Twitter Hits Trump With New Warning Over Tweet “Glorifying Violence”

Twitter LogoLate last night, Twitter doubled down on its controversial labeling of tweets from President Donald Trump to flag what it views as misleading or offensive material.  Yesterday, I wrote a column on Twitter’s policy and a second column on President Trump’s response with an executive order. I have strongly opposed Twitter’s policy on censoring and labeling material, including the decision to correct a tweet from the President on the political debate over main-in voting. Undeterred, Twitter has issued a new warning that a tweet from the President on the rioting in Minneapolis was a violation of its rule for “glorifying violence.” Twitter is now making the case for government action to monitor and control social media.  The loser will ultimately be free speech.

Around midnight, President Trump responded to the images of looting and rioting with a tweet that demanded action from the Governor and said that, if there is no action, “we will assume control.” He then added “when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!”

Twitter appended a message to a Trump tweet about civil unrest saying it violated policies covering violence

Last night, I criticized the tweets as inflammatory and unhelpful. However, that does not justify what Twitter has done.  The company slapped on a warning that that the tweet “violates our policies regarding the glorification of violence based on the historical context of the last line, its connection to violence, and the risk it could inspire similar actions today.”  It said that it “has determined that it may be in the public’s interest for the tweet to remain accessible.”

Any of Trump’s roughly 80 million followers could still view the tweet if they clicked on “view.”  However, due to the action by Twitter, users cannot “like” or retweet the President’s comments.

Twitter could not be doing more to highlight the threat to free speech in first targeting a political tweet on main-voting and then targeting a second tweet under the ambiguous standard of  “glorifying violence.”  Let’s unpack its message and its meaning.

First, calling for tough law enforcement is a quintessential political statement.  My objections was not that it glorified violence but that it was an irresponsible escalation of the rhetoric when Minneapolis police were struggling with a very dangerous and volatile situation.

Second, “glorifying violence” could be a standard used to curtail everything from War and Peace to Looney Tune cartoons.  It is an arbitrary standard that invites biased enforcement.  For example, Kathy Griffin ( the comedian responsible for the infamous severed Trump head picture) called out to her followers that Trump should be stabbed with a “syringe with nothing but air inside it.” Such reckless and inflammatory speech is all-too-common in today’s politics.  I have been hit with violent threats on every social media platform, including people calling for me to be physically attacked on Twitter. That was not flagged or deemed “glorifying violence.” The fact is that I would oppose the censoring or labeling of those comments against me because I remain a firm believer that good speech will prevail over bad speech.  It is more important to me to preserve Twitter and other platforms as a forum for free speech.

Third, where Trump escalated the rhetoric, Twitter has escalated its controls.  As discussed in the columns, Democratic leaders have called for years for Twitter and other companies to crackdown on political speech deemed misleading or false.  It is now plunging headlong into private censorship and speech regulation. This is wrong and a threat to free speech. As a private entity, Twitter falls below the radar of the First Amendment. However, it can cause irreparable damage to free speech by limiting expression for hundreds of millions of users.

Finally, Twitter is making the case against itself. It is given protections under Section 320 because it has claimed to being neutral supplier of virtual space for people to speak with one another.  Roughly 80 million people want to hear from Trump, not Twitter. Yet, Twitter has again inserted itself into that conversation to convey its own view of what is being discussed.  Imagine if the telephone company took it upon itself to periodically interrupt calls to express its view of what was just said.  If Twitter insists on being an active participant in such postings, it is changing its legal status and morphing into a viewpoint publisher.

I am still leery of the government intervening on social media.  Free speech has few advocates in this fight.  It is primary a struggle between Twitter, Trump, and the Democrats over who controls such speech.  Indeed, yesterday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi denounced Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg for resisting speech monitoring and censorship as a matter of free speech. Pelosi lashed out that those who want to preserve a free speech zone are “all about making money,” ignoring free speech advocates who have no financial interest in these companies. Pelosi said that opposing such monitoring means that social media companies simply want “to make money at the expense of the truth and the facts” and are trying to “hide under the freedom of speech.”

