I think this confuses "you" with "we".
You shouldn't accept it if you feel it is unfair, and you should express that if you feel the need to, subject to the rules of whatever platform you use to express it.
But "we" (as in the people of the United States), via the powers of government, have no right under the Constitution to compel (or if you prefer, to "not accept") Twitter to allow him to tweet on their platform.
You missed a pretty pertinent qualifier here, but that was interesting, thanks for sharing.
It matters a lot which building they raided, and who praised them for doing so.
It’s not just a symbol.
And the insurrectionists came for them.
It was 9 justices and 1 President short of a State of the Union address.
the people who are using the language of insurrection/terror etc are doing so with the purpose of creating casus belli to enact retribution on their political & cultural enemies and to turn the war on terror inwards. if we have learned nothing about restraint in the years after 9/11 then we are heading for a nightmare scenario.
Seems that way to me too. Time will tell, I guess.
Because they were foiled - their targets were successfully evacuated. They sought out Pelosi and Schumer's offices specifically - the ones outfitted in military tactical gear I mean, not the grandma that needed help getting back down the stairs. They built a gallows and were chanting "Hang Mike Pence".
Perhaps they would have if the evacuation had been unsuccessful, or if the certified electoral college results had still been around.
Restraint and appeasement are two different things.
I can see how the actions seem relatively harmless if you consider them in a vacuum.
But this is just goalpost-moving, and it's happened every time something awful has happened over the past 4 years.
Perhaps it will help if you consider the totality of the scenario; the plans to travel, the bombs and munitions created and acquired; the calls to violence from the president just before the actions; Rudy Giuliani asking for "trial by combat" as the crowd prepared to march on the Capitol. The repeated quotes *from the insurrectionists themselves* announcing that "this is a revolution" and talking about hanging people, coming for their heads, overturning the election.
Quite simply, if you read the definition of insurrection, there's no way to NOT apply it to these events, and sedition to apply to the president and Rudy among others.
The pure inaction of everyone involved surrounding the situation in the Capitol building should terrify you. The rioters never should have even gotten inside the building.
At a minimum, the mayor de-escalated and restricted the national guard before the march started, and the capital police turned away initial offers of help (they're segregated from other federal police due to separation of powers, and Congress wants it that way).
But yes, can you blame them for not wanting to deploy the national guard, when he got crucified 6 months ago for... Wanting to deploy the national guard to protect the White House from repeated attacks?
It absolutely does indicate that. Read up on German history.
Edit: not to throw just one party under the bus. Same survey showed 21% of voters overall approved and 32% didn't see it as a threat to democracy. That's still a lot more than an isolated few Americans.
[1] https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/20...
It was less than 100 individuals that were the impetuous for one of the worst pieces of legislation I know of. The Patriot Act. Which was voted on in a complete state of fear. Creating an extra judicial process for people who fit into a given category.
I fear the reaction to this, which I'd argue is why Twitter needed a great press release to justify banning Trump (which they can and should do as a private corporation).
EDIT: I feel like we're in a reactionary state of shock where lawmakers may try to push laws that sound good to people who are in shock and fear.
Yes, less than a year after trump allowed the patriot act to expire.
The Senate passed a 77-day extension in March 2020, but the House of Representatives did not pass the legislation before departing for recess on March 27, 2020.[13][14][15][16]
(Wikipedia)
Here's reality, and I'm going to date myself here, but there were, long ago, enormously popular digital spaces called BBS's. You could chat, play games (MUDs mostly), etc etc. They are, by and large, no longer with us. New and admittedly better technologies came along. So will it be with Social Media. As difficult as it may be for people to believe, 40 years from now, Social Media in its current form will probably not be with us any longer.
Here's the thing though, the government will still be with us. So it's the government that we need to constrict. And, using the tool of our Constitution, we do an admirable job of constricting the government's ability to restrict our free speech. That Twitter says a man can't talk on their private property is not a societal problem. That the government says a man can't talk anywhere in the country is a societal problem. There's been far too much conflating of these two issues, they are not the same.
We’re not really making the same progress on decentralizing the web that we thought we would. Is it really that difficult to see further consolidation as the most likely outcome?
The ideal requires great maturity.
As I saw concisely said on Twitter: If you can silence a king, you are the king
https://money.cnn.com/2017/02/20/technology/trump-websites/i...
Exposure != delivery points.
Twitter has audience.
Why is there a difference between Twitter, Inc making such decision and Verizon Communications. Neither are government.
The only reasonable argument that I can think of is that Twitter holds less of an monopoly to their users than Verizon. That however seems to me as up to interpretation, and not about the question about what is or isn't private property.
Things that are tangible and can be seen or sensed or emoted directly have impact. Crowds, sounds, death, damage, violence, mayhem.
Yeah, like, some people trespassing into government buildings in the middle of officially declaring the next president, with an intention to disrupt the procedure, at the urge of the current outgoing president. Now that is some scary shit.
</s>
It's not by chance that enlightenment ended in the terror the first time around, people should read more about the past.
Yes, like trespassing into government buildings for the purpose of preventing a peaceful, lawful democratic transfer of power.
Protest is compatible with democracy. What happened two days ago is not. If you don't like the outcome of an election, you can complain about it, you can be a nuisance about it, you can talk about it. What you can't do, is try to carry out a coup.