Late 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!”
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.
Jonathan: You may criticize Twitter for posting a warning on Trump’s latest eruption about violence in Minneapolis but their posting against Trump’s “glorification of violence” pales in comparison to what Trump was calling for in his tweet. Trump did more than just call for “tough law enforcement”, to use your words. He actually called on Minneapolis police to shoot down and kill black citizens because they were protesting the unjustified killing of George Floyd, a black man, while in police custody. Minneapolis police have a long history of racist violence against black people in the twin cities. With this background we should understand why black citizens erupted over the killing of Floyd. It was just another result of police racist practices. This is not to condone violence or the destruction of property but to try to understand its genesis.
Now a normal president would be urging calm and, perhaps, calling for an investigation of Floyd’s killing. But that’s not Trump’s style. As a racist himself, Trump uses every opportunity to stoke the flames of racial hatred. But you seem to think Trump’s racist tweet was simply a “quintessential political statement”. This is like saying that when Hitler, in the early days of his rise to power. railed against the Jews in Germany calling them “vermin” and “parasites”, he was simply making a “quintessential political statement” that should be protected as the right to “free speech”. I can’t imagine more tortured logic. After Hitler gained power he continued his campaign against the Jews. When the German press protested Hitler’s treatment of the Jews we know what happened. He shut down the press, jailed its publishers, and placed the press under Nazi state control. This is exactly what Trump would do if given the chance.
History never repeats itself in the same way the second time. But the parallels between Germany in the 1930s and what is happening under Trump should cause all of us to sound the alarm–not just Twitter!.
Dennis, there’s thousands of accounts glorifying the violence of the #Minneapolisriot go look it up
Twitter’s not scolding them
Twitter sucks
The whole idea of what you said there is ridiculous.
I’d give you credit but there aren’t two cities, one white and one black and Trump only called for shooting in the black one.
As far as speculating what Trump’s response was or would be in a white city going loot bonkers, good luck finding that.
So, Trump hasn’t made any choice concerning race.
Only you have.
Less Than A Year Ago,
Trump Was Praising China As Protests Brewed In Hong Kong
Vast crowds of Hong Kong citizens have marched and staged sit-ins over the last 10 weeks in a city that fears its limited autonomy is under direct threat by Beijing, and U.S. flags have been among the potent symbols used to rally for democratic reforms and an investigation into alleged police brutality.
But President Trump’s reaction has ranged from muddled to indifferent, displaying his disinclination to use his office to promote democracy around the world — a task many of his predecessors viewed as a core part of the job — and his focus on trade over human rights.
“We have a responsibility to speak up. Instead of doing that, the president is opening the door to Chinese intervention,” said Nicholas Burns, a former veteran U.S. diplomat now at Harvard. “It disavows the obligations we have to the people of Hong Kong and to our role as the strongest democratic power in the world.”
Trump has voiced his strongest support for Chinese President Xi Jinping, not the protesters seeking democratic reforms, praising the Communist leader as “a good man in a ‘tough business.’”
“If President Xi would meet directly and personally with the protesters, there would be a happy and enlightened ending to the Hong Kong problem,” Trump tweeted Thursday. “I have no doubt!”
But Trump has also linked the anti-government protests with his damaging trade war with China, showing his fixation on reaching an agreement with Beijing and injecting a combustible new bargaining chip into already volatile negotiations.
“Of course China wants to make a deal,” he tweeted. “Let them work humanely with Hong Kong first!”
Edited From: “Trump Praises Chinese Leader, Not Hong Kong Protesters Seeking Democratic Reforms”
The Los Angels Times, 8/15/19
Trump expressed admiration of strength in his rival and adversary, Xi. That is honorable.
The HK protestors are strong in a different way. It’s complicated but both things can be true at once.
You’re asking Peter to be something other than obtuse. Ain’t gonna happen.
Absurd, are you turning cartwheels with Kurtz to explain why Trump praised China last August, but condemns them now?
If China is right to display raw strength, then they’re right to squash the Hong Protests, according to Trump’s logic.
The truth is, Trump is the ‘last’ president to trust on China.
“Less Than A Year Ago,
Trump Was Praising China”
LAUGHING.
Trump Thought China Was Correct In Its Response To Tiananmen Square Protests
Donald Trump called the 1989 Tiananmen Square pro-democracy protest a “riot” in Thursday night’s Republican debate, a comment no doubt welcomed by China’s government.
