Can twitter ban Donald Trump's Account?

[Deleted]

Yes. They've said the account is so important to the world (aka: their revenue) that even though it breaks twitter's TOS it won't shut it down.

Important to the world? Bit presumptuous tbh trump is nice entertainment but he's the president of the USA not the world

[Deleted]

Freedom of speech does protect inflammatory language or incorrect statements, too, and you don't lose your rights until you are before a court and have sworn to tell nothing but the truth.

Even then your protected from self incrimination and always have your right to remain silent.

[Deleted]

I waded into a thread, made an off the cuff comment about a victim complex, a factual point about Milo and then you started attributing stuff to me I haven't said.

The fact that a fairly innocuous jib elicited such a response is telling.

For Reference https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...n-the-internet

The pertinent quote for ease:

He said that in hindsight. Still isn't proof that he really wanted to be suspended at all. It's the same as I get ditched by a girl, and tell afterwards that I didn't want her anyways. That I was planning for this all along. The quote of me telling that afterwards is not proof that I was planning for this all along.

So no, it's not a fact that he wanted it.

''They could ban him. They won't. It'd just feed into his and his supporters massive victim complex. Like that Milo guy who actively tried to get banned just so he could rabble rouse about it.

Plus at the rate he's going he'll probably get himself impeached through tweets alone.''

This is your comment. Could you please tell me what is innocuous about it? Because literally every sentence contains an offensive part.

They could ban him. They won't. It will feed into his supporters massive victim complex? Yes that will be the reason because Twitter is so thinking about how right wing people must feel. Oooooor maybe he's a large part of their income. Very innocuous comment.

What massive victim complex? Very innocuous indeed.

Milo who actively tries to get banned? Where did you read that he wanted to before he was banned? You didn't. Again, very innocuous.

He's going to get impeached by his tweets alone? We'll see. You would impeach him probably a thousand times over the last year, still hasn't happened. Sooooo, wouldn't bet on it.

10/10 comment of yours. Very innocuous.

[veehro]

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

since when are things that are wrong or inflamatory not free speech?

You honestly think the right to say words should only be used to things that are socialy acceptable?

By this reasoning gays would have never got the right to be maried because sugesting such a thing was inflamatory at that time

[JohnBrown1917]

But I'm not. Deal with it. I USE CAPS CAUSE I'M ANGRY

...What exactly makes you think twitter can't ban people?

[Aurrora]

Yawn, all in your head.

You're living in a fantasy land if you think that.

Trump's account has a valuation of $2,000,000,000 to twitter.

Twitter is projecting the next quarter to be its first profitable one ever.
Yeah, it's first profitable quarter in 11 years. That company is held together on wishes and unicorn farts.

On top of that as a publically traded company that have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders not to fuck shit up, which would happen if they were to ban Trump.

And you really think Trump is the kind of person that would take being banned from Twitter in stride and not attempt to bully them with the weight of the U.S. government?

[Snorkles]

He said that in hindsight. Still isn't proof that he really wanted to be suspended at all. It's the same as I get ditched by a girl, and tell afterwards that I didn't want her anyways. That I was planning for this all along. The quote of me telling that afterwards is not proof that I was planning for this all along.

So no, it's not a fact that he wanted it.

''They could ban him. They won't. It'd just feed into his and his supporters massive victim complex. Like that Milo guy who actively tried to get banned just so he could rabble rouse about it.

Plus at the rate he's going he'll probably get himself impeached through tweets alone.''

This is your comment. Could you please tell me what is innocuous about it? Because literally every sentence contains an offensive part.

They could ban him. They won't. It will feed into his supporters massive victim complex? Yes that will be the reason because Twitter is so thinking about how right wing people must feel. Oooooor maybe he's a large part of their income. Very innocuous comment.

What massive victim complex? Very innocuous indeed.

Milo who actively tries to get banned? Where did you read that he wanted to before he was banned? You didn't. Again, very innocuous.

He's going to get impeached by his tweets alone? We'll see. You would impeach him probably a thousand times over the last year, still hasn't happened. Sooooo, wouldn't bet on it.