Twitter had the chance to admit error and return to neutrality in the interest of free speech. It is clearly more concerned with expressing its views than preserving its forum.  Frankly, I would not care about such self-inflicted wounds except that free speech will likely suffer the collateral damage from Twitter’s glorifying speech controls.

196 thoughts on “Twitter Hits Trump With New Warning Over Tweet “Glorifying Violence””

  1. Twitter is not neutral when it has rules it enforces against users other than Trump and exempts Trump from those rules. That has been the situation for some time now. Twitter’s recents actions are a very small and very inadequate step in the right direction.

    1. NA:

      Twitter and its masters surely aren’t neutral and thus the condition of their immunity from defamation and other tort claims ought to be rescinded. Then, like the publisher they truly are, they can be held to account. Legal fictions like “neutral platform” and legal policies like tort immunity are inherently corrupt practices aimed at aiding an entity the government likes. Both concepts need to be abolished. The government is the umpire not some judge in a pie making contest.

    2. Twitter and the others target conservatives for censorship in order to benefit their fellow lefties. Pretending that that’s not the case is disingenuous. Their “rules” are enforced against their opponents, but not against their own side. The only reason Trump hasn’t been banned from Twitter is because it would be very bad for business, but they do use all the other hidden forms of censorship against him where they can get away with it.

  2. Maggie Haberman (NYT):
    “In the same event where the president said Twitter is inappropriately cracking down on free speech, he says he would be willing to shut Twitter down if he could.”

    Jake Tapper (CNN), responding:
    “He can’t.”

    Sen. Ted Cruz responding in turn:
    “Jake, CNN can be sued for defamation. Why should Twitter be immune?”

    Mike Masnick (techdirt) responding in turn:
    “Ted, both CNN and Twitter can be sued for defamation *for content they themselves produce.* Both CNN and Twitter are immune from lawsuits for content created by *3rd party users of their site* that *they did not create*.
    “They both get the same protections.

    I bet Cruz knows that begging the question is a logical fallacy. But he does it anyway. Shame on him. The country is better served by honest, informed discussion, and fallacious arguments undermine that.

    1. ——
      “Ted, both CNN and Twitter can be sued for defamation *for content they themselves produce.* Both CNN and Twitter are immune from lawsuits for content created by *3rd party users of their site* that *they did not create*.
      “They both get the same protections.

      That’s pure sophistry as usual from you. If you editorialize your “platform”, then you are a publisher. You don’t get to hide behind the lie that “someone else produced the content” when you editorialize the content that gets to be displayed. This is simple stuff.

      1. Correcting errors of fact (look it up) or removing exhortations to violence are not “editorializing”.

      2. You can believe whatever you want, but we both know that it’s up to the courts to make that determination, and I doubt they’ll agree with you.

        Nothing is preventing Trump from suing if he thinks they’re liable.

  3. LOL! Twitter is stomping it’s foot! Whaaaa! It will be hilarious if the very first lawsuit actually comes from Trump. They just don’t get it.

    1. Trump does not get it. Twitter is well within it’s rights to do what it is doing. The law is very clear.

      1. The law is very clear.
        So’s the danger and that’s why Sec. 230 needs changed, Molly. Trumps gets it and that’s why the trust busting of these monopolies is beginning from the Left and Right.

        1. Trump wants government censorship over private speech. That is wrong. Section 230 is great and should be left as it is. There is no danger. A free and open internet is in the public good. If 230 was not there, Twitter would likely have had to ban Trump years ago.

