Can twitter ban Donald Trump's Account?

[Musik-Diversity86]

No, it is not. Free speech only applies to public venues, not private ones such as an internet forum. When you actually know what "free speech" means, and what is protected by free speech, get back with us.

Well Jack Dorsey did choose to commit to freedom of expression for Twitter...... but hey, we'll let you get back to us as well.

- - - Updated - - -

If you vote for a bigot, I can't see exactly why you wouldn't be one.

It means you support what the bigot does. It means you agree with doing what it takes to be a bigot. How does that not make you a bigot as well?

A bigot because..... why? You are not the only person we challenged who couldn't come up with anything

[tangers58]

They can ban any account they want for any reason they want. Would it be particularly wise of them to ban it? Probably not.

[Draco-Onis]

Everyone is making vague claims to stuff he did and no one is linking anything to it. If tweeting anything having to do with "white supremacy" gets a ban then almost everyone on twitter gets a ban.

You need a link to his Britain first retweets? his white supremacist retweets? go to @readonaldtrump it's not that hard. But like I said Trump could break every single rule of their EULA and still not get kicked out.

[Mihalik]

Then you open up the freedom of speech can of worms

Twitter is not a branch of the government. The 1st doesn't apply to them in any shape or form beyond protecting them as an entity from government censorship.

- - - Updated - - -

Finding something offensive doesn't make something offensive? Then what pray tell does?

OT: Could you even imagine the shit storm that would hit if Twitter banned Trump? He would lose his mind and not even know how to tell us (which would infuriate him even further). We'd prolly get one of those national broadcasts from the president on TV so he could bad mouth Twitter. Sad!

The shitstorm would be hilarious tho.

[zebreck]

Can they? sure. Will they? naw. the backlash would be fucking epic. Nearly 40% of the country worships that man and at least half of them are capable of using a computer. I still think they should though. I want to see the irony meter readings when the party of protecting your right to refuse service to gay people goes after a private business for refusing someone service.

[Kokolums]

If Twitter banned Trump, Trump would probably switch to Gab and then Gab would be in all the headlines and get free promotion instead of Twitter.

[hyphnos]

He hasn't broken the ToS, you think he has - just because someone finds something offensive, doesn't make it so I'm afraid.

Just like with Blizzard and their forums, or the forums here or many other websites, the decision about who is breaking ToS lies with the company, which has a shit ton of ass covering fine print to do basically whatever the hell the want.

Ultimately it doesn't matter what someone on MMO-C finds offensive or not or whether we think he has broken Twitter's ToS - it's up to Twitter to decide that or not but they most certainly can do it. Likely they won't dare to unless the financial consequences of doing so are better than ignoring it.

[ChrisObscuri]

They should limit him to 50 characters just to fuck with him for a couple months.

[OrcsRLame]

No, it is not. Free speech only applies to public venues, not private ones such as an internet forum. When you actually know what "free speech" means, and what is protected by free speech, get back with us.

I sat here for a few minutes deciding if I wanted to be a dick or not. I've decided I'm going to correct you as nicely as I possibly can, despite free speech and its meaning being a hot button issue for me.

You are confused about what freedom of speech is. Specifically, you are confusing freedom of speech with the First Amendment, which is a part of the US Constitution that guarantees that the government won't take away your freedom of speech. Freedom of speech itself is a concept, not a law with authority to protect things.

You are not legally obligated to give someone their freedom of speech in a private setting. For example, if someone is in my house, I have no problem telling them to leave if I don't want to listen to what they have to say. That is an anti-free speech stance, expelling said person from my house. It's also totally reasonable. However, saying that you are not against free speech, because free speech is a legal issue, is disingenuous. When a company like Facebook decides to ban people for "hate speech" that is an anti-free speech stance, despite it being their right to do so. If you agree with the actions of companies like Facebook and Twitter, own that shit. Don't claim to be for free speech when you're not.

[Stormspark]

Why would they? It's literally the ONLY thing keeping their name in the news. Twitter has been dying for quite some time. They lose money nonstop, like Uber.

Yeah, this is the only reason they probably won't ban him. Because he's making them money. He could blatantly violate their terms of use and it wouldn't matter.

[Xar226]

Of course they can.

Of course they won't. Certainly not while he is the President of the United States.

[Stormspark]

Of course they can.

Of course they won't. Certainly not while he is the President of the United States.

It doesn't have anything to do with that. It has to do with the fact that his inane tweets drive a ton of traffic to their site and directly generate revenue for them. They won't ban him until he stops making them money.

[Piglord]

That would be the most glorious shit storm ever.

[munkeyinorbit]

what he says shouldn't be protected by free speech, seeing as most of it is either inflammatory or flat out wrong.

Who made you the freedom of speech police? I guess everyone who disagrees with you shouldn't have the freedom to say what they want.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

They can't, or they'll simply run out of business.

Hate him or love him, he's the single biggest attraction on Twitter and the only thing preventing them to collapse on themselves, money-wise.

