Trump AKA Hitler just announced that he will end censorship of free speech!!

[Lovebug]

President-elect Donald Trump isn’t messing around. His first major policy statement since his landslide victory outlines his plan to restore free speech. This fundamental right has been diluted by federal officials who have worked closely with tech executives to suppress views they do not like. If we don’t have free speech, then we just don’t have a free country. It’s a simple as that,” Mr. Trump explained in a video last week.

“The censorship cartel must be dismantled and destroyed, and it must happen immediately,” Mr. Trump said.

Https://search.app?link=https://www..._campaign=aga&utm_source=agsadl1,sh/x/gs/m2/4
Mmmm, free speech?

 

[LouC]

I can hear the helicopters already.

 

[Lisa]

Oh, is he going to make it illegal for private and/or publicly traded social media companies to have moderation policies? Porn, Nazis, and Nazi Porn for all?



It's too painfully obvious why he switched to Republican to pursue politics seriously. They've got the most easily manipulated base, who will shout and scream about how much they love the 1st Amendment without having a ****ing clue what it actually protects and who it protects that from.



Yes, they certainly complained about non-governmental entities having moderation policies. Shame they didn't realize the 1st Amd. doesn't stop a social media company from yanking your post and suspending you.

If you disbelieve me, post porn right here and try to sue DP's owner for the resulting ban in the form of a §1983 suit (violation of certain civil rights) and see how fast you get laughed out of the lawyer's office.

You said it clearer and better than I would have. Apparently conservatives dont think that other people have free speech rights when people disagree with them.

As a you are very aware of, most people do not understand that the free speech rights in the First Amendment only apply to what the government can do. They do not limit the social repercussions of speech/actions, or the free speech of anyone else. Fact checking and TOS limits are not censorship.

 

[Lisa]

He can - and will - remove their protections against civil lawsuits for slander and libel if they refuse to stay neutral and become publishers of information rather than providers.

This will be fun to watch you fail.

Actually the "stay neutral" ship sailed long ago. They've been the propaganda wing of the Dem party for years now.

Your free speech rights are not being limited by those actions. You should learn why.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

its anything but inappropriate....the dude keeps Hitler's book on his night stand.

Of course -- it's a DYI/how to play the victim book. What he does now, I'm not sure.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Trump just announced that he will end the horrible censorship that the rotten leftist filth have been doing to conservatives. He will sign executive orders punishing government officials and social media groups who censor free speech.

roflmao

In the name of Free Speech™ Trump's government is going to control the speech of private groups.​

reality is stranger than fiction

 

[Deuce]

Trump just announced that he will end the horrible censorship that the rotten leftist filth have been doing to conservatives. He will sign executive orders punishing government officials and social media groups who censor free speech.

This is violating the first amendment, and you support it.

You cannot force a private business to broadcast unwanted speech.

 

[Hari Seldon]

According to the left…
Ronald Reagan was Hitler.
George H. W. Bush was Hitler.
George W. Bush was Hitler.
Trump is Hitler.
lol

Not Hitler, just a malignant narcissist scumbag piece of shit liar grifter rapist seditionist felon and tax cheat.

 

[Grand Mal]

How does he plan to do the bolded bit?

Yeah, he's gonna stop Musk censoring 'X'.
Honest!

 

[Luce]

Yeah, he's gonna stop Musk censoring 'X'.
Honest!

Well, yes, obviously MAGA folks - including outright Nazis like Fuentes - will get away with whatever they like.

 

[joluoto]

He can - and will - remove their protections against civil lawsuits for slander and libel if they refuse to stay neutral and become publishers of information rather than providers.

Actually the "stay neutral" ship sailed long ago. They've been the propaganda wing of the Dem party for years now.

If he does that, this forum will be hit just as bad as the giants. If you can sue the social media platform (and this is a social media platform) for things their users do, then we will get MORE censorship, not less, because every platform will be in panic to remove things that can even theoretically hurt someone else to be sure not to get sued for it. Those protections exists to make social media platforms viable at all. If you are harassed online it's the person who harass you who is liable for it under the current model, the platform can become liable if they don't do anything about it, but they are not liable automatically. If those protections disappears, the platform is immediately liable for EVERYTHING their users does. Which also includes things like copyright violations.

 

[Mr Person]

This is violating the first amendment, and you support it.

You cannot force a private business to broadcast unwanted speech.

Then again, this particular SCOTUS might rule that the executive branch has authority to follow or ignore the constitution as it pleases, citing Andrew Jackson. I don't put anything past them...

That first sentence was only so tongue-in-cheek. They got their 6-3 majority and started throwing out precedents left and right. There's a decent chance they pull another doozy out their asses, comparable to the "official acts immunity" and "how to legally bribe someone" decisions. And Dobbs. And throwing out Chevron deference. And and and. . . for the first time I can think of off the top of my head, they seem intentionally bent on delivering hard righties their dreams.

 

[Athanasius68]

This is violating the first amendment, and you support it.

You cannot force a private business to broadcast unwanted speech.

What has been bandied about in the past is not to force social media to broadcast speech it does not wish.

What has been tossed around is reforming Sec 230 of the Communications Act to remove libel protections for such companies who engage in such activities.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

Trump just announced that he will end the horrible censorship that the rotten leftist filth have been doing to conservatives. He will sign executive orders punishing government officials and social media groups who censor free speech.

Funny that Hitler would actually push for free and open speech and vow that it is our most important right lol. Maybe just maybe you guys labeled the wrong politician lol.

