Q on Parler

[Jersey Girl]

Holy Jesus what if after all these online places are shut down (Parler or whatever) and Trump Org opens it's own platform...where these terrorist type folks can organize? How would something like that get shut down if Trump himself owns it?

ETA: FCC?? What and how fast could a shut down take place?

[Res Ipsa]

Holy Jesus what if after all these online places are shut down (Parler or whatever) and Trump Org opens it's own platform...where these terrorist type folks can organize? How would something like that get shut down if Trump himself owns it?

ETA: FCC?? What and how fast could a shut down take place?

No, no, no please. That would be unconstitutional. Amazon can choose not to do business with Parler. The government cannot prevent people from speaking, except in a few, defined cases.

[Jersey Girl]

Holy Jesus what if after all these online places are shut down (Parler or whatever) and Trump Org opens it's own platform...where these terrorist type folks can organize? How would something like that get shut down if Trump himself owns it?

ETA: FCC?? What and how fast could a shut down take place?

No, no, no please. That would be unconstitutional. Amazon can choose not to do business with Parler. The government cannot prevent people from speaking, except in a few, defined cases.

I can't tell if you are joking or serious here. I am asking if Trump owns the platform what or who has any authority over it if he's inciting violence?

[Res Ipsa]

Dead serious. Under current law, the operator of an internet communications platform is not legally responsible for the content of what is posted. That’s the law that keeps Shades from getting sued over what we post. Without that law, smaller sites like ours die.

Constitutionally, it is, and should be, very hard to prevent people from speaking. Right now, the government has taken zero action to stop people from speaking.

If Trump builds the infrastructure to host a communications platform called Trumpeter, he’s free to do that. And if people use it to plan illegal activity, the government can investigate and criminally charge any illegal activity that occurs.

Crime gets organized over mobile phones. Crime gets organized using email. Crime gets organized over landlines.

If Trump’s company were set up with the purpose of carrying out illegal activity, like a company that hosts a server for kiddie porn, there are constitutional ways to shut that down. But that would be very different from an internet speech on which people planned illegal activities.

Prior restraint of speech by the government is an extreme measure that should be used as little as possible. A gag order on a trial, to protect the right to a fair trial, is a good example. But it’s a very dangerous tool that strikes at the heart of free speech.

[Moksha]

Holy Jesus what if after all these online places are shut down (Parler or whatever) and Trump Org opens it's own platform...where these terrorist type folks can organize? How would something like that get shut down if Trump himself owns it?

ETA: FCC?? What and how fast could a shut down take place?

Social media that shut down violent revolutionary behavior were doing so to protect themselves and the public. However, there is still free speech for insurrectionists such as Trump, so they will be accorded a platform to disseminate their plans for armed revolt.

[huckelberry]

.... about some of the right-wing. With Obama, we saw him become an object of pseudo-religious hope. I think there was some holy envy there from the right, from the party of family family values and religious fundamentalism. They wanted their own raison d'etre and took pride in finding it in a "deplorable" figurehead.
,,,,,
that the people who loved Obama and invested so much hope in him had concrete reasons to do so; they did not bother to understand.

I am from Texas and know Trump-supporters there but also know of Trump-supporters in the Utah-Idaho end-of-times survivalist crowd. I do not think they necessarily understand each other. Generally, the former are maybe more cynical and Machiavellian about the current shitshow, the latter seem more like true-believers.

As an Obama supporter I find the idea of seeing him a pseudo religious hope bizarre. I did not see such and most certainly did not feel such, I encountered a few older black men who about cried with joy over seeing a lifelong hope fulfilled but that is entirely different than seeing Obama as a religious hope. I do remember Fox proposing that the dumb liberals thought such things. Fox is not a good source on how people with liberal thoughts actually think or feel about anything.

[Meadowchik]

.... about some of the right-wing. With Obama, we saw him become an object of pseudo-religious hope. I think there was some holy envy there from the right, from the party of family family values and religious fundamentalism. They wanted their own raison d'etre and took pride in finding it in a "deplorable" figurehead.
,,,,,
that the people who loved Obama and invested so much hope in him had concrete reasons to do so; they did not bother to understand.

I am from Texas and know Trump-supporters there but also know of Trump-supporters in the Utah-Idaho end-of-times survivalist crowd. I do not think they necessarily understand each other. Generally, the former are maybe more cynical and Machiavellian about the current shitshow, the latter seem more like true-believers.

As an Obama supporter I find the idea of seeing him a pseudo religious hope bizarre. I did not see such and most certainly did not feel such, I encountered a few older black men who about cried with joy over seeing a lifelong hope fulfilled but that is entirely different than seeing Obama as a religious hope. I do remember Fox proposing that the dumb liberals thought such things. Fox is not a good source on how people with liberal thoughts actually think or feel about anything.

There were people calling Obama their Moses and right wing voices amplified it. It's not so much what the left actually did or what Obama actually was, but what the extreme right perceived. Regrettably I was right in the thick of it then.

[Jersey Girl]

Dead serious. Under current law, the operator of an internet communications platform is not legally responsible for the content of what is posted. That’s the law that keeps Shades from getting sued over what we post. Without that law, smaller sites like ours die.

Constitutionally, it is, and should be, very hard to prevent people from speaking. Right now, the government has taken zero action to stop people from speaking.

If Trump builds the infrastructure to host a communications platform called Trumpeter, he’s free to do that. And if people use it to plan illegal activity, the government can investigate and criminally charge any illegal activity that occurs.

Crime gets organized over mobile phones. Crime gets organized using email. Crime gets organized over landlines.

If Trump’s company were set up with the purpose of carrying out illegal activity, like a company that hosts a server for kiddie porn, there are constitutional ways to shut that down. But that would be very different from an internet speech on which people planned illegal activities.

Prior restraint of speech by the government is an extreme measure that should be used as little as possible. A gag order on a trial, to protect the right to a fair trial, is a good example. But it’s a very dangerous tool that strikes at the heart of free speech.

Thank you, RI.

[Jersey Girl]

I wonder who’s going to fall for it...

- Doc

Well...


EXCLUSIVE: Man who entered Capitol building tells his story to LifeSiteNews
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOjzEj_r0E4

Just found this on YouTube. Stupid, stupid, idiot, Jersey boy. Gives his name and describe his crime. On camera.

'It could have been me but she went in first' | Pro-Trump rioter saw woman shot in Capitol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCuIxBzylyo