** KAMALA HARRIS FOR PRESIDENT -PART DEUX **

pjl44

It's exactly the point of the clip. It's surfacing again because of Pavel Durov's arrest, Reich's Guardian piece, etc.

pjl44

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

This point of view is bad, bad, bad and you can see it on Tapper's face

https://x.com/YALiberty/status/1831050781761683703

I don't understand.  Who is she talking about, exactly?

Twitter/X

So that seems weird that she would be saying that about Twitter/X in 2019, when asked about whether Donald Trump should lose his Twitter account for threatening a witness (Colonel Vinman) and obstructing justice.  I guess next time I commit a crime on Twitter, I will be pleased that Donald Trump cleared the way for me to do so.  Until then, I'm not too concerned.  But it also appears you don't exactly know what that clip was about.  

HARRIS: -- that he has lost his privileges and it should be taken down. The bottom line is that you can't say that you have one rule for Facebook and you have a different rule for Twitter. The same rule has to apply, which is that there has to be a responsibility that is placed on these social media sites to understand their power. They are directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation, and that has to stop.

TAPPER: He is the president of the United States, and I would -- you know, you might argue, first of all, he doesn't --

HARRIS: He does not have a right to commit a crime because he is president of the United States. He does not have the right to threaten witnesses and threaten their safety because he is president of the United States.

In fact, that's the very problem with Donald Trump. He thinks he's above the law, and we cannot keep reinforcing that. And anyone who wants to say, well, this is a matter of free speech, you are not free to threaten the life of a witness. That is a crime.

It's about the idea of there needing to be regulation of social media sites. If he commits a crime on one, charge him with a crime. It's not Twitter's fault.

So if a person commits multiple crimes and in the process of committing crimes, it's more important that the social media retain a 1A right that doesn't exist in the actual world, rather than suspending an account?  It's suspending an account, and you are taking the side of the criminal.  Keep dying on that hill.  You know damn well the point you just pivoted to is not even close to being the point of the clip; that if you're committing a crime, it's not X's fault.  

You know the FCC has been regulating public speech for about 70 years, right?  

The FCC regulates public airwaves. Social media sites are private companies.

mrussel1

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

This point of view is bad, bad, bad and you can see it on Tapper's face

https://x.com/YALiberty/status/1831050781761683703

I don't understand.  Who is she talking about, exactly?

Twitter/X

So that seems weird that she would be saying that about Twitter/X in 2019, when asked about whether Donald Trump should lose his Twitter account for threatening a witness (Colonel Vinman) and obstructing justice.  I guess next time I commit a crime on Twitter, I will be pleased that Donald Trump cleared the way for me to do so.  Until then, I'm not too concerned.  But it also appears you don't exactly know what that clip was about.  

HARRIS: -- that he has lost his privileges and it should be taken down. The bottom line is that you can't say that you have one rule for Facebook and you have a different rule for Twitter. The same rule has to apply, which is that there has to be a responsibility that is placed on these social media sites to understand their power. They are directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation, and that has to stop.

TAPPER: He is the president of the United States, and I would -- you know, you might argue, first of all, he doesn't --

HARRIS: He does not have a right to commit a crime because he is president of the United States. He does not have the right to threaten witnesses and threaten their safety because he is president of the United States.

In fact, that's the very problem with Donald Trump. He thinks he's above the law, and we cannot keep reinforcing that. And anyone who wants to say, well, this is a matter of free speech, you are not free to threaten the life of a witness. That is a crime.

It's about the idea of there needing to be regulation of social media sites. If he commits a crime on one, charge him with a crime. It's not Twitter's fault.

So if a person commits multiple crimes and in the process of committing crimes, it's more important that the social media retain a 1A right that doesn't exist in the actual world, rather than suspending an account?  It's suspending an account, and you are taking the side of the criminal.  Keep dying on that hill.  You know damn well the point you just pivoted to is not even close to being the point of the clip; that if you're committing a crime, it's not X's fault.  

You know the FCC has been regulating public speech for about 70 years, right?  

The FCC regulates public airwaves. Social media sites are private companies.

That's because that's what the current law allows them to regulate.  From a principles standpoint, there is no difference.  When the FCC was formed, they had regulatory control on all public speech from private companies (NBC, CBS, ABC, etc).  The only difference is the current span of control under law.  That can always change.  There's zero actual difference between Twitter and NBC, from a speech standpoint.  If Conan went on teh street every Friday and a girl showed her boobs every week, NBC would be fined and eventually lose their broadcast license.  It wasn't their fault.  They didn't do anything wrong, just like Twitter didn't.  Pointing to THIS truncated clip and saying this is about censorship on X is absurd.  It's about DJT and the actual shit he was saying.  

mrussel1

pjl44 said:

It's exactly the point of the clip. It's surfacing again because of Pavel Durov's arrest, Reich's Guardian piece, etc.