  4. I live in the Twin Cities area. Previously I lived in Madison, Chicago, and KC. All 4 cities are a monopoly of Dem rule. They have enslaved black voters and throw them crumbs. All of the cities that have had similar riots are Dem monopolies. For the past decade, I have spent Winters in San Diego. It is one of the few major cities w/ a balance. The current mayor is a Republican. Going back 2 decades there have been Dem and Republican mayors. The last Dem mayor was Bob Filner, a sexual predator. And the voters go rid of him. San Diego has balance and it is peaceful. This analysis is undisputed. But, it is never spoken if you watch/read MSM. Twitter is part of the MSM cabal. They and the entire MSM are not righteous and free thinking people, like JT, see it and speak truth.

    1. Blacks aren’t enslaved.

      1. Like many people, they have only a vague conception of the relationship between public policy and quality of life, and between electoral contests and public policy.

      2. Among them, the best are silent. The worst and the stupidest have the megaphone.

      3. All up and down the social scale, they’re vulnerable to a menu of fallacies, all of which militate against improvement and maintenance of the quality of life.

      4. Police and security services are generally vested in the wrong level of government. This is as true in Minneapolis as anywhere. There should be no Minneapolis police force. There should be a sheriff’s patrol which covers the exurban portions of the seven counties around Minneapolis and a metropolitan police force which patrols the core city / suburban portion of those seven counties. The budget for these forces should be composed by an assembly of all the county councils in the area, proceeding by weighted voting. Supervising the Sheriff and Chief of Police should be a board elected by those county councils, again proceeding by weighted voting.

      5. Schooling by default is vested in public agencies when it should be vested in philanthropic agencies, some of them financed by tuition and some of them financed by redemption of vouchers issued by county governments. The only schools run by public agencies should be those serving high-overhead niche clientele and those housing incorrigibles no one else will take.

  5. This is what both The Lard and Crisco say to tweeters:
    “You’re a dork, you’re a dork. You’re a twit all the way. From your first cigarette to your last dying day!

      1. If you think I said something false, just quote it and provide evidence that it’s false. If you’re correct, I’ll gladly correct my mistake.

        My guess: you simply dislike my politics and want to accuse me but don’t actually have evidence to back up your claim.

      2. It’s been noted many times before…and it’s a sock puppet account as well. It only comes here to disrupt and dispute JT’s blog.

        1. That you believe I’m sock-puppeting doesn’t make your belief true. It’s false.
          I invite you to email Turley with your belief.

        2. I’ve been getting laughs from this comment section for about four years and Commit is obviously a different voice than those you’re presuming him/her to be. The posts are much more focused, providing fewer offramps to deflect based on sloppy rhetoric. This is leading to emotional hostility and accusations. Has anyone even taken Commit up on the offers to address specific disagreements yet?

  6. In life we have Winners,Losers and Whiners.
    Winners enjoy the Truth.
    Losers bathe in their own swamp.
    Whiners survive in the gutter.

  7. JT is wrong on the law and without moral standing after again ignoring or downplaying (“I have long stated my opposition to (fill in the blank) by the President….”, but don’t try to find the column where he actually does oppose the President in anything but as aside) Trump’s disgusting and animal like behavior.

    The 1st amendment does not apply to businesses, nor is it in anyway logical that section 230 should be revoked on a business which is responsible in attempts to not have it’s services used to spread misinformation or incite violence – all of which Trump has done in the last 3 days.

    1. Hey “by the book” … is it by your book to permit Adam “Bull” Shift free rein to use his position of power to lie to the American public about “solid evidence of Russian collusion by the Trump campaign”?

      1. I have no ability to stop anyone from lying JF though I’ll note the Mueller report did not address “collusion” a non-legal term which there is solid evidence of the Trump campaign engaging in with Russia and still are.

      2. Strange. You put “solid evidence of Russian collusion by the Trump campaign” in quotation marks, as if it’s something Schiff said, but if you do a quoted internet search on “solid evidence of Russian collusion by the Trump campaign,” it says “No results found for ‘solid evidence of Russian collusion by the Trump campaign.’” Maybe you just invented that quote.

