it doesn't move much.
The uptrend is still intact.
anyway, if it moves massively,
some people will be happy, and some sad.
I played TWTR on the short side today...
- Thread starter TimtheEnchanter
- Start date
it doesn't move much.
The uptrend is still intact.
anyway, if it moves massively,
some people will be happy, and some sad.
I caught some guys I know who canceled their Twitter only to open under another name. When asked why? After prodding two confessed “It’s the only way to own the libtards”!
Having an account on Twitter or Facebook is not a fundamental right guaranteed by the US Constitution or any of it's parts.
If you allow the Constitution to override the private rights of people, then you have just opened up your life to utter control by the government, and you no longer are allowed to choose what you can or cannot do.
That is a dangerous road.
Guys, look, I dislike the president as a person like any other sane centrist. I dislike McConnel, I dislike Pelosi, I dislike Clinton. There is nary a politician I like out there, because they are all liars. Every single one of them, once in office, fights not for their constituency, but for their own beliefs. It's a joke.
The 25th amendment has ZERO to do with the 1st amendment. The first amendment is not an issue here. Can't we just drop that bit? Oy
No but being able to speak one's mind freely represented by being able to communicate via social media is.
And I never said the 25th amendment had anything to do with the 1st Amendment. All I am saying is if you want to save "America's soul" which some people from ET here have defined as the US constitution then you need to respect Trump's freedom of speech which is guaranteed under the 1st Amendment.
FALSE!
"Social media", as defined by the norms of today, are still run by private enterprise. Nobody is afforded Constitutional protections through that medium.
Folks are taking the "free speech" argument so far out of context it makes the head spin. Social Media is not the only outlet. There's such a thing as a "newsletter" you can set a mailing list up for, and get your message out that way. Stuff like that.
But the point of having the freedom of speech is that the speech can be heard. There is no freedom of speech if one can only whisper what they say under a duvet. Yeah under the duvet is an outlet but does that count? If social media is an outlet, why can't someone use it? You let the current Iranian dictator use it.
We all have multiple avenues to get our message out. If you spray graffiti on the side of a privately-owned building to get your message out, your "speech" is not protected under any municipal, state or federal law. The owner of that building has a right to censor it by washing it away or covering it up. It is really quite simple. It's the same with a private social media company.
Government cannot impinge upon the rights of a private owner regarding speech, STAT. The only way around that would be the Eminent Domain, and that is really far and away from the purpose of "freedom of speech".
Spraying graffiti is not the same as expressing messages on social media because spraying graffiti is an act of vandalism and is illegal to begin with while expressing messages on social media platforms is not unless the account that is used on the social media platform was illegally obtained which is not true in Trump's case. But even so exercising freedom of speech via spraying graffiti is even allowed at first. It's just that it's covered and erased if it happens to be on a privately owned property and the owner of the privately-owned property is not fond of the graffiti. Trump is now not even allowed to tweet at all; it's like he's not even allowed to "spray graffiti" at all.
Wrong example.
That's where you and I fall down and disagree on this issue.
Spraying graffiti on the side of a private building is exactly the same as posting a message on a private social media platform.
If the owner of the building does not like the message sprayed on his private property, he has every right to censor/delete it.
If the owner of the social media platform does not like the message posted on his private platform, he has every right to censor/delete it.
And there are plenty of private building owners who allow graffiti to remain on their private buildings, because they agree with the message being sent, or enjoy the artwork. NYC is a prime example, along with may other large metro cities! But it is THEIR choice to allow it or not, as private owners, and NOT the government's choice.
That's it, that's all there is.