So Harris's comment about Trump, after a debate in 2019, means that she wants to arrest Musk.  GTFO with this nonsense.  

pjl44

He doesn't understand public airwaves

pjl44

Twitter is analogous to TBS or HBO, not CBS

mrussel1

pjl44 said:

Twitter is analogous to TBS or HBO, not CBS

Certain types of speech are never protected, including obscene, threatening, or harassing speech.  The SCOTUS has already ruled that there are limits to speech.  So expanding the FCC's authority (or even the DOJ) to ensure that social media companies do not host criminal activity doesn't exactly run counter the Constitution. Nowhere did I say that the FCC has the current authority to regulate social media.  You should stop misreading and misunderstanding so easily.  And this is so far afield from Harris's 30 second discussion on the topic, based on a question from Tapper, that your post omitted the full context, deliberately. And for you to hyperventilate from that 2019 clip, as if that has some parlay into Durov's arrest, is silliness. 

How about Trump just stop breaking the law so often, like a fucking mob boss?  That seems to be an easier solution.  

mickeyrat

pjl44 said:

It's exactly the point of the clip. It's surfacing again because of Pavel Durov's arrest, Reich's Guardian piece, etc.

This guy was arrested and he's being charged with money laundry is he not? So tell me what does that have to do with free speech.

brianlux

Tim Simmons said:

What do I want to happen? For her to curb stomp him (metaphorically) ending all these mealy minded “independent “ dweebs dancing around “well he makes good points” with Trump, realizing he’s flaccid as a candidate and essentially ending this campaign a month and half early so we can get on with our lives earlier. 

I am SO looking forward to that. 

As for independents saying, "well he makes some good points", and as for people still on the fence (what happened there?  20 pounds of super glue?), these are people with a serious inability to even approximate critical thinking.  And that's sad, really. 

pjl44

mickeyrat said:

pjl44 said:

It's exactly the point of the clip. It's surfacing again because of Pavel Durov's arrest, Reich's Guardian piece, etc.

This guy was arrested and he's being charged with money laundry is he not? So tell me what does that have to do with free speech.

He is not, no

Gern Blansten

pjl44 said:

mickeyrat said:

pjl44 said:

It's exactly the point of the clip. It's surfacing again because of Pavel Durov's arrest, Reich's Guardian piece, etc.

This guy was arrested and he's being charged with money laundry is he not? So tell me what does that have to do with free speech.

He is not, no

Actually he is...

pjl44

Gern Blansten said:

pjl44 said:

mickeyrat said:

pjl44 said:

It's exactly the point of the clip. It's surfacing again because of Pavel Durov's arrest, Reich's Guardian piece, etc.

This guy was arrested and he's being charged with money laundry is he not? So tell me what does that have to do with free speech.

He is not, no

Actually he is...

Not by him

pjl44

Here is an AP article if anyone wants to read what Pavel Durov himself is being charged with 

https://apnews.com/article/france-telegram-pavel-durov-arrest-6e213d227458f330ed16e7fe221a696c

njhaley1

What an unlucky guy to be surrounded by so many criminals. Just can't catch a break. 

pjl44

When it's the right "enemy" Dems will turn into Josh Hawley 

Gern Blansten

pjl44 said:

Here is an AP article if anyone wants to read what Pavel Durov himself is being charged with 

https://apnews.com/article/france-telegram-pavel-durov-arrest-6e213d227458f330ed16e7fe221a696c

PARIS (AP) — French authorities handed preliminary charges to Telegram CEO Pavel Durov on Wednesday for allowing alleged criminal activity on his messaging app and barred him from leaving France pending further investigation.

yes him...he allowed "criminal activity" which includes allegations of money laundering by gangs

pjl44

Gern Blansten said:

pjl44 said:

Here is an AP article if anyone wants to read what Pavel Durov himself is being charged with 

https://apnews.com/article/france-telegram-pavel-durov-arrest-6e213d227458f330ed16e7fe221a696c

PARIS (AP) — French authorities handed preliminary charges to Telegram CEO Pavel Durov on Wednesday for allowing alleged criminal activity on his messaging app and barred him from leaving France pending further investigation.

yes him...he allowed "criminal activity" which includes allegations of money laundering by gangs

Running a tech platform where someone else is accused of money laundering is not getting arrested for money laundering

pjl44

My overarching point is that Donald Trump is a literal coin flip away from being President for the next 4 years so think really long and hard about what powers you want to give an FCC or DOJ about regulating online speech 

Gern Blansten

"allowing alleged criminal activity"....hmmm

yeah judge I didn't rob this bank but I held the door open for the robbers and helped them load up their trunk with cash before I drove them away

mrussel1

Gern Blansten said:

"allowing alleged criminal activity"....hmmm

yeah judge I didn't rob this bank but I held the door open for the robbers and helped them load up their trunk with cash before I drove them away

There's no doubt that US companies can be held liable for criminal activity that occurs within their business.  There's no safe harbor from such activity.