        If you’re going to claim that Schiff lied, maybe you should quote something he actually said.

    2. From sheer volume of postings, you have finally said something correct: “The 1st amendment does not apply to businesses[…]” However, you immediately revert to your natural state by missing the entire point of section 203. Twitter has a very clear choice to make. Either:
      1. Go back to being a neutral conduit of free, open discourse (e.g.: keep their opinions to themselves)–and retain its 203 protections, or
      2. Continue being a provider of content on its platform (e.g.: by stating their opinions)–and lose its 203 protections

      It really is that simple.

      If Twitter resumes its role as the provider of a free, open platform, they rightly should be exempt from the consequences of third parties stating their opinions–even (especially?) including their platform being “used to spread misinformation.”

      Inciting violence is a wholly separate discussion, as it could potentially pertain to actual illegal activity. Likewise pornography, discussion/coordination of criminal acts, etc.

      If Twitter chooses to create/publish their own content, they are absolutely free to do so. However, they should rightly be no longer exempt of the consequences of stating their own opinions, including being held liable.

      Again, it really is that simple. Heck, Seth Warner (and his merry band of aliases) could probably grasp it. Although he would quickly recover, shed the knowledge, and prattle on about something else–anything else, as long as it was 180 degrees contrary to Mr. Turley’ s opinion.

      1. The law is clear that they are allowed to do what they did and it does not remove the protections. A private site may ban or flag objectionable material.

  8. Twitter’s thing is threats of violence. They don’t like it. They give people 24 hour bans over it. To me, this is just Twitter is finally holding Trump accountable to its terms of service that they hold everyone else to.

  9. I don’t see regulating social media/tech companies as a bad thing, personally, and ironically what Trump is proposing is what Elizabeth Warren said she wanted to do, too (and could have at any time from her position in Congress were she serious). If anything, Trump just stole her thunder. There is no question that Silicon Valley has gotten too big for its britches and absolutely engages in bias and willful censorship. They have for some time. I don’t have a problem with this being addressed, myself.

  10. A telephone company provides lined or airwaves for phone use. They should not listen in or censor. Same with Twitter. Nuff said Fred.

    1. If you don’t like Twitters Terms of Service, don’t use it. Every single user has agreed to the ToS.

      It’s also a bad analogy. Phone companies don’t allow the general public to listen in on someone else’s call. Twitter is designed to do the opposite: to let the general public read and respond to others’ tweets.

      1. Hey committedtodishonestdiscussion … yes the phone companies allow government intelligence agencies – not the general public – to listen in on conversations among citizens.

        1. I’m well aware that the government can legally listen to phone conversations if they have a valid warrant. Not sure how that’s relevant to my point about Liberty2nd’s analogy being a bad analogy.

      2. “If you don’t like Twitters Terms of Service, don’t use it”

        And strip them of their special immunity.

  11. Mr. Turley, if you’re going to discuss the rare notices that Twitter is posting on select content, it’s strange for you to ignore the one pictured here, applied to a tweet from a Chinese government spokesperson claiming that “the virus originated in the US”:

    “It is primary a struggle between Twitter, Trump, and the Democrats over who controls such speech.”

    Yeah, no Republicans involved. /s

    “Twitter had the chance to admit error and return to neutrality in the interest of free speech.”

    It hasn’t ever been neutral (e.g., it has regularly banned users who breached its Terms of Service), so it cannot “return to neutrality.” If you’re going to discuss it, discuss it accurately.

    Re: Trump’s tweet threatening military violence if protests continue — “These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won’t let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts,” what a contrast with his tweet in support of the mostly white protesters — some armed — against the COVID-19 stay-at-home order, where he said “LIBERATE MINNESOTA!”

    Note that there’s evidence of “a suspicious white man breaking windows at the Minneapolis Auto Zone and then walking away from the scene. This looks like an effort to instigate trouble in order to blame the protesters for the consequences” (with video of the “thug”):
    While peaceful protesters — people of color and white people, protesting police violence — try to get him to stop.