Trump was reacting to a question from the CNN moderator about an interview he gave in 1990. Back then he said China’s government’s suppression of student democracy activists, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds and likely thousands, amounted to a show of strength.
This is what Trump said on Thursday: “ That doesn’t mean I was endorsing that. I said that is a strong, powerful government that put it down with strength. And then they kept down the riot. It was a horrible thing.”
The Chinese government, in the rare times it does reference the Tiananmen massacre, uses the riot characterization to prove it had to restore order in the city.
Presidential candidate Ohio governor John Kasich was unequivocal in his response to Trump on Thursday. “I think that the Chinese government butchered those kids. And when …that young man stood in front of that tank, we ought to build a statue of him over here.”
The debate was more issue-heavy than other Republican ones and “felt like a palette cleanser after a Jerry Springer-inflected clash last week that embarrassed the entire party,” Fortune’s Tory Newmyer wrote.
Afterwards, attention shifted to Trump’s other remarks, including his claim that all of Islam hates the United States.
But the China watchers and those in Hong Kong, where there’s an annual commemoration of the students killed in Tiananmen, focused on Trump’s riot characterization.
Edited from: “Trump Calls Tiananmen Square Protest A Riot”
Fortune Magazine, 3/11/16
https://fortune.com/2016/03/11/trump-calls-tiananmen-square-protest-a-riot/
………………………………………………………………..
This piece illustrates how disengenous Trump is when warning us of the ‘China threat’. Until very recently, Trump praised China’s toughness. As far back as 1990, Trump was praising China’s toughness in an interview with Playboy Magazine.
Excerpts From Trump’s 1990 Playboy Interview:
What were your other impressions of the Soviet Union?
I was very unimpressed. Their system is a disaster. What you will see there soon is a revolution; the signs are all there with the demonstrations and picketing. Russia is out of control and the leadership knows it. That’s my problem with Gorbachev. Not a firm enough hand.
You mean firm hand as in China?
When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak … as being spit on by the rest of the world—
Why is Gorbachev not firm enough?
I predict he will be overthrown, because he has shown extraordinary weakness. Suddenly, for the first time ever, there are coal-miner strikes and brush fires everywhere—which will all ultimately lead to a violent revolution. Yet Gorbachev is getting credit for being a wonderful leader—and we should continue giving him credit, because he’s destroying the Soviet Union. But his giving an inch is going to end up costing him and all his friends what they most cherish—their jobs.
Besides the real-estate deal, you’ve met with top-level Soviet officials to negotiate potential business deals with them; how did they strike you?
Generally, these guys are much tougher and smarter than our representatives. We have people in this country just as smart, but unfortunately, they’re not elected officials. We’re still suffering from a loss of respect that goes back to the Carter Administration, when helicopters were crashing into one another in Iran. That was Carter’s emblem. There he was, being carried off from a race, needing oxygen. I don’t want my President to be carried off a race course. I don’t want my President landing on Austrian soil and falling down the stairs of his airplane. Some of our Presidents have been incredible jerk-offs. We need to be tough.
A favorite word of yours, tough. How do you define it?
Tough is being mentally capable of winning battles against an opponent and doing it with a smile. Tough is winning systematically.
Do you think George Bush is soft?
I like George Bush very much and support him and always will. But I disagree with him when he talks of a kinder, gentler America. I think if this country gets any kinder or gentler, it’s literally going to cease to exist. I think if we had people from the business community—the Carl Icahns, the Ross Perots—negotiating some of our foreign policy, we’d have respect around the world.
Edited From:
“The Playboy Interview With Donald Trump ”
Playboy Magazine, 3/1/90
………………………………………………
Takeaways From Interview:
Trump was already dealing with Russians back in 1990 when he gave this interview. But he felt Gorbachev wasn’t tough enough (which was possibly correct). On the other hand, Trump felt China ‘was’ appropriately, tough. But most interestingly, Trump felt that Bush Senior’s talk of a ‘kinder and gentler’ America was totally misplaced.
Trump has the instincts of a leader and not a pushover. That interview is consistent with the impression i have of him.
America should be strong. Only fools want to be weak. I have heard the Sermon on the Mount. It’s very clever. I didn’t understand it until i had read a lot of Nietzsche. Sometimes there is strength in the appearance of weakness; there is strength in the working class; there is strength in the poor and downtrodden; there is strength in humility. But whether the strength is overt– or covert– strength is always preferable to weakness.
