trump can hold a press conference any old day of the week he wants. multiple times a day even(*). we had 44 presidents do just fine without attempting to mis/govern via tweet.
(* presumably he simply doesn’t want to interrupt his television and golf time. )
I will admit that I am not a proponent of extreme Free Speech. I do think there should always be an exception for speech that calls for treatment or exclusion of others for who they are as people, rather than the choices they make in life. To me, that is hate speech and has no place in public discourse. If someone would like to express that, cool. Do it on your own time, dime, and place. No one should be allowed to even passively intimidate others by expressing hatred of people for their intrinsic humanity.
Same thing for freedom of association. For example, I do not believe that a private entity should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for who they are - due to race, religion, gender, sexuality, etc. However, refusing service to people for their choices is fair game.
Of course, one of those is a choice.
Which one? Religion?
Yes and no. Being Jewish is as much culture as it is religion. For many people, they are raised a certain way and don’t know any other. While there might be choice involved for many, there is little choice for some.
Soon…
(too soon?)
I like Apple’s thinking here: get Parler to effectively go “on record” as being a haven for intolerance and unmoderated violent speech.
It’s their business model. Have them go on record, and de-platform them, or have them change.
They won’t change. That’s my bet.
but the press are “unfair” to him. poor baby, everyone is so mean to him. Only Twitter was nice, until now.
That’s the thing. There is a faction that wants to change our Republic. They want to end it and replace it with a new system of their own making. If Big Tech gets in their way, there is going to be repercussions. It’s not just Trump, but a large swath of right-wing media that hates this. I’m not saying we should capitulate to their demands, rather we should proceed cautiously and be prepared for an assault, metaphorical or literal.
It doesn’t necessarily make the phone less secure, because it still ask for the user’s confirmation before installing apps.
If i’m not mistaken, you can disable that setting, install parler app, and then activate it again to keep the original setting and the app.
If I had a twitter account, or even read stuff posted on twitter, I guess I would be happy.
But I don’t.
Fox News, Twitter, CNN, etc. I don’t click on those links. I’ll do WaPo, NYT, Aljazeera, and NPR, but I don’t have time for much else and those outlets seem to report facts. I don’t dive into their editorials either, because I know it’s a left-slant and I don’t need opinions.
Yes, but not in the First Amendment violation sense that Hawley is cynically characterising it as (despite the jokes that Yale Law School may need a re-accreditation, he knows exactly what he’s doing).
Google and Apple are private businesses. They have total discretion in who they choose to do business with, including Parler.
If you don’t like it, build your own massive duopoly.
I think he should be disbarred from lying about what the first amendment is. The first amendment is not about being able to force private companies to publish ones book. As you point out, he knows better. He is cynically lying and misrepresenting black letter constitutional law to mislead the public and stir up a mob.
Yep. And, to be clear, this might or might not be grounds for additional antitrust actions in the future. Google and Apple are certainly taking these actions later than we’d all like, but they’re also taking them despite the risk that doing so may expose them to significant antitrust liability in the future.
Yes, and that’s why we have “protected classes”, rather than a simple rule about choice.
Spotify is my favorite.
“I’m so depressed that I can’t tweet. Maybe some music will cheer me up. Alexa, play ‘Gloria’ by Laura Branigan on repeat.”
I'm sorry, your account has been deleted.
“Spotifyyyyyyyyy!”
Very much so, but of course IMHO lawyers are trained to do exactly this - present the facts in the light most beneficial to their “client”, and hope the theory sticks.
“[T]he facts,” though. As “officers of the court” they aren’t suppose to lie or suborn lying by their clients. And Hawley is ought right lying about the First Amendment applying to his contract dispute with his publisher. You can call it censorship, if you want. But you can’t factually call it a first Amendment violation since the First Amendment applies only to government censorship, which is not what happened.
Sure, but as Popehat likes to point out, Lawyers will stretch the truth as far as they can to make their case. And in this case he’s really trying to convince the court of public opinion and non-lawyers more than his compatriots, I think.
I truly hope it doesn’t work, and he’s asked to resign.
Yes, because…
They are detrimental to the entire world, not just the US. Europe (including the UK) is having their own problems with local variants of Trumpism.