    1. Shut up Commit/Anon/btb. JT doesn’t need your unlettered, indolent, insulting, dimwitted blathering about topics you know nothing about. It’s HIS blog and you’re a cretin. He won say that to you but I will. You’re the dinner guest who complains about the menu. If you don’t like it, leave. It’s the principled thing to do but because of that you won’t, of course. I’m not reading or responding to your stupidity and moreso I urge others to do the same. If we can’t evict you, we can sure as Hell isolate you.

      1. Mespo is apparently fine with some internet sites broaching what his master claims are 1st amendment rights. What’s his problem with Twitter?

      2. RME.

        You, too, are a guest here. If Turley wants me to act differently, he can say so here or by email. If he wants to ban me, he can. But you’re not him, and you’re not speaking for him. Have you ever worked in academia? I have. And as a professor, he probably understands that criticizing people’s claims and listening to others’ criticisms is a totally normal part of the intellectual work.

        It’s totally fine with me if no one responds to me.

        Your desire to insult and to operate in a bubble where you only encounter ideas you agree with says more about you than me.

      3. “Shut up Commit/Anon/btb. JT doesn’t need your unlettered, indolent, insulting, dimwitted blathering about topics you know nothing about. It’s HIS blog and you’re a cretin.”

        Ha Ha Ha , In other words, you have no argument in response.
        When the response is nothing but abusive language and insults you might just as well just put up a white flag and admit you are defeated.

        1. “Ha Ha Ha , In other words, you have no argument in response.”
          Not really, Anon (assuming you’re not just a puppet), I’m just not into casting pearls before swine. If you’ve been hear more than a day, you’d know that.

          1. ^^Mespo refuses to address the content of the discussion, cites the bible poorly, and misspells a word, before huffing off.

    2. Committed: What a ridiculous attempt to sound like an adult. “what a contrast with his tweet in support of the mostly white protesters — some armed — against the COVID-19 stay-at-home order, where he said “LIBERATE MINNESOTA!””

      Guy dies at the hands of the police = Imma bust into a Target and steal a TV, burn stuff, and throw rocks


      Governor imposes ridiculous restrictions = Imma go peaceably assemble and not hurt anybody, break or burn things, or steal stuff

      What a contrast indeed. Maybe the Minnesota folks should have burned the capitol building so you’d defend their right to protest.

    3. They had a lot of lies from that guy and others to choose from

      Twitter decided to find a fig leaf to hide their quiet banning of Chinese dissident accounts

      Twitter is biting off more than it can chew if it’s the truth police now.

  12. To call what is happening a “protest” over the killing of a man in police custody is yet another lie by the media and democrats. The thugs and criminals hauling things out of stores they broke into are thanking their lucky stars that George Floyd was killed because he gave them an excuse to be the criminals they are with impunity.

    1. And what about all of the people who are peacefully protesting George Floyd’s killing? The majority of the people in the streets weren’t looting. But you choose to ignore them.

        1. If by “them” (which doesn’t have a clear referent) you’re referring to the same people as me — the people who are peacefully protesting George Floyd’s killing — then you don’t have to do anything about them. Let them protest peacefully, and hope that the local government listens to their concerns.

      1. Just like the media ignored everyone at the peaceful protests, asking the Michigan governor to re-open business, the media chose to report only on two or three people who carried arms, not on the rest. They also seem to choose those without masks, in a crowd of masked individuals.

        This is how the media work their magic, to help the left defeat Donald Trump.

        1. I wasn’t talking about the media there, but addressing honestlawyermostly about his personal opinion.

          But I guess the media you and I read are different, as I saw lots of reporting from MI about the unarmed protesters as well as the armed ones, and the photos I saw showed a mix of masked and unmasked protesters.

