What is Donald Trump's Greatest Failure? (Page 12)

KeithJ: of course he made threats to the governor it is his style he learned from his mafia buddies of Genovese family

Campion: Trump is doubly wrong about Twitter

Laurence H. Tribe, Joshua A. Geltzer

Laurence H. Tribe is the Carl M. Loeb University Professor and Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard. Joshua A. Geltzer is executive director and visiting professor of law at Georgetown’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection.

On Tuesday, President Trump claimed — on Twitter, no less — that Twitter is “stifling FREE SPEECH,” thus suggesting that Twitter is violating the First Amendment. As usual, Trump is wrong on the law, but this time he’s even more wrong than usual. There is someone violating the First Amendment on Twitter, but it’s not Twitter — it’s Trump. What’s more, his threat on Wednesday to shut down Twitter altogether would mean violating the First Amendment in new ways.

Trump is utterly mistaken in claiming that Twitter is violating the First Amendment — or even that Twitter can violate the First Amendment. Prompting Trump’s outburst was the platform’s first-ever attachment of warnings to two of Trump’s tweets encouraging users to “get the facts about mail-in ballots.” Clicking the warning leads to a news story indicating that “Trump makes unsubstantiated claim that mail-in ballots will lead to voter fraud.” Attaching these warnings, Trump claimed, was Twitter’s First Amendment sin.

But it’s no constitutional violation. To begin with, the First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter. So, when the company adds warnings to tweets or even — going a step further for users other than Trump — removes tweets, it can’t possibly violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.

Furthermore, when Twitter attaches a warning to a tweet, that constitutes speech of Twitter’s own, which is generally protected under the First Amendment from governmental censorship. Far from violating the First Amendment by speaking on top of Trump’s own speech, Twitter was exercising its First Amendment rights.
Here’s the irony: While Twitter isn’t using its platform to violate the First Amendment, Trump is. That’s not just our view; it’s what a federal appeals court held in a landmark decision last year. The court ruled that Trump was violating the First Amendment by blocking on Twitter those whose views he disliked. It is long-standing constitutional law that, when a government actor such as Trump creates a public forum in which different views are encouraged to be shared, the government can’t then pick and choose which voices to permit and which to silence. That’s what the court found Trump did, holding that, having used his @realDonaldTrump Twitter account as an official governmental public forum, Trump couldn’t then selectively censor his critics.

But it isn’t just that Trump is already committing the very violation of which he’s accusing Twitter: Astonishingly, Trump is now raising the possibility of aggravating his First Amendment offense by adding another. Apparently so outraged by Twitter’s accurately questioning his inaccurate tweets, Trump denounced social media platforms that “totally silence conservative voices” and threatened to “strongly regulate, or close them down.”

For Trump to do so would be an obvious First Amendment violation of its own. No matter what one thinks of Twitter, operating a social media platform that hosts a wide array of speech is, itself, a form of expression protected under the First Amendment. Just as Trump can’t shut down a newspaper because he doesn’t like one of its articles, he can’t close down Twitter — let alone all of social media — because he doesn’t like a warning affixed to a couple of his tweets.

Some of Trump’s congressional allies are echoing his threat in ways that also misapprehend the relevant law. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio took to Twitter to say that if social media companies exercise some “editorial role like a publisher,” they should no longer receive the protections from liability afforded them under federal law.
Rubio fundamentally misunderstands the law and, in particular, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 was passed precisely to provide social media companies with the flexibility to regulate content on their platforms responsibly, even as they played a very different role from that of traditional publishers because social media companies don’t scrutinize content before it is uploaded to their platforms.

In other words, Section 230 was meant to incentivize companies like Twitter to do exactly what the company just did in experimenting with a new way of moderating Trump’s relentlessly false tweets. There are thoughtful arguments for and against Section 230 in its current form, but it makes no sense to suggest that social media platforms should lose Section 230’s protections for exercising the type of content moderation that the provision was intended to facilitate.

All told, Trump is doubly wrong in his assault on Twitter. Whatever one thinks of how the company is handling the president, there is simply no legal basis for how he is handling Twitter.

Echolegacy:

A brilliant and finely thought out analysis of the intricacies of First Amendment law, a topic about which Trump is stunningly ignorant but that should come as no surprise to anybody who knows him for what he is: a confirmed and unrepentant IGNORAMUS AND LIAR and , believed not even by himself so its wonderful that somebody is finally taking him to task for his own flagrant abuse of free speech.


Like I said, nicely done, and if you don't mind, Campion, I am going to cut and paste this brilliant article to use for my own thread.


Thanks again for the input!




ECHO

prairwarur: Twitter advertised as a totally objective platform for ALL to engage in and enjoy free speech. As they became larger it was discovered how they abused power by censoring free speech and even removing persons they found to be in violation while allowing others whom blatantly violated TOS to remain. (Leaving their ability to spy and sell our private information for another time to discuss.)