From Sun Tzu:
Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak. If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him.
Kurtz, how you get that Trump is a leader must be a gag – double entendre intended.
Who has he led? Where? You mean he got Republicans to go for a tax cut? That’s a hard sell. So is getting them to consent to Federalist Society judge recommendations. Has there been any other legislative initiatives, federal projects, a drawing together of normally rival factions in a common cause? He even had Democrats wanting to go along with a promised infrastructure plan and he managed to pick fights and blow that up.
A leader gets people together to achieve difficult things that they may not otherwise be inclined to do. Nothing like that. In fact, he had a set up if he did want to lead – an national crisis were people were and are scared and want someone to take control and make things happen while drawing everyone together in common effort. He couldn’t do it. Didin’t even recognize it and ends up starting fights and now abandoning ship.
He sucks as a leader and lacks a key quality, even if he was so inclined. Nobody can trust him. How many previous members of his administration have left and then been stabbed in the back by him? Most of them.
that’s your point of view because you see him as your own personal adversary
thus, you say the things you do
I don’t. i consider him the POTUS which he is. i voted for him.
but I never thought of bill clinton nor bush jr nor obama as my personal adversary. i didn’t vote for those guys. but they werent my adversary. i deeply disliked bush jr but he was not my adversary. they were the leaders of the American state like it or not. are you a citizen of the American state>? if so then Trump is your leader too, literally and officially so, even if you think he lacks skills or is an indecent person. (cue your angry reply) you guys remind me of the people who kept on saying Obama wasnt actually the president, because because because. hell i remember when they were saying that about hanging chad bush too. there’s always a faction of people who can’t take it that their guy lost!
but maybe i will come around to your way of thinking one day. we will see i guess
maybe if you people try hard enough the American state will just disintegrate. oh, it’s more possible than we might want to believe.
the people who predicted another pandemic right around the corner got ignored too, until it happened
Kurtz, you didn’t answer my question. You’re obviously under no obligation to, but you claimed he was a leader.
I definitely consider Trump an adversary in the sense that virtually everything he has done has been harmful and a mistake in my opinion. He did o one thing I thought was the right call, though I don’t remember now what it was. I think pressing China on intellectual property and trade are good things, but the strategy not smart nor the follow through strong. In every other way he’s abandon the world to China who is our biggest competitor, though also partner in some limited but very important areas. He’s abandoned the world in general and that is damage with long range repercussions.
Ironically, right after he was elected, a relative and I were talking and discovered that if he wanted to, he could be a true independent populist and widely admired folk hero by virtue of the fact that he owed neither party for his election. He lacked the vision. The GOP establishment hated him – and still do – and of course the Democratic establishment did – and still does. That would have meant actually trying to deliver on some of the truly populist promises which it turned out he never meant – health care, infrastructure, SS reform that favored small guys, etc. Instead he took only populist nativism and went hard right pro-business and never got out of 40% land. A wasted opportunity for those who like populism – I don’t particularly because I’m a rationalist pragmatist.
I think pressing China on intellectual property and trade are good things
_____________________________________________________________
Watch this video.
16000 documented lies since being elected. A little blue circled exclamation point is appropriate for deranged Tweets supported only by used horse food Best would be Jack Dorsey suspending Trump’s Twitter account for terms of service and community standards violations. Behind Biden now by nearly 20 points, expect more desperate insanity, particularly after the upcoming loss in November, particularly as the Second District Court of NY will then be closing in.
Two things. Free speech applies to the Government. Individual companies are not constrained by the constitution. Secondly free speech is not absolute. An individual is not free to yell fire in a theater. Threats to shoot someone by the President fall into that category as far as I’m concerned.
suddenly the Democrats are keen on this distinction
it’s funny back in law school decades ago my ACLU teacher went to some lengths to explain to us that if a private space is maintained as a public forum, then arguably the First Amendment could become applicable
the textbook example is a private university that holds a public political forum.
can the university presume a public forum, but then call on police to selectively eject those who disagree?
that’s essentially what you have in this situation. the social media giants pose as public forums, but want to call the cops in and pretend all of a sudden that it’s private property
how convenient. it’s private property!
let’s apply this to a different form of public venue and selective allowance of what kind of self expression may do.
