In Sept 2019, government agent Kamala Harris Pressured Twitter to Infringe on President Trump’s First Amendment Rights

[St. Louis Hawk]

Rule? Maybe.

Asking itself is one thing. Unethical at worst. But how does a company interpret an ask from a government official without a perceived threat? Therefore, elected officials should have clear ethics guidelines in place.

The moment the ask comes with clear pressure or threats that could only come with the status of office held, should be subject to the rules and ethics of the governing body itself (i.e. censure or impeachment by the Senate).

What ethical standard would you suggest should govern whether Harris can ask X to take down the fake tweets about her injuring a child in a DUI accident?

 

[LuciousBDragon]

What ethical standard would you suggest should govern whether Harris can ask X to take down the fake tweets about her injuring a child in a DUI accident?

Existing slander/libel laws.

 

[TNHAWK79]

She created no laws to ban his speech, she only asked that the platform followed it's terms of service.

The man is a National security threat every time he picks up his phone though. He's a babbling disaster, I want him to X all day long.

She reached out to the CEO and asked him to ban the republican nominee on the largest social media platform. Keep in mind twitter was a left leaning platform that monitored certain people’s 1st amendment.
Mark Zuckerburg recently commented how he was pressured to remove certain content from the government.
Go ask Alexa who we should vote for and you tell me government is not overreaching with these corporations.

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

Existing slander/libel laws.

So anything that is false or misleading, but doesn’t rise to the level of libel, is untouchable by a politician in your view?

So no touching inaccurate evacuation information?

No touching innocent mistaken advice or typos (be prepared to shelter in place for 2 hours not 2 days)?

No touching early erroneous reports (the shooter is in custody and the area is safe to return to your homes)

No touching hostile actors trying to start a panic (the US is under attack)?

None of those are libel, and so your position is the government may not contact X for takedown or edits?

 

[LuciousBDragon]

So anything that is false or misleading, but doesn’t rise to the level of libel, is untouchable by a politician in your view?

So no touching inaccurate evacuation information?

No touching innocent mistaken advice or typos (be prepared to shelter in place for 2 hours not 2 days)?

No touching early erroneous reports (the shooter is in custody and the area is safe to return to your homes)

No touching hostile actors trying to start a panic (the US is under attack)?

None of those are libel, and so your position is the government may not contact X for takedown or edits?

No. Of course the government and platforms can work together in all of those examples.

Again, an elected official cannot request the free speech of another political opponent be disrupted or silenced all together.

 

[joelbc1]

Boyz….back in 2019 Harris was a US Senator….and I believe technically, Congressmen are held to a different standard as far as “speech” because of their position…..and even IF she was a candidate at the time, she is still a IUS Senator and enjoys this protection……..It is a two-way street.

 

[Gimmered]

She reached out to the CEO and asked him to ban the republican nominee on the largest social media platform. Keep in mind twitter was a left leaning platform that monitored certain people’s 1st amendment.
Mark Zuckerburg recently commented how he was pressured to remove certain content from the government.
Go ask Alexa who we should vote for and you tell me government is not overreaching with these corporations.

First off, he wasn't the Republican nominee, he was the President at the time. And now you have the owner of that largest social media platform using AI to attack the Democrat nominee. But somehow that's OK? Even after he has been offered a cabinet position if Trump wins?

At the end of the day, it is perfectly within the rights of either Harris or Trump to ask a company to enforce it's terms of use. Nothing was wrong with what she requested in 2019.

 

[Gimmered]

Settle down. I wasn’t talking to you.

Dumbass! You quoted me!

 

[thewop]

I think lawfare is wrong. It would certainly be tempting for Trump to direct the DOJ's attention toward the Biden's and Kamala, but wouldn't support it, even though they're both likely guilty.