Hacker News Reader

Comment by CivBase | Hacker News Reader

The two tweets are as follows:

> “The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!”

> “To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”

I do not support Trumps actions throughout all of this. But how are those incitements for violence, even in context?

View on HN

The second one can be read as a tacit nod that the inauguration is a “safe” target.

I know many will see that as a stretch, but given the context and recent events, I do not.

By that logic, Trump commenting on any of his attendance plans is "inciting violence".

This goes far beyond a stretch.

If those comments are in the context of his supporters having just stormed the US Capitol at his behest, killing several people and derailing the confirmation of his political enemy, then yes.

That tweet predates the capitol protest.

No it doesn’t, it was tweeted yesterday.

My mistake. He had said he wasn't going to the inauguration previously as well, didn't realize he reiterated.

All I can do is disagree. I think this sets a horrifying social precedent and I have doubts it will be enforced equally.

I think the context is key here. Independent of what happened on Wednesday they don’t constitute a real threat. But one has to update one’s prior.

This was explicitly gone over in the announcement. The short of it is that they validate further attacks by promising Trump's allegiance, assistance, and a target.

Because Twitter has stolen the narrative. They decided what Trump meant by those tweets for you.

> They decided what Trump meant by those tweets for you

No, they decided it for themselves.

Other people in a position to relay, or not, the President's words get to make their own decision, too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com