GOP leader accuses Twitter of censoring conservatives, doesn't go as planned

originally posted by: Slave2theTruth
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Does anyone know what was in the original tweet that caused it to be deemed "sensitive content"?

I see this all the time in the Qanonposts Twitter thread. Invariably, the "sensitive content" is something that makes liberals/Democrats look bad. It's never, ever, been something that any normal person would be offended by.

It most certainly is a form of censorship. They're trying to hide the posts they don't like, while pretending they aren't.

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: Slave2theTruth
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Does anyone know what was in the original tweet that caused it to be deemed "sensitive content"?

I see this all the time in the Qanonposts Twitter thread. Invariably, the "sensitive content" is something that makes liberals/Democrats look bad. It's never, ever, been something that any normal person would be offended by.

It most certainly is a form of censorship. They're trying to hide the posts they don't like, while pretending they aren't.

How is it censorship or hiding when you can click on something and see what it is?

Sounds to me like you are trying to make excuses for laziness and ignorance.

And I hope you notice your use of a logical fallacy. " It's never, ever, been something that any normal person would be offended by"?

What is a "normal person"?

I could easily say that any "normal person" would not/does not read that Qanon pedo fantasy stuff.

But you do. Are you "normal"?

originally posted by: tommyjo
a reply to: xuenchen

LOL. Do you not think that Ingraham would quickly distance herself and actually delete the tweet and re-tweet?

Also think about it long and hard. Ingraham would have been all over it if it had been fake.

There's no link to Ingrahm's Tweet.

💥🚬💥

a reply to: xuenchen

McCarthy is still at it and reveals the re-tweet from Ingraham. The stupidity continues!

twitter.com...

This is the Ingraham re-tweet.

twitter.com...

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: jjkenobi

So Twitter owns their own content? And can do what they want with it? And have free reign to censor what they want? Because it's not a free speech thing, right? 1st amendment doesn't apply.

Yes. They can do what they wish with their private property, as long as they do not break laws or violate the rights of others.

People do not have a 1st amendment right to tweet. So they follow the terms and conditions or pay the consequences. In this case, it appears you could still see the tweet in question, if you had the settings in proper order.

But the sitting President cannot block someone on Twitter? At least according to a judge, because of the 1st amendment.

Yes. Trump is a representative of the government and Trump uses twitter as a communication tool to the public. Therefore it would be a violation of someone's 1st amendment right if he, as a government representative, were to ban certain people from his twitter activity based on their political leanings.

The 1st puts restrictions on what the government can do. Not a private entity such as twitter itself.

Yes this is correct and would be true if he attempted to block someone on an official government twitter account however on a private twitter account its a different story. At least that's my take on it.

It doesn't matter if the account is private or official government. He is the president. As a individual at the top of government, he is prohibited by the 1st amendment from restricting someone's free speech in a public forum.

Source?

thehill.com...

There is one link that discusses the judges ruling on the matter.

For anything else, I would have you refer to the constitution.

I am for free speech and I dont think government officials working in the capacity of their governmental position should be allowed to block people on their official government Twitter account.

However think that this is a stupid rulling. This law applies to all government officials right? Therefore by the logic of this ruling any one of the millions of Americans that work for the government would not be allowed to block people on their personal twitter account while not acting in the capacity of a government official. Maybe the President is an exception?

Anyways it is still in the courts, and for good reason.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: jjkenobi

So Twitter owns their own content? And can do what they want with it? And have free reign to censor what they want? Because it's not a free speech thing, right? 1st amendment doesn't apply.

Yes. They can do what they wish with their private property, as long as they do not break laws or violate the rights of others.

People do not have a 1st amendment right to tweet. So they follow the terms and conditions or pay the consequences. In this case, it appears you could still see the tweet in question, if you had the settings in proper order.

But the sitting President cannot block someone on Twitter? At least according to a judge, because of the 1st amendment.

Yes. Trump is a representative of the government and Trump uses twitter as a communication tool to the public. Therefore it would be a violation of someone's 1st amendment right if he, as a government representative, were to ban certain people from his twitter activity based on their political leanings.

The 1st puts restrictions on what the government can do. Not a private entity such as twitter itself.

Yes this is correct and would be true if he attempted to block someone on an official government twitter account however on a private twitter account its a different story. At least that's my take on it.

It doesn't matter if the account is private or official government. He is the president. As a individual at the top of government, he is prohibited by the 1st amendment from restricting someone's free speech in a public forum.

Source?

thehill.com...

There is one link that discusses the judges ruling on the matter.

For anything else, I would have you refer to the constitution.

I am for free speech and I dont think government officials working in the capacity of their governmental position should be allowed to block people on their official government Twitter account.

However think that this is a stupid rulling. This law applies to all government officials right? Therefore by the logic of this ruling any one of the millions of Americans that work for the government would not be allowed to block people on their personal twitter account while not acting in the capacity of a government official. Maybe the President is an exception?

