• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Angela Merkel attacks Twitter over Trump ban

Rostocker

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2020
Messages
4,134
Reaction score
585
Location
Rostock / Germany
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Merkel is Trumps main antagonist on the international stage for the last 4 years, so nobody can suspect her to just side with him for any sympathy.


https://www.ft.com/content/6146b352-6b40-48ef-b10b-a34ad585b91a

Angela Merkel, German chancellor, has sharply criticised Twitter’s decision to ban US president Donald Trump, calling it a “problematic” breach of the “fundamental right to free speech”. Twitter suspended Mr Trump’s account last week in the aftermath of the riots at the Capitol Building, citing “repeated and severe” violations of its civic integrity policies. Facebook has taken similar action. But Ms Merkel said through her spokesman that the US government should follow Germany’s lead in adopting laws that restrict online incitement, rather than leaving it up to platforms such as Twitter and Facebook to make up their own rules. The intervention highlights a key area of disagreement between the US and Europe on how to regulate social media platforms. The EU wants to give regulators more powers to force internet platforms such as Facebook or Twitter to remove illegal content. In the US, technology companies have traditionally been left to themselves to police their own sites, though momentum is gathering behind political moves to curtail their regulatory freedoms. Several members of Congress are working on bills which would limit the legal protections social media companies have from being sued for third-party content posted on their sites. Others are pushing for a new federal data privacy bill that could mirror the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation. Twitter’s share price fell more than 7 per cent on Monday to about $48, as investors were spooked by the renewed debate into the prospect of tighter social media regulation. Ms Merkel’s spokesman, Steffen Seibert, said free speech was a “fundamental right of vital importance” that could be restricted, “but only in accordance with the laws and within a framework defined by the legislator — not by the decision of the management of social media platforms”. He said for that reason the chancellor found it “problematic” that Mr Trump’s accounts had been indefinitely suspended.
 
Merkel is Trumps main antagonist on the international stage for the last 4 years, so nobody can suspect her to just side with him for any sympathy.


https://www.ft.com/content/6146b352-6b40-48ef-b10b-a34ad585b91a

Angela Merkel, German chancellor, has sharply criticised Twitter’s decision to ban US president Donald Trump, calling it a “problematic” breach of the “fundamental right to free speech”. Twitter suspended Mr Trump’s account last week in the aftermath of the riots at the Capitol Building, citing “repeated and severe” violations of its civic integrity policies. Facebook has taken similar action. But Ms Merkel said through her spokesman that the US government should follow Germany’s lead in adopting laws that restrict online incitement, rather than leaving it up to platforms such as Twitter and Facebook to make up their own rules. The intervention highlights a key area of disagreement between the US and Europe on how to regulate social media platforms. The EU wants to give regulators more powers to force internet platforms such as Facebook or Twitter to remove illegal content. In the US, technology companies have traditionally been left to themselves to police their own sites, though momentum is gathering behind political moves to curtail their regulatory freedoms. Several members of Congress are working on bills which would limit the legal protections social media companies have from being sued for third-party content posted on their sites. Others are pushing for a new federal data privacy bill that could mirror the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation. Twitter’s share price fell more than 7 per cent on Monday to about $48, as investors were spooked by the renewed debate into the prospect of tighter social media regulation. Ms Merkel’s spokesman, Steffen Seibert, said free speech was a “fundamental right of vital importance” that could be restricted, “but only in accordance with the laws and within a framework defined by the legislator — not by the decision of the management of social media platforms”. He said for that reason the chancellor found it “problematic” that Mr Trump’s accounts had been indefinitely suspended.

At first glance, I would tend to agree with her...but, of course, in this particular situation, we see where that would fall apart. Germany's model doesn't account for a Trump-style government. Given everything, do you think it should be left up to him to govern himself?
 
Twitter is doing the right things and preventing more violence.


The Iranian Regime arguments the same way.

Merkel disagrees with trump on any topic. But she would never allow some unelected internet company decide what can be posted and what not.

Thats the duty of courts, not Twitter.
 
The Iranian Regime arguments the same way.

Merkel disagrees with trump on any topic. But she would never allow some unelected internet company decide what can be posted and what not.

Thats the duty of courts, not Twitter.
Apples to oranges.
 
In Germany Twitter banned people and erased comments and was forced by court to reinstall them. A private company has at no point the right to decide what can be said and what not. Thats the law here.

In America, Twitter banned Trump.

In America, he first amendment right to free speech only applies to government, aka, state actors. Twitter banning Trump has absolutely nothing to do with "the fundamental right to free speech" because twitter is not a state actor.

Therefore, Twitter did not violate the fundamental right to free speech by banning Trump, and nothing about the way Germany likes to do things changes that.
 

Twitter banning Trump has nothing to do with free speech because Twitter is not a state actor. Therefore, crying about free speech in this context is very stupid indeed.

If you do not understand why, you either hate the constitution you pretend to love, or you are pretending to love a constitution you do not understand.
 
It's a sad day when a European country calls out the US on free speech.

I mean in that callout Merkel wanted the US to enact laws so that it was the government making the determination of what’s allowed online instead of private companies.
 
I mean in that callout Merkel wanted the US to enact laws so that it was the government making the determination of what’s allowed online instead of private companies.


Trump has proven that the law doesn't apply to him.
 
In Germany Twitter banned people and erased comments and was forced by court to reinstall them. A private company has at no point the right to decide what can be said and what not. Thats the law here.

That is problematic though. If I walk into a privately owned store in Germany with a megaphone and start singing the American national anthem over and over again, is this protected behavior? Can I do this every day until the store goes out of business because no one wants to shop there?

How do you keep me out if a private company has no right to decide what I can or cannot say?
 
I mean in that callout Merkel wanted the US to enact laws so that it was the government making the determination of what’s allowed online instead of private companies.
Yes, it's a lesser of two evils decision.
 
In Germany Twitter banned people and erased comments and was forced by court to reinstall them. A private company has at no point the right to decide what can be said and what not. Thats the law here.
But its not the law here, and for good reason. People should not be required to host or post things they do not approve on their site. Twitter and Facebook are owned by those private companies. They are not owned by those people being given permission to post comments there.
 
If private companies are abusing the special privileges afforded to them, then they lose their special privileges. Time to rethink Section 230.

How would you rewrite Section 230?
 
Twitter banning Trump has nothing to do with free speech because Twitter is not a state actor. Therefore, crying about free speech in this context is very stupid indeed.
Huh??? That makes no sense whatsoever.
 
Back
Top Bottom