Given Trumps comments about women and Giuliani getting caught with his hands down their. The statement "not able to keep his hands in his pocket" is super on point.
As long as it does not indicate an "imminent" threat You are correct, I was to broad.
I really appreciate how much I learned from this reply thank you.
Michael Sherwin, the US Attorney for the District of Columbia, told the Associated Press: "All of those charges [sedition, unauthorized access, theft of federal property] are on the table... We’re not going to keep…
Sedition, terrorism, and advocating the overthrow of the government ARE NOT PROTECTED SPEECH
Imagine thinking this is related.
Comparing the Junior Congresswoman to the President of the U.S. does not lend credence to your follow-up statement especially given the ridiculous & slanderous coverage she's been given. No further discussion with you…
this
If you seem to serious about it, you should be more worried about the FBI & Secret Service than Twitter
Break-up doesn't stop collusion
Soleimani
Which is wrong, and given Twitter's stance of issuing corrections for tweets, probably should have made her a ripe target. However, that doesn't excuse Trump's use of terrorism.
This is a very strange case. But nevertheless it can't be said if she was killed for that. And the incident was not part of any kind of protest or riot. "Ramirez said in the Fox59 interview the two groups separated…
The suspects have been caught and charged. Dorn was not a Trump supporter and wasn't killed for political reasons. Debra White told the paper that her father opposed much of Drumpf's rhetoric and policies, including…
A number of people who are listed on the wikipedia list are unrelated or killed by right-wingers: Someone was shot during a looting spree…
As they should be, equality under the law should include the President. And the things he said were not protected speech.
As well as the authority of the person spreading it. The fact that we've decided the President is above libel, slander, and felony charges is a new thing. Thank god people stopped this nonsense when he started…
Falsehoods that lead to this situation. People who post beheadings on Twitter should be banned. People who incite violence should be banned. Nothing was said about U.S. Presidents.
Sedition, terrorism, and advocating the overthrow of the government ARE NOT PROTECTED SPEECH. If the government did tell Trump he was banned it wouldn't violate any liberal principles. It's not personal that's just the…
Let's hope they don't.
I don't disagree with anything you said. But terrorist violence & sedition are not protected speech. Whether they banned him for the right or wrong reason, he still needs to be banned.
If you sympathize with people who are terrorists...you're a terrorist sympathizer. That's just how words work. That being said: "Should there be a distinction when the bad things aren't said on Twitter itself?" There…
I'm not disagreeing but are we making section 230 into a sacred cow? Surely the world isn't going to just fall apart if it is repealed.
People are so afraid of such silly things sometimes, like those people afraid of a U.S. government run twitter. Who has more freedom to express their opinions a normal person at work whose boss can fire them for any…
Is this a parody or do you actually have nouns like names that you can use?
Given Trumps comments about women and Giuliani getting caught with his hands down their. The statement "not able to keep his hands in his pocket" is super on point.
As long as it does not indicate an "imminent" threat You are correct, I was to broad.
I really appreciate how much I learned from this reply thank you.
Michael Sherwin, the US Attorney for the District of Columbia, told the Associated Press: "All of those charges [sedition, unauthorized access, theft of federal property] are on the table... We’re not going to keep…
Sedition, terrorism, and advocating the overthrow of the government ARE NOT PROTECTED SPEECH
Imagine thinking this is related.
Comparing the Junior Congresswoman to the President of the U.S. does not lend credence to your follow-up statement especially given the ridiculous & slanderous coverage she's been given. No further discussion with you…
this
If you seem to serious about it, you should be more worried about the FBI & Secret Service than Twitter
Break-up doesn't stop collusion
Soleimani
Which is wrong, and given Twitter's stance of issuing corrections for tweets, probably should have made her a ripe target. However, that doesn't excuse Trump's use of terrorism.
This is a very strange case. But nevertheless it can't be said if she was killed for that. And the incident was not part of any kind of protest or riot. "Ramirez said in the Fox59 interview the two groups separated…
The suspects have been caught and charged. Dorn was not a Trump supporter and wasn't killed for political reasons. Debra White told the paper that her father opposed much of Drumpf's rhetoric and policies, including…
A number of people who are listed on the wikipedia list are unrelated or killed by right-wingers: Someone was shot during a looting spree…
As they should be, equality under the law should include the President. And the things he said were not protected speech.
As well as the authority of the person spreading it. The fact that we've decided the President is above libel, slander, and felony charges is a new thing. Thank god people stopped this nonsense when he started…
Falsehoods that lead to this situation. People who post beheadings on Twitter should be banned. People who incite violence should be banned. Nothing was said about U.S. Presidents.
Sedition, terrorism, and advocating the overthrow of the government ARE NOT PROTECTED SPEECH. If the government did tell Trump he was banned it wouldn't violate any liberal principles. It's not personal that's just the…
Let's hope they don't.
I don't disagree with anything you said. But terrorist violence & sedition are not protected speech. Whether they banned him for the right or wrong reason, he still needs to be banned.
If you sympathize with people who are terrorists...you're a terrorist sympathizer. That's just how words work. That being said: "Should there be a distinction when the bad things aren't said on Twitter itself?" There…
I'm not disagreeing but are we making section 230 into a sacred cow? Surely the world isn't going to just fall apart if it is repealed.
People are so afraid of such silly things sometimes, like those people afraid of a U.S. government run twitter. Who has more freedom to express their opinions a normal person at work whose boss can fire them for any…
Is this a parody or do you actually have nouns like names that you can use?