←back to thread

Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

(techcrunch.com)
707 points patd | 1 comments | 27 May 20 12:21 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
Cthulhu_ ◴[27 May 20 13:42 UTC] No.23323041[source]▶
I hope he goes through with it, then gets dragged for abuse of power. But that's not likely to happen; the president has too much power, and there are no checks and balances in place. He is only still in power because his party voted to keep him in a sham 'trial', and they only voted in favor because else their party would look divided.
replies(2): >>23323069 #>>23323122 #
akhilcacharya ◴[27 May 20 13:45 UTC] No.23323069[source]▶
It's remarkable that Trump has consistently been against free-speech but still has the support of a non-trivial number of self-described "libertarians" like Thiel. This is in the 1st amendment sense as saying he wants to open up libel laws in 2016 [0] to his comments on video games [1] and flag burning [2] to in the broader sense in his anger at the kneeling protesters [3].

[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/26/do...

[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/fact-check-tru...

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/06/15/no-braine...

[3] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-says-nfl...

replies(4): >>23323133 #>>23323154 #>>23323169 #>>23323174 #
dashundchen ◴[27 May 20 13:51 UTC] No.23323174[source]▶
Or the guns rights activists barely flinching at "Take the guns first, go through due process second". Just trying to imagine their reaction if the previous officeholder had said that.

The anger at the kneeling protestors is especially revealing considering the debate centered around whether the private NFL could interfere with the expression of the players.

replies(2): >>23323484 #>>23323829 #
1. jki275 ◴[27 May 20 14:08 UTC] No.23323484[source]▶
public expression, on the NFL's property, under the NFL's name... Nobody believes Kapernick should be denied the right to say and do what he wants to say and do, but if I take actions contrary to my employer's best interests, on company time and property, my company can't restrict my right to speak, but they can sure tell me I can't do it on their property anymore, and they can terminate my employment as well.

As for the gun issue, nobody in the gun crowd liked that comment from him. Some have even argued they're not going to vote for him going forward as a result. But when the alternative is people who literally believe that the second amendment doesn't exist, doesn't say what it says, and don't believe that the SCOTUS rulings that have come down on it have any effect, what choice do they have?