Question, could a mall do this: can they say well it’s public but its also private property so we arent going to let in anybody with baggy pants & basketball shoes? why not, it’s public property. First amendment self expression does not apply.
think this over, leftists. if you want to go back to the old rules for private property, we can do that. but you may not like where it ends up.
Jon, Jon, Jon, you haven’t figured it out yet, have you? Today’s post proves that. As I was sitting there, going between watching Edward G. Robinson, Dan Duryea and Joan Bennett in “Scarlet Street” and coverage of the riots, I wondered how long Cpt. Bone Spurs would allow publicity to be focused on Minneapolis and its handsome, young mayor instead of him. Not long, of course. Using Twitter, he had to try to redirect attention to him by attacking the mayor as a weak leader, which is rich coming from a clueless, fat phony like Trump. Yes, the fat coward who refused to serve his country is going to show us “how to get the job done”. I have a suggestion; why not have Trumpy Bear march down the streets in Minneapolis?
Then there are the threats of counter violence which Jon listed above. That, too, is rich coming from someone whose relationships with others are based on bullying and verbal abuse. Most disgusting of all was Trump trying claim that his suggestion for violence to stop the protests was a means to honor the memory of George Floyd. Satan just stoked up the furnace in the special corner of hell reserved just for Trumpy Bear.
Of course, the protests were based on Floyd’s murder, but were strongly exacerbated by the local prosecutor actually saying at a news conference yesterday that he didn’t see grounds for criminal prosecution. Virtually everyone else on earth sees murder or at least reckless indifference. In fact Derek Chauvin is invoking the Fifth Amendment. Ironically this sort of gives the phrase “male chauvinistic pig” a whole new meaning doesn’t it? Yet, today, Turley wants to call out Twitter for saying that Trump’s tweet violated its standards, instead of focusing on the real Constitutional violations we all witnessed.
Now Natacha trots out all her tropes
a) Jon Jon calling Turley by his first name like they’re buddies. They arent. She is just rude.
b) male chauvinistic pig, here she exposes her hatred of the male sex in general., how does this have anyhting to do with gender? it doesn’t, she is just obsessed
c) conflating every bad thing and loading it all on Trump. a daily habit of hers which renders every comment meaningless due to unreasoning bias
Hey, I watched Scarlett Street last week! Great movie! On the Criterion network. I paused them because of the stupid Gay Pride Month crap, but I will pick them up again after that is over.
Oh, you might like the Hanzo the Razor trilogy they have. Japanese. A little bizarre, but fascinating.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Meh. Wake me up when Trump does something any different than ANY other president has before… https://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2015/04/29/obama-white-house-baltimore-stephanie-rawlings-blake/26585143/
Twitter and the other apologists for riot and arson and looting are the ones glorifying violence.
They’re at fault not Trump.
Is there rule of law in this country? a wrong police action with a tragic result does not green light riot
If it does then we have no law and order.
Which will make the police even more afraid and brutal. it’s a vicious cycle and looting and riot makes it worse.
but i suppose saying that makes me a racist, eh?
Technically, being a racist would make you racist.
The only people that are ‘racist’ are the ones obsessed with calling other people ‘racist’
Isn’t that convenient.
So Kurtz is a racist? He kind of called himself one.
lots of people have called me racist since I was a kid. i guess it started when a few black kids beat the tar out of me on the playground and called me a honky. i figured i had better learn who my natural allies were, and werent. they taught me a lesson that day i’ll never forget. it was my first bitter lesson in “diversity”
now, i believe in equal protection under the law as my license requires, but there’s a lot of space between that and the trifles that can get you called a racist these days.
I get along fine with black folks in person, however. one on one, we do fine. I’m polite to them and I get politeness in return. i pay my debts. even when they don’t. now, sure, some of them have called me a racist too, some who didn’t like me and some who did, just the same. i am white so of course they thought i was racist. i have learned this is what they think of us. plain and simple. I can live with it.
but take note white do-gooders out there: they consider all white people racist. you are not exempt.
whether it’s because of your own beliefs, or actions, or just the “legacy of racism,” or the “structural and systemic racism,” etc., there is no amount of pandering or kissing their backsides that will make you from white cracker into a blessed person judged on the content of your character. because reality is, the first look as at your skin. that’s how they think we see them and that’s for sure how they see us. it is what it is.
