It’s very simple your right to free speech does not include a right to insight racism, violence or an insurrection. When you sign up to a private network you agree to abide by a set of rules and the owners are well within their rights to turf you out if you fail to comply. Now the key word here is private, it means that the owners do not have to put up with your behavior. Now people who are banned from social media have legal avenues of recourse, which I’m pretty sure they are not going to take because they know dam well they are in the wrong..

Cancel Culture - a term used by people wishing to justify and maintain unacceptable behavior. And it needs to be called out for what it is.

__________________
"There is no passion to be found playing small - in settling for a life that is less than the one you are capable of living." - Nelson Mandela

I'm not disagreeing with that.

The fact is that if you or I posted what Trump had posted, the posts, unless reported, would probably still be there - we're just not important enough nor do we have such impact with our postings (unless you are Justin Bieber or someone like that).

Are you able to tell the difference between right and wrong? Did you listen to the speeches at that rally?

Would you have us believe that while all those clowns were able to figure out what was expected, you are not?

Agreed with the top paragraph.

The second one for anyone who experienced Jeremy Corbyns Labour Party is chilling.

Another thing to consider is the precedent this sets. It was funny when Alex Jones was banned, but this week saw YouTube ban TalkRadio's YouTube Channel, an Ofcom regulated broadcaster.

If the President can be "cancelled" then anyone can be. We've already seen how the left will turn on each other, look at the treatment of JK Rowling, or how the Labour party under Jeremy Corbyn operated.

Great, now do the Chinese CCP, Ayatollah Khomeini, Antifa........

Inciting racism.....hmmm. Anyone think it is questionable to censor speech to control what is in people’s hearts. You cannot kill racism by banning it from being uttered. It is done through education, positive actions, and bringing people together. Trying to marginalize a racist person will not accomplish any of that.

Secondly, racism can be very subjective, there are countless cases where it is used a catch all to silence someone with a different view. A racism charge is a powerful tool and the people who wield it know this.

As far as violence and insurrection, why do Kamala Harris, Eric Holder and many others still have twitter accounts when they clearly incited violence and unrest during the summer.

You're missing my point. History is written by the winners. And this determines wheter down the line a coup-d'etat is remembered as a revolution or an act of treason.

These don't have many followers I think, not enough for Big Tech to feel out of control in their own game.

Just so we all understand correctly...President Trump is now deemed to be too dangerous to have a Twitter account but it’s just dandy that he has the nuclear codes.

Is that supposed to be a question or a statement?

Anyway, neither element of it is substantively true.

I'm sure many people would be against all of these too...

I agree.


But the line must be drawn somewhere.

They worry he will tweet them.

This is a very interesting analogy that you mention. It's amusing that it was published on Twitter... so the baker can bake a cake with the theme that they can refuse to bake cakes of certain themes.

The analogy comes from the case of Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and others. Lee initiated legal proceedings after Ashers refused to make a cake with a message promoting same-sex marriage, citing their religious beliefs. This is a highly controversial case. In the first instance, the Belfast County Court ruled in favour of the plaintiff on the grounds that it was discriminatory. However, Judge Brownlie erred in her judgment as she conflated sexual orientation with support for same-sex marriage (Ashers maintained that they would have refused to bake the same cake for a heterosexual individual). Moreover, it would mean that a Muslim baker would have to bake a cake with a cartoon of the prophet Mohammed on it and the slogan 'Je Suis Charlie'. An atheist printer would have to print leaflets proclaiming 'the fool says in his heart “There is no God”'. And, a gay graphic designer would have to accept a contract to design a flyer saying 'why sodomy is a sin'. All these examples point towards allowing some form of conscientious objection.

The case was appealed to the Court of Appeal and rejected before being heard in the UK Supreme Court. The SC overturned the prior ruling and held that people could not be forced to promote a belief or opinion that they did not believe in or profoundly disagreed with. To my knowledge this has been referred to the European Court of Human Rights. It's also interesting to note that in Elane Photography v Willock, the New Mexico Supreme Court in 2013 held that it was 'the price of citizenship' for the plaintiff to be required to photograph a same-sex ceremony in spite of her religious beliefs. These cases highlight how difficult it is to balance competing interests. Could it be said then that it's the price of doing business that Twitter must publish all opinions etc?

Why I think the analogy breaks down is that one must distinguish between legal persons and natural persons. Both cannot be treated equally. On the contrary, the tenets of equality are treat equals equally and unequals unequally.

Was the Twitter accnt. President's account or Trump's account?

Excellent question! No idea. I'm not a tweeter myself.

Trump's US Government Account: https://twitter.com/potus


The Real Donald Trump (his private account) https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump?lang=de

The White House Account: https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse

I'm not either but I've continuously looked at Trump's tweets to follow his madman thoughts.

Me neither, hence the question. I got tired of short formats when SMSs started. Most people don't know how to contextualize.

Or, maybe we need to ask if the guys pushing him out did it as officials or anti-Trumpers. And "when you reach X millions of supporters you shall be expelled" will ever be written in their T&Cs. What did China do with Alibaba again?

I keep telling myself that it's fine to have one mod that miscontrues the issues and plays to right-wing theories.