For years conservatives have complained about being censored and silenced. In 2020 government officials loyal to Biden colluded with social media to silence the discussion of the damaging but factual Hunter Biden laptop and burisma stories. A move that later polls showed cost Trump a victory. In 2022 more of the same. A few months ago Harris vowed to censor and silence free speech. She said it would be speech deemed as dangerous which means Republican speech. Trump is going to fix censorship no matter which direction it goes.

Hardy something that a dictator or Fascist would ever consider doing.

Best yet is that any government official who took part in that censorship will be fired!!!!! Finally someone willing to fight for ALL Americans free speech.

Throw them out like that FEMA bitch that instructed her staff to skip tornado destroyed homes if they displayed any Trump advertising.

What about "Don't say gay?" Will he end the book bans or burnings?

 

[Deuce]

He can - and will - remove their protections against civil lawsuits for slander and libel if they refuse to stay neutral and become publishers of information rather than providers.

Actually the "stay neutral" ship sailed long ago. They've been the propaganda wing of the Dem party for years now.

Ending Section 230 protection results in more censorship, not less.

You therefore support more censorship.

 

[Deuce]

What has been bandied about in the past is not to force social media to broadcast speech it does not wish.

What has been tossed around is reforming Sec 230 of the Communications Act to remove libel protections for such companies who engage in such activities.

The result of removing Section 230 protections is more censorship, not less. You therefore support more censorship.

 

[Athanasius68]

If he does that, this forum will be hit just as bad as the giants. If you can sue the social media platform (and this is a social media platform) for things their users do, then we will get MORE censorship, not less, because every platform will be in panic to remove things that can even theoretically hurt someone else to be sure not to get sued for it. Those protections exists to make social media platforms viable at all. If you are harassed online it's the person who harass you who is liable for it under the current model, the platform can become liable if they don't do anything about it, but they are not liable automatically. If those protections disappears, the platform is immediately liable for EVERYTHING their users does. Which also includes things like copyright violations.

Correct-- but when the platform is suppressing certain things that it does not like, why should they have libel protection?

 

[Lisa]

Then again, this particular SCOTUS might rule that the executive branch has authority to follow or ignore the constitution as it pleases, citing Andrew Jackson. I don't put anything past them...

That first sentence was only so tongue-in-cheek. They got their 6-3 majority and started throwing out precedents left and right. There's a decent chance they pull another doozy out their asses, comparable to the "official acts immunity" and "how to legally bribe someone" decisions. And Dobbs. And throwing out Chevron deference. And and and. . . for the first time I can think of off the top of my head, they seem intentionally bent on delivering hard righties their dreams.

Would you be surprised if Trump administration cites the Korematsu decision as a defense for rounding up and deporting immigrants?

 

[Athanasius68]

The result of removing Section 230 protections is more censorship, not less. You therefore support more censorship.

The reason why Sec 230 exists is to encourage exchanging of ideas and opinions.

But if the platform is, on its own accord, suppressing ideas it does not like, then it isn't holding up is end of the deal.

 

[LouC]

According to the left…
Ronald Reagan was Hitler.
George H. W. Bush was Hitler.
George W. Bush was Hitler.
Trump is Hitler.
lol

 

[Deuce]

Correct-- but when the platform is suppressing certain things that it does not like, why should they have libel protection?

Because taking that protection away means even more suppression. Absolutely draconian moderation is required to avoid liability.

 

[Deuce]

The reason why Sec 230 exists is to encourage exchanging of ideas and opinions.

The protections are what allow platforms to do this, correct. Taking away those protections means platforms can't do this anymore.

But if the platform is, on its own accord, suppressing ideas it does not like, then it isn't holding up is end of the deal.

It's not a deal. There was never a requirement of allowing every kind of speech on any platform. Section 230's purpose was never to coerce social media companies into ending all moderation and forcing them to broadcast all speech regardless of whether they want it. Private businesses are still private businesses.

Section 230 was intended to allow social media to be as permissive as they want to be, not as permissive as the government forces them to be.

 

[Athanasius68]

The protections are what allow platforms to do this, correct. Taking away those protections means platforms can't do this anymore.

It's not a deal. There was never a requirement of allowing every kind of speech on any platform. Section 230's purpose was never to coerce social media companies into ending all moderation and forcing them to broadcast all speech regardless of whether they want it. Private businesses are still private businesses.

The preamble to the law lays out why the platforms should be exempt from libel laws ie. They encourage debate and discussion.
Great.

But if the platform itself is stifling debate and discussion because it doesn't like certain opinions, then obviously they are not encouraging debate and discussion.

The law should be reformed to allow for a platform to choose: to permit only the type of discussion they want on it-- but with the codicil that they lose libel protection; or to keep such protection but must take all comers.

 

[LouC]

Donald Trump is a 1st Amendment Free Speech hypocrite just like he is a hypocrite in regards speech on his own so called "Truth Social" website.

His plans in regards 1st Amendment Free Speech concerns has nothing to do with protecting any 1st Amendment covered Free Speech but everything to do with his revenge agenda.

But that is OK, I applaud it, because 74,826,348 of My Fellow Americans voted him onto the Throne of Immunity.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

According to the left…
Ronald Reagan was Hitler.
George H. W. Bush was Hitler.
George W. Bush was Hitler.
Trump is Hitler.
lol

Again, JD Vance and John Kelly called him Hitler. How are they the left?