there can be peace nonetheless, especially in a country like ours with so many clear standards of individual merit and equity, but peace requires law and order. when that goes away, we fall back on our natural social affinities.
i didn’t make up the world, i didn’t make mankind what it is, i just was born into it. and i intend to live out my measure fully, whether people like me or not
Fortunately most of us don’t see the binary choice Kurtz imagines – looters or Trump -and most Americans don’t like either.
no binary choice was presented. you imagined it
all the police have to do is their job. maintain law and order
one errant cop does not excuse the police from their job of preventing riot, arson, and looting
why have they abdicated?
a) lack of manpower. that’s usually a budgetary matter
b) fear of lack of support from above. ie a lack of leadership
c) fear of being called racist. this is a society wide cancer that is crippling America. but there’s no way out of this ambush except the textbook way you respond to a textbook ambush. you don’t run, you go forward and shoot your way out of it.
Did Trump weigh in on this? Good for him. Wouldnt matter if he did nor not however.
The binary choice is actually just between order and anarchy
For the longest time all of us or at least most of us or perhaps it was just some of us believed that the Founders of the Big Tech Companies were absolute geniuses
Non sharper wiser or more cunning then those Big Tech Guys
◼
For by…
“Insisting on being an active participant in such postings it is changing its legal status”
I guess they ain’t that smart after all…
Turley Right About Trump’s Tweet:
“It was an irresponsible escalation of the rhetoric when Minneapolis police were struggling with a very dangerous and volatile situation”.
………………………………………………………….
The last thing Minneapolis needs is for the president, of all people, to threaten an escalation of violence. Here again Trump resumes his role of ‘anti-president’, a leader who actually threatens to make bad situations worse.
No responsible president would issue such a threat in such a public manner. Trump sent that tweet purely for shock value to ‘trigger’ liberals. I doubt very much if Trump honestly cares about Minneapolis. To Trump every issue is nothing more than a front in the Culture Wars.
Back in the 1967 a very serious riot broke out in Newark New Jersey. The New Jersey National Guard and Newark Police responded by actually shooting looters. “Life” Magazine happened to be present when an officer shot 14 year old Joe Bass for attempting to loot a case of beer from a liquor store. Bass dropped dead on the sidewalk and his blood-stained body made the cover of “Life”.
The inside cover story captured the officer’s reaction as he approached Bass’ body. The entire drama looked nightmarish to middle class readers of “Life”, a magazine that was typically displayed on living room coffee tables. Kids looking at the Joe Bass cover story could barely grasp what had happened; ‘cops had killed an 8th Grader for stealing beer’!
Seth:
Yeah, who needs violence to suppress violence and protect the innocent. That’s not the role of the police power of the state. Let’s just ask the rioters to pretty please stop the mayhem. Do you live in the world?
Another supposed freedom minded defense attorney advocating for summary executions on the street. By his silence, JT is in the same camp.
Mespo, I lived the 1992 L.A. Riots in real time. Looters came less than half a mile of my building.
Mespo, how many riots have you lived through?
Seth was hoping, begging, pleading that the LA booty looters would bring out the gimp for him…. sadly not even the gimp would waste spit on Seth…… sad
REGARDING ABOVE:
This is typical of Turley Trumpers, a group of Chickhawks who talk tough but have never been in tough situations. Trump himself got a bogus medical deferment to avoid service in Vietnam. Yet Trump loves to talk tough; inspiring the cowardly losers on this thread.
Trump himself got a bogus medical deferment to avoid service in Vietnam.
He got a perfectly ordinary I-Y deferment, which was in effect for 18 months. The Selective Service System handed out a six digit set of these every year. I can give you the name of a man who was awarded one for eczema on his feet. He didn’t go out of his way to get it and he was a person of no influence.
Stop lying.
This is typical of Turley Trumpers, a group of Chickhawks who talk tough but have never been in tough situations.
You’d be in fewer tough situations if you resolved to stay away from rent-boys.
Absurd, you’re the Queen Chicken Hawk. You were the first with snide, gay-centric posts. You were essentially functioning as a harasser.
And “We dont know you from Jack Sh!t”, as Chicago cops like to say.
Meaning you could be a creepy closet queen, for all we really know.
Nothing puts you in the clear of that.
But you presume everyone senses how ‘manly’ you are. Like random readers are supposed to think, “Absurd must be the good guy here, seems like a nice family man”. ..Not..!