10/10 comment of yours. Very innocuous.

I'm not really interested in trying to infer some ulterior meaning from what Milo said. You can twist and contort all you want about what he actually meant but i'm going to take it at face value. It's what he's supposedly famous for - cutting through the bullshit and all that.

You're right though, my comment wasn't innocuous. It apparently caused great offense to you.

[Mifuyne]

Ofcourse they can?
Will they? doubtful.

[Ripster42]

Important to the world? Bit presumptuous tbh trump is nice entertainment but he's the president of the USA not the world

I'm just paraphrasing what they said.

[Aggrophobic]

They can and if he was any other person, they probably would.
Such a despicable and dangerous person.

[Deleted]

Yes we need more ISIS and people that talk about how they like to have sex with children. /s

None of that applies here, what's your point? And as long as the people in your scenario are either not child molesters or not doing anything illegal by posting...

[gamon500]

Okay... how about when he tweeted a graphic about how 81% of white murder victims are killed by black people? Wildly inaccurate and racist.

This is not racism.

Yes it is. Either he thinks black people actually do kill most white murder victims, which is a racist belief, or he's inciting hate by lying about black people, which is also racist. You stating "This is not racist" doesn't mean anything.

[Beardless Man]

They can, but what else is CNN gonna complain about?

[Jaylock]

Are you being serious? Hate speech isn't enough to warrant getting banned? Twitter bans people for much pettier things.

"if he says something that I disagree with, its hate speech!"

Facts don't care about your feelings by the way. If you or anyone else gets upset about facts, then thats on you.

[Orlong]

They could absolutely ban him but they wont. He has more followers than anyone else which makes Twitter a lot of ad money. Additionally it would be a bad move in the eyes of a lot of people and the public backlash would give them a black eye

[Donald Hellscream]

Yes they can ban anyone for any reason they can think off.

They won't however since it would garner a ton of negative attention.

[Dystemper]

Yes it is. Either he thinks black people actually do kill most white murder victims, which is a racist belief, or he's inciting hate by lying about black people, which is also racist. You stating "This is not racist" doesn't mean anything.

He didn't create the graph. He retweeted it and removed it when he was told it was wrong. That's not racist . You just want it to be. He was retweeting a infographic he saw and thought was correct. A lot of people do thst

[Shaderas]

free·dom of speech
noun
noun: freedom of speech; plural noun: freedom of speeches; noun: free speech; plural noun: free speeches
the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint.


Also, from Twitter's terms of service:

Ending These Terms

...

We may suspend or terminate your account or cease providing you with all or part of the Services at any time for any or no reason, including, but not limited to, if we reasonably believe: (i) you have violated these Terms or the*Twitter Rules, (ii) you create risk or possible legal exposure for us; (iii) your account should be removed due to prolonged inactivity; or (iv) our provision of the Services to you is no longer commercially viable. We will make reasonable efforts to notify you by the email address associated with your account or the next time you attempt to access your account, depending on the circumstances. In all such cases, the Terms shall terminate, including, without limitation, your license to use the Services, except that the following sections shall continue to apply: II, III, V, and VI.

Emphasis above is mine...
So Twitter can ban Donald Trump any time they want and they would not be breaking their ToS.
And banning him to silence him conceptually could be considered a freedom of speech issue, but not a 1st amendment protected free speech issue.

[cubby]

Dystemper is telling the truth but.... I mean your profile pic speaks words

No, he's not. I'm not sure how you would think he is - unless, of course, you haven't been paying attention and are just seeing what you want. The "lefties" are looking to oust a false president who is a shit-show in literally every category possible.

But hey, believe whatever you want. Just keep on smiling in a sea of discontented reality - as your profile pic speaks to us.

[Dystemper]

No, he's not. I'm not sure how you would think he is - unless, of course, you haven't been paying attention and are just seeing what you want. The "lefties" are looking to oust a false president who is a shit-show in literally every category possible.

But hey, believe whatever you want. Just keep on smiling in a sea of discontented reality - as your profile pic speaks to us.

How is a duly elected president if the united States "false"? Talk about disconnected reality