      2. Commit– The peaceful protesters not only have every right to do so but if I was there I probably would be joining them. I do not know what the autopsy will show but basic police training tells you never ever put a knee or a foot on someone’s neck for the same reason that choke-holds were banned. My statement was directed at what looked like the hundreds of people who seized this “opportunity” to steal stuff that did not belong to them and the media who for political reasons dubbed the obvious riot a protest. Both cheapened the value of true protests.

        1. Honestlawyermostly:

          I’m interested in the police training here and that’s why we need the trial. If the officer was trained to restrain in this way, I see the case a lot differently than the black-white issue crowd. Also if the cause of death is not asphyxiation, we need to know what is was. Squeeky postulates drug-induced heart attack and that’s plausible given the nature of the small time bad check forgery. The toxicology is critical here and we need to know a lot more.

          1. Floyd said repeatedly he couldn’t breath. Even if he did die from other causes than the cops knee, the cop should be trained to recognize distress and let up to check. Floyd was not resisting arrest in any of the videos released to date.

            1. PS There is more than enough evidence to arrest him on suspicion of manslaughter at this point.

            2. How does someone who can’t breath tell another repeatedly that they can’t breath? At the F.D. we are trained that someone who can say they are choking aren’t choking.

                1. Nope
                  Ask: “Are you choking?” If he nods his head tell him you are going to help.
                  If he is coughing and can talk, stand by to help as needed.
                  If he is unable to make a sound or talk, perform abdominal thrusts (the Heimlich Maneuver).

          2. mespo– many years ago I was with the US Capitol Police. In those times, we carried night sticks, handcuffs and guns and that was it. Even then, we were trained to avoid the neck because it is so fragile, particularly the sides and front. That’s why seeing the officer with his knee on Floyd’s neck was very disturbing. Having said that, there is a vast difference between an improper take down and a killing. You and Squeeky are right. We need to know a lot more.

          3. mespo – the manual has a leg hold that would cut off the carotid artery but the baton manual forbids striking that area of the neck.

        2. The protest existed before the looting, and it was peaceful until the police escalated by using teargas for no good reason. Not that that excuses looting, but it was stupid / needless / harmful antagonism on the part of the police. It’s possible to discuss all of this: the peaceful protests, the harmful police response, the rioting/looting, …

          1. The protest existed before the looting, and it was peaceful until the police escalated by using teargas for no good reason.

            I’m sure working police officers value the imput of professional trolls.

    2. I’m angry at the police so i think I’ll go rob a Target and an Autozone. Anyone who believes that nonsense (like the Dims) deserves the mayhem they tolerate. Where the Hell are the cowardly cops or more likely their fearful leader? Trump has it right to send in the National Guard and obliterate the problem. You wanna play third world revolutionary as a screen for looting? See what the job is really like.

      1. It is Gov. Walz job to restore order in Minneapolis. If he calls for federal assistance, fine, give it to him. Right now, the liberal idiots who put Jacob Frey and Betsy Hodges in office can get a dose of consequences until Mayor Frey grows a brain or until Gov. Walz shoves the useless nosepicker out of the way.

        1. If the repercussions were only limited to the literal idiots and their intelligentsia, I’d agree but it’s not. The rioters are burning down the businesses and buildings of the very community where most of the folks wouldn’t dream of participating. I say bring in the National Guard and restore order. Then start the trials of the rioters and looters.

      2. mespo – I get looting the Target, but looting the Autozone is like finding work for yourself.

        1. Paul:

          Yep, but most of it will end up on the black market. Hard to feel sorry for Target. They’re the Left’s poster child. Their “let a tranny creep in the bathroom with your adolescent daughter” policy relegated them to that status.

    3. Several incidents like this occurred when Obama was President. I don’t recall anyone blaming these riots on Pres. Obama. Like China, Twitter, Facebook, and the Democrat Socialists, Biden is their choice to be President. He will no doubt be better for them, than he will for America.

