BREAKING: Twitter Censors Trump Tweet Denouncing Riots

The word 'censor' has been used in the context of 'self-censorship', historically speaking, so it's a broader term than you are suggesting. (I could be wrong, though). Were film censors employed by the government? ( I have to check on that one. Ok, I checked, they were. Although the MPAA is private, it uses gov regs for it's parameters). I think the word 'edit' is more accurate though. Twitter, as publisher, has every right to edit content, Trump's, or anyone else's. That's my understanding of 1a.

 

The only one that counts is the political one, not the figurative one.

 

Read again. See: "websites". Twitter is a publisher.

 

"With the advent of digital information systems, the scope has expanded to include electronic publishing such as ebooks, academic journals, micropublishing, websites, blogs, video game publishing, and the like"

 

Twitter is a publisher and should not be immune from lawsuits for libel and slander.
Will ending its statutory immunity stop Twitter from censoring conservative content?
Not likely.

 

But it has to be 1 St hand?

 

As I understand the first amendment, as publisher, Twitter can edit it's content by any of it's "writers" any way it sees fit. As for libel (slander is spoken), anyone can sue for any reason, but whether or not it will hold up in court, that's another story.

 

Since when has the law on libel changed ? ( hint, Trump's EO did not change it)

 

How did Trump do that? Are you talking about his recent EO?

 

That seems to be what he wants to do at the moment.

 

In a free nation, the leader does not get to decide which laws are invalid, that's the mission of the Supreme Court, not a wannabe tyrant.

 

Now, that's a brilliant marvelously defiant rebel yell against a wannabe tyrant. Love it.

 

Ah, the honest soul of a true collectivist looter. Proud?

 

What loot?

 

LOL! You want to get rid of the executive branch regulatory agencies? I bet not.

 

The wealth these heroes created.

 

All politicians end up going on the offensive and attack people, groups, and deplorables.

 

Like every other politician. The only difference is his lack of charisma and likability.

 

Oh, in heart beat. What are they?

 

You are aware that Ayn Rand, in her later years, reluctantly relied on collectivism for medical bills, right?

Nice to know your hero of the individualist is a hypocrite.

 

Hmmm. And do you know that the Ayn Rand Institute is a non-profit organization fighting for the morality of profit?

I'm not allowed to call you dense, but seriously, are you for real? Getting back what was stolen from you is hypocrisy? I'd call that a just retribution.

Additionally, I don't believe their was any reluctance at all, she probably reveled in it--she had a very high sense of appreciation for justice.

 

I don't think you can edit without the originator's permission, or at the very least, a disclaimer. Otherwise you'd be able to edit truth into lies with impunity. Not a legal expert, so not really sure. Just makes sense to me. I do recall from experience though, that publishers reserve the right to edit what you submit for publication. But Twitter is more of conveyor, a platform, a soapbox, than a publisher.

However, for sure, the President has no power to tell others what to say, think, or do. He's President of America, not President of North Korea--though he sure loves kissing Kim's ass.

 

My comment was directed at Rand, not the institution.

I've heard the 'restitution' argument, many times, and it's a cop out.

The point is if you are preaching the Ayn Rand philosophy, if you accept social security benefits, that acceptance, by your own preaching, morally contributes to the involuntary confiscation of wealth.

That is true because if everyone refused to accept the benefit, the reason for it’s existence would cease, and the program would cease. So, by accepting it, you are morally promoting it. It's the same reason a recipient of kiddie porn is as guilty of child abuse as it's filmmakers and photographers.
If you were morally opposed to it and were forced to pay a tax to fund it, if you couldn't not accept the money, you'd write a check for the same amount ot the US Treasury. You'd refuse to be on any side of the equation, as much as you possibly could.

Even if you could counter the above,…….

Also, Rand accepted benefits of another ‘socialist’ program which she used to help her pay for doctor bills as such bills vastly exceeded what one pays into it.

In fact, when she needed gov assistance for her surgery for cancer, it took that experience for her to realize she had been wrong her entire life.

That story is illuminated here:

http://www.openculture.com/2016/12/when-ayn-rand-collected-social-security-medicare.html

Personally, I reject Ayn Rand’s premise entirely. Her receiving gov assistance for doctor bills illustrates why she is plain wrong.

The state has a legitimate claim on a portion of your income. For me, the debate isn’t on that point, the debate is how much.

 

So you say, I beg to differ. Any money stolen from you you have the absolute moral right to regain by any reasonable means possible.

The reason Ayn Rand is feared and hated is that she's right, and everyone deep down knows it, but still believes they can get away with cheating on reality. Never can happen.

Charity never begins with a gun, only theft does. Or have you never heard of
Ragnar Danneskjöld?

 

By the way, the rules are one cannot call someone 'stupid' or an ad hominem.

I"ve been tempted to call certain forum members stupid, and I thought to myself, "how can I call someone stupid without actually calling them stupid?"

I figured it out. I said to my self, well, I'll just say it like this:

"I'm not supposed to call you stupid, but did you know that.........blah blah blah".

See, I realized that that that was just a ruse, and I was still, actually, calling them stupid, so I abstained from using that trick.

So should you