←back to thread

Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

(techcrunch.com)
707 points patd | 3 comments | 27 May 20 12:21 UTC | HN request time: 0.446s | source
Show context
jameskilton ◴[27 May 20 13:04 UTC] No.23322518[source]▶
Is no-one going to talk about how this is explicitly what "freedom of speech" means? That Trump is one of the few people that "freedom of speech" doesn't apply, because it's protection FROM HIM doing exactly this kind of thing.

Twitter has every protected right to criticize the president (which they should have been doing a whole lot more of but that's a different discussion). That's the whole point of "freedom of speech" in our Bill of Rights. Our government literally cannot do what Trump wants to do, and to try to say that he can is to explicitly say that the Constitution is meaningless and void.

replies(2): >>23322579 #>>23322907 #
commandlinefan ◴[27 May 20 13:34 UTC] No.23322907[source]▶
> Trump is one of the few people that "freedom of speech" doesn't apply

No, Trump is one of the few people that the first amendment of the constitution of the United States doesn't apply. Free speech is broader than any specific law, whether you think people deserve it or not.

replies(2): >>23322958 #>>23322966 #
akhilcacharya ◴[27 May 20 13:37 UTC] No.23322958[source]▶
You mean the first amendment being trampled on by a president threatening legal action against a private company?
replies(1): >>23323317 #
1. Cthulhu_ ◴[27 May 20 13:59 UTC] No.23323317[source]▶
The first amendment isn't a catch-all freedom-of-consequences thing; if (to use a straw man argument) Twitter did not remove ISIS propaganda, the US government would shut down.

While technically proclaiming the virtues of joining an army to fight for them can be considered freedom of speech and should be protected, in practice it's not because they're a deplorable terrorist organization.

replies(2): >>23323506 #>>23328372 #
2. ImprobableTruth ◴[27 May 20 14:09 UTC] No.23323506[source]▶
This argument makes me pretty uneasy, since it seems like it can essentially be used to censor whatever you want. If e.g. the people fighting for climate justice get branded as ecoterrorists, wouldn't removing their 'propaganda' be ok under that line of thought?

I think the right to free speech isn't some enshrinement of the right to spew garbage, but the realization that restrictions of free speech can very easily be turned against 'good' causes.

3. ◴[27 May 20 19:12 UTC] No.23328372[source]▶