Instead they’re going to, “This weasel’s a f_ckin Trumper. They’re the chickenhawks. Really tough with online smears.
But in real life the Chicken Hawk Trumper is a bloated drinker. A heart attack waiting to happen. A heart attack he’d surely have fighting someone in better shape.
I was told by a former prosecutor in the 70s when my legal tutelage started at an early age, that shooting looters was SOP.
standard operation procedure
when did this change?
right around then actually.
the Newark riots were race riots, and what’s happening in Minneapolis is a race riot too.]
oh i saw a lot of white skinned punks in the ranks too, but it has a clear tone and tenor to the whole thing:
any amount of lawless action by a mob of angry blacks is now justified by “racism”
white folks, here’s a tip. You can only stand guard for one shift or two. You have to sleep.
If you want to keep the zombies at bay, you need a security team.
here’s a few organizing tips.
a. keep it all off paper, off your phone, and off the internet
word of mouth coordination only. because otherwise you may be charged as a criminal gang
you see only bloods and crips can form criminal gangs. not allowed for whitey.
b. that also means no group names, no uniforms
c. most of all, no boasting
your security team must operate like a secret society that does not even exist.
if and when it has to spring into action, it must seem to be “ad hoc” that is to say, organized on the fly as necessity arose
but in reality– effective teams are always prepared in advance. they have organization, routines, and practice.
these teams can’t have names and uniforms and rosters, but they need to be teams nonetheless
if you fail to plan,,,,,,, plan to fail
——————————–
people dont like that? well, it’s how sane people react. and where this dynamic will end?
either the state will assert control and end the anarchy, or it will get worse.
that is a simple binary choice and no exit from it
What’s the binary choice, Kurtz? Race war vs. no race war???
i said it already
law & order versus anarchy
that is all Minneapolis presents us today. a clear choice between supporting lawless anarchy, or order.
the errant cop can be disciplined, according to law. there is no need to commit riot, arson and looting to “encourage” it.
it only encourages the perception and fear among law enforcement that black men are lawless and prone to violence, which is part of what propels the police fear and hence abuse in the first place
we can see from the videos, however, that it’s not just the black youths who are violent and lawless
there were a lot of the black-clad, pink skinned antifa weasels among them, stirring it all up.
they are actually the ones who need the closest and most vigorous preventative action.
now the ironic thing, is that antifa is heavily infiltrated by snitches & informants, which is why so many of them appear to be acting with the expectation of impunity.
one wonders to what extent some factions actually desire to have chaos ensue like this, so they can stomp with the iron heel even harder
notice that these crowds of looters so far have never penetrated the gated communities of the rich & famous
OT – NEWSFLASH
March 20, 2020
“Two months ago, January 20, 2020 – a date which will live in infamy – the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the Communist People’s Republic of China.
“The United States was at peace with that nation and, wittingly or unwittingly, through criminal dereliction and negligence and attempting to obtain the cloak of plausible deniability, the People’s Republic of China released on the world the COVID-19 biological weapon.
“China has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the World. The Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy has directed his entire Cabinet that all measures be taken for the defense of the United States.
“With confidence in the United States Center For Disease Control and with the unbounding determination of the American people the Untied States will gain the inevitable triumph so help us God.
“Congress must declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by China on January 20, 2020, a state of war has existed between the United States and China.”
– President Donald J. Trump
Just yesterday, I had a conversation about this and I feel that this fits the same pattern of another tragedy a dispute between the government and private entities created. The housing bubble.
In this situation and the housing bubble you had, in this case social media, and in the housing bubble banks, being threatened with government regulation. In the case of the housing bubble you had democrats demanding that banks make the American dream of home ownership available to everyone, even people at high risk of defaulting. After the 2016 election Democrats held hearings with social media demanding they do something about advertising, Russian trolls, fact checking, etc.
In both cases Congress told these private entities to basically, “Do something, or we will come in and do it for you.” Of course no one running a business wants that because the government loves to make rules and regulations that rely on arbitrary figures and strangle a business to death.
In both cases, the entities attempted to try and do what it was that Congress wanted them to do. In the case of banks, the cost of doing something before Congress came in and did it for them turned out to be absolutely worse than anyone could imagine, the markets crashed, we had a depression, high unemployment, etc, etc.