That is a good question and I'm not entirely sure of the answer.

Anyways it is still in the courts, and for good reason.

Yes, the reason is because they were able to appeal the decision. That does not mean there is any merit to their argument.

a reply to: xuenchen

This is what Ingraham re-tweeted.

twitter.com...

a reply to: xuenchen

All McCarthy, or anyone else, had to do to see it was either click on or change the settings. It isn't rocket science!



Just in case some of the die-hard conspiracy types accuse me of faking that. Here is the Twitter link from someone also having to adjust their account settings.

twitter.com...

originally posted by: tommyjo
a reply to: xuenchen

All McCarthy, or anyone else, had to do to see it was either click on or change the settings. It isn't rocket science!

No. It's not rocket science. It's victim mentality.

The Right Wing likes to play the victim, hoping to gain support through sympathy, not actual ideas.

a reply to: introvert

Yes, the reason is because they were able to appeal the decision.

Is that not a good reason?

Weather they have good merit or not is a matter of opinion. I am of the opinion that they do have good merit as i have shown.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: introvert

Yes, the reason is because they were able to appeal the decision.

Is that not a good reason?

Probably not.

They have the right, but that does not mean their reasoning was "good".

a reply to: Alien Abduct

You can appeal for any reason you want, but the ability to appeal doesn't necessarily mean your reasoning for doing so has merit.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Alien Abduct

You can appeal for any reason you want, but the ability to appeal doesn't necessarily mean your reasoning for doing so has merit.

I know how it works a lot better than you could even dream. I think you should read through our little exchange again because i said they have a good reason and i don't specify what the reason was. Then Introvert is the one who gave the reason, and I quote..

"Yes, the reason is because they were able to appeal the decision."

a reply to: introvert

Yes. Trump is a representative of the government and Trump uses twitter as a communication tool to the public. Therefore it would be a violation of someone's 1st amendment right if he, as a government representative, were to ban certain people from his twitter activity based on their political leanings.

This is one of the dumbest things that I've read today. The Judge's ruling was wrong (and stands to be corrected). That isn't how it works. It was his personal account, and there is currently no understanding of the 1st Amendment that would suddenly make it a right for people to be on Trump's personal twitter feed.

originally posted by: timequake
a reply to: introvert

Yes. Trump is a representative of the government and Trump uses twitter as a communication tool to the public. Therefore it would be a violation of someone's 1st amendment right if he, as a government representative, were to ban certain people from his twitter activity based on their political leanings.

The Judge's ruling was wrong (and stands to be corrected). That isn't how it works. It was his personal account, and there is currently no understanding of the 1st Amendment that would suddenly make it a right for people to be on Trump's personal twitter feed.

But it is no longer his personal twitter feed. He uses it to make official government announcements and such.

This is one of the dumbest things that I've read today.

Day isn't over yet.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: tommyjo
a reply to: xuenchen

All McCarthy, or anyone else, had to do to see it was either click on or change the settings. It isn't rocket science!

No. It's not rocket science. It's victim mentality.

The Right Wing likes to play the victim, hoping to gain support through sympathy, not actual ideas.

Looks like the only ones playing victim here is the leftists needing, wanting, encouraging big Daddy Warlord Twitter to censor right leaning content for them.

Are you guys so blinded by your alt-left leaning bias that you are unwilling to allow yourself to see reality? I call that brainwashed.

a reply to: Alien Abduct

Looks like the only ones playing victim here is the leftists needing, wanting, encouraging big Daddy Warlord Twitter to censor right leaning content for them.

For example?

Are you guys so blinded by your alt-left leaning bias that you are unwilling to allow yourself to see reality? I call that brainwashed.

Which reality is that?

Are we talking about the reality in which twitter is accused of censoring Right Wing views, but turns out to be a matter of ignorance on the user's part?

Or the fantasy in which you guys are victims of the "alt-Left" and the mean, scary Lefties want to stop conservatives from spreading their messages on twitter?

Brainwashed indeed. I am so brainwashed that I can actually see what really happened in this case.

People don't like twitter, leave it. No one is stopping people from creating their own twitterish site and tweeting whatever and banning whoever they want.

a case of "Your place but run it as I say"

originally posted by: tommyjo
a reply to: xuenchen

This is what Ingraham re-tweeted.

twitter.com...

There it is !!!!!!

Bwaaaa😃😃

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: introvert

Yes, the reason is because they were able to appeal the decision.

Is that not a good reason?

Probably not.

They have the right, but that does not mean their reasoning was "good".

No not "probably not", it absolutely is a good reason.

I think you should go back and read our exchange again.

The fact that there is an appeal process in the first place is in fact exactly the reason why it is still in the courts and the reasoning behind the appeals process is undeniablygood.