    4. These “protesters” give blacks in America a bad name. I’m betting most Africa-Americans in Minneapolis deplore this behavior but of course they get NO press. The looters do. (It’s worth noting there were lots of whites among the scenes of looting I saw though the vast majority were black) The press is unabashedly racist but sanctimonious about the issue. They are the worst hypocrites imaginable.

      1. We agree Mespo, however, what interests the press – if you can call our 24/7 cable opinion shows “the press” is viewers. The state protests by a handful of right wing nuts were similarly given coverage way outside of their importance or representation.

  13. I have a sinking feeing that JT would not object to the broadcasting of “Der Ewige Jude,” on 1st Amendment grounds. Short of child pornography and calls for imminent harm, are there no limits to hateful speech?

    1. Jeffery, of course he would object on his site. Who knows on Twitter, but they have published standards which by his reasoning are some gross violations of someone’s rights. All that triggers him is some slight to Trump’s right to be a complete animal and a…

  14. Don’t we shoot looters? That was always my understanding. Looters are like vermin, it is always open season on vermin.

        1. Charles Blow, in response to Tomi Lahren:

          Charles M. Blow
          During the Tulsa Race Massecre, in which up to 300 people were killed and a whole neighborhood destroyed and burned to the ground, white men stole everything of value from black homes.

          Tomi Lahren
          · 22h

          Destroying stores and taking what you want is not “protest” it’s theft and has NOTHING to do with justice for George. It is despicable to use his wrongful death as an excuse to steal things.

  15. I guess I’m confused. Isn’t Twitter as private company? To me, they can censor what ever they want. If we don’t like it, stop using them and start another service they doesn’t censor.

    1. Jim:
      They get special government provided immunity as “neutral platform” for speech from suit and therefor are a hybrid private company. She nice they clearly aren’t neutral, they ought to be regulated.

      1. That’s false. They are a private company and like any others engaged in providing an internet platform for communications, protected from liability for what is communicated. Nothing they have done in setting and enforcing standards – they are published and open, just as JT’s are – warrants they’re losing that protection.

        If Mespo doesn’t like it, he doesn’t have to use or frequent them, or he can start his own platform and receive the same liability protections.

        1. It used to be the minorities discriminated against, now it’s the white majority, your political enemy. All your lies are obvious, you have worn them on your shoulder.
          It’s a political divide and that proves the discrimination. Also, the traditional roles of the parties are reversed, thus enhancing the sentence to 100% and undeniable.

          1. Shakdi:
            There are no “majorities” or “minorities” only communities of interest. These are artificial labels to divide and alienate people. Once we understand the utter bankruptcy of the notion of majorities and minorities we’ll get back to what the founders envisioned and a reduction in the factions (i.e. ever warring communities of interests) that Madison warned us about.

        2. That’s false.

          No, that’s true, and Mr. Esposito can quote you chapter and verse from the U.S. Code.

          What’s amazing about you is that you’ve shambled through 74 years on Earth and never learned when to shut your stupid mouth. The only people like you I encounter among the old have dementia diagnoses.

      2. Well, if that is the case, then it sounds like they need to choose between being truly neutral or loose the protection.

  16. I’m interested in your comment about the government intervening in social media. How is giving them special liability protections not government intervention? I understand why they did it initially, and the platforms behaved as such for a long time, but they are all curating content at this point and don’t deserve those protections anymore. They are no less publishers than CNN or Time magazine.

    1. CNN and Time are similarly protected by section 230 for 3rd party contents they don’t endorse. They and Twitter – and Turley – all have standards for content which to this point Twitter has allowed Trump to violate because he’s the President one assumes. He should have been booted long ago.

    1. From your mouth, to G..d’s ear…
      Wish I felt as strongly about that result.
      And, to add to your comment, if the Democrats win, the real ‘LOSERS,’ will be the American people.

Leave a Reply