[Hammerfest]

It's a private company with TOS... why wouldn't they be able to ban Donald Trump's account?

[PalliesThrowStuff]

So when does freedom of speech become hate speech? Is it a clear cut line? People have different levels of what is acceptable.

The circlejerk is pretty real, the guy is a pathological liar and sociopathic.

I'd like to see your psychology MD, and some kind of evidence that you've personally examined the man before you can even begin to make a claim that someone's a sociopath, or that he's a pathological liar. Frankly you're speaking right out of your rear end. Please, allow me now, to do the same.

So if 'hate speech' doesn't have a clear cut line, why do we EVER prosecute people for that? Do you even realize that this same argument in your EXACT words just decriminalizes the VAST majority of racism in U.S. history? People have different levels of what is acceptable... so great, my level of what is acceptable is a lot more forgiving than yours. I bet you'll claim that makes me a racist.

Personally... I'm not selling you makeup, your skin color means exactly jack squat to me, because like most people on planet earth, I'm pretty reasonable. What does drive me up a wall is when someone acts like a complete and total jackwagon (Like the quoted poster for instance) and then hides behind their race when the reasonable populace treats them like a jackwagon. If we were really going to eliminate racism, we have to eliminate people who want to pretend that their race affords them some sort of 'special treatment' in terms of scholarships, hiring policies, and most especially, public school graduation rates.

Most school districts have a threshold of the 'failing' students who they are allowed to actually 'fail' and hold back a year for additional schooling. If the actual number of students exceeds the percentage allowed by the district, they will pass the top students from among those failing, until they reach the expected statistics. These statistics include race. Not because it's right, but because they've been admonished in the past for failing 'mostly black students' which again, doesn't actually have to do with them being black. Most black students still pass because they have decent grades. My opinion is that race itself has no impact, but the inane pandering of liberals towards 'minorities' has given individuals growing up hearing it, some sense of being 'entitled' to special treatment. Likely, the parents of these individuals are making it worse, by promoting a system of social norms where getting good grades isn't valued as much as it is to 'stick it to the white man', or 'being gangster'. Maybe I just grew up in a bad part of town, and the impression I was given by my peers comes from an isolated population of asshole parents with equally asshole kids.

I bring this up because I myself, being of Middle Eastern descent (An ethnic group not represented in my school district's statistics, and therefore lumped in as 'white', a term that even without my own race's inclusion, is a racial epithet.) was subjected to this form of reverse discrimination. After all, mine's only the second generation after emigrating from Jordan, and Jordanese people being relatively light complected are close enough that the average bigot will just call me 'white' anyway. It was my own fault that my grades were failing, I was lazy and immature, and never bothered to do homework. However, I knew many students from my class with much, much worse grades than mine, with fewer required credits, who were passed because they were in the upper percentile of failing black students.

Even more criminal, the high school I went to was only 35% white at the time (I graduated before 9/11) and 52% black, this statistic is even more inflated now than it was then. As the school district itself was still mostly white, the expected percentages of failing black students was exceeded by astonishing numbers. More than 80% of failing students, were black students. Belonging to the 12% of students that were failing, that were 'white', I didn't stand a chance, even against students that were even lazier and more immature.

Education is my hot button in politics today, given this experience. My personal opinion, is that if you are failing in school, you should be held back. If the school district decides that they can't improve the quality of their education enough to keep up with their imposed statistics of how many students the district is allowed to fail, then certainly the students that are given a free pass into the adult world should be those failing students, who came the CLOSEST to passing. The color of the skin of an idiot, doesn't make them any more or less of an idiot. Is that not equal rights?

- - - Updated - - -

Can they? sure. Will they? naw. the backlash would be fucking epic. Nearly 40% of the country worships that man and at least half of them are capable of using a computer. I still think they should though. I want to see the irony meter readings when the party of protecting your right to refuse service to gay people goes after a private business for refusing someone service.

Refusing someone service is one thing for a public venue, expecting a public venue to violate the religious views of the owners or the staff because you want to make a statement and be famous for it... are two different topics. If you're referencing that years old case of the cake maker, that's a specialized service that caters to specific individualized events, which catastrophically highlights the debate of religion vs sexual orientation. You can't MAKE a catholic build a cake promoting homosexuality. You can't MAKE a Muslim tell their guests at IHOP 'I love bacon'. That's directly attacking their religion, and it's just as illegal as refusing service to Jewish people.

This may come as a shock to most liberals, but the First Amendment even applies to people you personally disagree with.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Donald Trump, sure, as an elected official, probably not or at least that is how it will be positioned.

[Trollhammer]

Not reading through the thread of people arguing if Trump is racist or not as it is irrelevant to the OP...

It's not a case of "if they can or not" (Ofc they can..) it's a case of "Can they afford to" Twitter reported 0% growth earlier this year, Trump is their only draw..

[Gorgodeus]

Well Jack Dorsey did choose to commit to freedom of expression for Twitter...... but hey, we'll let you get back to us as well.

It does not matter what some individual says. Law is law, and there is no such thing as "free speech" on an internet forum.