right - anytime. We need to defend Trump's right even if whatever he says is disagreeable or inciteful. Zuckerberg should realize that Facebook is now too big - a monster - he cannot control - and gov will step in - starting from the US - right to Kenya.

Permanently banning Trump - a former US POTUS -and Key Republican leader - is a frontal attack on US and global democracy and free speech.

It upon the US states and congress to come up with regulations to control what Facebook and Twitter can and cannot do.

Feel free to take up the matter with your local legislators.  In the meantime, the law allows them to ban the fellow.
 

Now it's need new regulation to deal with powerful social media like Twitter/Facebook - they are no nipate - these are incredibly powerful mass media - and Zuckerberg cannot run it like a private club. Not anymore.

Not only can he do it---and legally too---he is actually doing it!

You cannot muzzle divergent opinions and claim to be a free democratic nation.

He is not being muzzled; he is free to speak elsewhere.

[GeeMail]

Trump has that right. That's the reason why restaurant owners and bakers who block blacks or gay orders for cakes are sued for discrimination. Twitter and FarceBok are discriminating against Trump and they can't get away with it.

Really?  In that case Mr. Trump and his supporters  too should get into court real quick.  Perhaps the Nipate experts can give them the legal advice they need to win their cases.   

Here, I await your answer to this one (above):

What are the so-called "media laws of freedom of speech" in the USA?  Please point us to the specific laws that you have in mind---e.g., cite the specific laws and legal rulings---so that we may then have a properly informed decision.

Please go ahead and enlighten us.  Asante sana!

We cannot do homework for FarceBook Oversight bored. Let them earn their money. I'm sure you've heard of "net neutrality". The internet is a tool or instrument for communication. FarceBook, Twitter, Verizon are mere tool and should be content-neutral like a KPLC pole. It does not matter whether it is transmitting excess power or outage, just a mere pole. When it takes another role it becomes a publisher and must be subject to regulation like newspapers which are publishers. If Twitter or FarceBook gets away with anti-Trump bias then we have started slippery slope. Now anybody even FCC can start banning content. When Trump with 35m followers on Twitter/FarceBook was doing his thing in White House he was a good brand bringing millions to the companies. Now he makes a blunder which remains unproven in court and FarceBook are judge, jury and executioner? What has changed? Makes no sense.

FarceBook/Twitter Oversight bored should consider the implications on democracy and free speech: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3AF8B4D938CDEEA685257C6000532062/$file/11-1355-1474943.pdf

[Kadudu]

Just ask yourself if this governor would make such a law if FB or Twitter had banned NYC Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?

This will be a court case and the internet giants have money and can hire the best lawyers in town. Be ready for a long fight.

FaceBook and Twitter are not "some newspaper". They operate as telecommunications instruments, mere tools. If they want to operate like newspapers then they must subject themselves to uphold freedom of speech. Trump has that right. That's the reason why restaurant owners and bakers who block blacks or gay orders for cakes are sued for discrimination. Twitter and FarceBok are discriminating against Trump and they can't get away with it.

That's what the Florida governor is saying. FarceBooks own oversight board knows the company made a grave error but instead of reversing it, they slapped Suckerbag on the wrist and told him to review in six months. If they were so right, they should have upheld permanent ban.