Those here who appear to be Constitutional specialists have forgotten the government of the USA is "We The People". We are the government and we are entitled free speech that twitter, facebook, or any George Soros owned entity are not allowed to censor or remove.
This has nothing to do with Trump and everything to do with the hypocrisy and illegal activity of Twitter.
Your "facts" are your facts and not those of all. That which you claim false has been found to be true. Mail in ballots are a threat and it is being handled carelessly, at best. You seem to think your opinion is factual and true, but not even a good try at attempting to state you know, we don't, Trump doesn't, end of story. Won't work.

prairwarur: I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It. ~~ Evelyn Beatrice Hall

I don't need Twitter to censor what I read. I am perfectly capable to think for myself, thank you very much! How arrogant of them, or anyone, to actually think that they alone possess all knowledge and wisdom, truth and fact, and have the right to think for another. That's plain hogwash.

"Give me liberty or give me death." I am able to think for myself and make my own choices. This is freedom and free speech! Nazi Germany had the ideology of censoring speech and what could be read, but they fell and we ain't them. Never will be. Long live freedom! #LetFreedomRing not twitter Jack and his brown shirts.

murrayduan: prair, Why is it so many people who have an opinion base it on misinformation or inability to understand what they are referencing.

Exactly where did Twitter censor anything or one? They did not remove what Trump said they just gave you the opportunity to compare it with the facts. Why is it so hard to understand what occurred? This isn't rocket science.

Then you rant about free speech while you complain about Twitter exercising their free speech? WTF?

This isn't about knowledge or wisdom its about facts. There is only one set of facts.
They also did not claim to be the only ones to know the facts they just presented them to a faction who would not take the time to look them up. They were doing America a favor.

murrayduan: prair why do you believe mail in ballets are a threat? A threat to what?

It is a fact that there has not been a discernable threat to a Democracy with mail in ballets.

Using the information at our disposal today it is obvious to everyone electronic transmission of data and information is at risk. The hijacking and manipulation of electronic voting is much easier to do then mail in voting.

One guy at a computer can do a million times more damage to our electoral system then one guy can do with mail in voting.

I have never in 70 years had issues with my mail, be it checks or important documents I received. Never.

I have had several issues with electronic transmissions and identity threats by Computer.

One only has to use their brain to see where the real threat is.

murrayduan: prair if you meant to infer Twitter suppressed the lies Trump said you might have a better case, even that is shaky as they still allowed it to stand while offering readers an option to read the truth. So still no Censor.

prairwarur: Twitter has a long record of removing conservatives. They deleted many accounts, like Candace Owens, for one example and James Woods, and others that you may not know about, since they were just common people. Yet, they said the wrong thing and they were gone while folks like Kathy Griffen and her bloody head were allowed.

prairwarur: Oh, and Dennis Prager, Prager University. He's another favorite target for these lying libs. He's not allowed to advertise on twitter, not facebook.

murrayduan: The two you mentioned were banned for a period of time for what they posted.

Griffin was banned for the same amount of time as Candace Owens for things she said. No doubt in my mind common people from right and left have been banned.

I wont look up if more righty then lefties have been banned as it would stand to reason when you look at some of the insane comments from Conservatives.

If you are prone to making stupid comments then you will pay the price. Comes with the territory of making stupid comments.

murrayduan: It doesnt take lomg for a righty to say something that explains his agenda. You cry about claimed unfair treatment for conservatives, then out of the blue make a stupid remark about "lying Libs".

Gotta love it righty expressing indignation about lying while their leader a sociopahic liar has lied or misinformed over 18000 times in 3 years.

Do any of you think before posting? WTF

prairwarur: So, there you go - censorship and no free speech at the bequest of the powers that be. Not in America!

murrayduan: It seems like Prager has been banned from a few social media platforms? Wonder why?

Kids you only need to think before posting, show us a conservative can do that sometimes?

This isn't that hard really. Forget what Trump does and says then you wont have to spend your time correcting what you said later on.

prairwarur: Free Speech, murray. Which is it, say only that which the left approves of, or free speech?

prairwarur: Louis Farahkan can have his say, Prager can't? Maybe they don't like Jews?

murrayduan: prair please again think then post.

Free Speech has already been shown to have limits if there can be repercussions for what you said.

Trump does that all the time. He says something idiotic that would inspire others to commit a crime or act of terror then after he has planted the seed tries to walk it back. You cant do that.

Common sense, which is sorely lacking on the right.

murrayduan: prair give me an example of what your talking about don't talk like most conservatives and offer generalities.

prairwarur: go learn what free speech is then come back. You're misguided to think only some merit the privileges of free speech. You do sound like a typical leftist who believes they own the right to free speech. It's for all Americans. Only dishonest folks deny this right to others.

prairwarur: "I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It."

murrayduan: No need free speech is very clear. You are typical righty, cry and bitch then offer nothing for support.
Its always wahhhhh wahhhh we are misunderstood. Give us an example of mistreatment don't just cry.

Righty's have a history of this nonsense.

murrayduan: Prair so where did Twitter censor Trump? Give an example.

prairwarur: What point is there in attempting to converse with such a narrow-minded fellow? I'm all for your rights, but the left would censor mine. There you go. Until you realize I have those same rights, all Americans do, we go nowhere. Have a good day.

murrayduan: prair lets play the righty game. So you are OK with yelling Fire in a crowded space? You don't have a problem with saying you want to kill someone or promote such acts among your followers?

murrayduan: prair, that is an expected answer when righty is backed into a corner and asked to explain their nonsense.

Instead of sticking your tail between your legs and running just answer the question and give examples

Yes you have the same rights as others but why waste them on lies and idiotic posts?.