Here social media companies had a choice to either do nothing and stand on the First Amendment, or do something that would probably make things worse. Twitter decided to make things worse. Here is why. Social Media companies always have and still do skew to the left. That is a fact and they know and have even admitted it. So when Twitter wants to play fact checker, ban people, edit tweets, etc etc. they very well know that any attempt they make to do these things will never end up being a fair application of the rules. There will always be a trend towards a left bias. If you already know you have a bias, you already know an attempt to be fair just isn’t going to work. So the smart thing to do is not put those things in place.
Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook recognized this and made a prudent decision and statement that he believes that Facebook should not be in the fact checking business. That business already exists on it’s own with sites dedicated to it and network and cable news media play out those arguments all day everyday. Twitter on the otherhand is the one that has decided that they will jump into the fray, make things worse, and now will probably force government to regulate ALL social media (something the power hungry desired already) leaving free speech as the biggest victim.
“Calling for a more measured way to express opposition to police brutality, critics slammed demonstrators Thursday for recklessly looting businesses without forming a private equity firm first. “Look, we all have the right to protest, but that doesn’t mean you can just rush in and destroy any business without gathering a group of clandestine investors to purchase it at a severely reduced price and slowly bleed it to death,” said Facebook commenter Amy Mulrain, echoing the sentiments of detractors nationwide who blasted the demonstrators for not hiring a consultant group to take stock of a struggling company’s assets before plundering.
“I understand that people are angry, but they shouldn’t just endanger businesses without even a thought to enriching themselves through leveraged buyouts and across-the-board terminations.
It’s disgusting to put workers at risk by looting. You do it by chipping away at their health benefits and eventually laying them off. There’s a right way and wrong way to do this.”
The Onion via Zero Hedge
JT, we don’t have freedom of speech. We haven’t had it for a very long time. We have fascism and we have a president who is openly threatening to kill our citizens.
too many Lefty-Liberals getting more bad hash in their ObamaBongs….
Ha, ha, ha. Turley slams Twitter and their corrupt apologists:
JT: “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.”
It’s GAME OVER. No amount of shilling is going to change that.
The Republicans have finally awakened to the cynical political game all the major “social media” companies have been playing. These companies saw the opportunity to change elections to their preference and they collectively jumped at the chance. Now it’s time to strip them of the special immunity given to neutral internet platforms because they are not neutral. It’s as simple as that.
Companies that want this special protection should undergo a regular public process that certifies if they are in fact neutral. Such a process should require that their code be opened up to public inspection to ensure that the algorithms being uses are not biased. And no American should ever be banned from one of these “neutral” sites except by a court of law…just like the phone company can’t deny you service, neither should a “neutral” platform do the same. “Shadow banning” in all it’s forms must not be allowed, nor should preference be given to “authoritative” voices. All content providers must be treated equally in order to be considered neutral.
These private companies can do whatever they want, but they must not be allowed to claim special immunity when they are not neutral platforms.
Excellent. I expect them to read then ignore.
Maybe whine some about Trump at most.
Very well put.
I endorse that comment.
Executive Order,
PostmodernLiberals/leftists to be back put in their place – alongside, not on top dictating censorship
“Trump unfurled a long list of accusations targeting social media giants by naming them.
Google, Facebook, and Twitter have all profited off the Chinese Communist Party’s efforts to subjugate their people and spread misinformation around the world, he said.
He accused online platforms of “denigrating national discourse by disfavoring certain viewpoints”, and “simultaneously profiting from disinformation spread by foreign governments”.
https://www.rttnews.com/story.aspx?Id=3099887
The heat is turned on. Time for the lefty fascists to flee the kitchen.
Laughing!
That’s right, get your shoes on and out of the kitchen !
Our laws prohibit physical threats against the President. Indeed, someone making such threats can expect a visit from the Secret Service.
Yet, Turley thinks Trump should be able to threaten violence against others without even a warning on his twitter post.
Does not seem like a level free speech playing field here.
Your knowledge of the law is that of a toddler.
The only kind of threat that matters in a criminal sense is what is considered to be a “true threat” otherwise each and everyone of us would be in jail.
Here is some help for you Ivan.
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/Criminal-Threats.htm
should I be concerned or do you have any syringes full of air to stab him?
Bigger picture, that’s a good point. If issuing threats even vague ones against the president has consequences. The president shouldn’t be immune from making similar threats of others even if it means just pointing it out to everyone.