Hate speech inciting violence is what was banned not any speech.
I’m really not a Trump fan and find most of the “conservative” media hilariously amateurish, but if you don’t see the obvious bias Silicon Valley has, I’m afraid you’re not paying close enough attention.
From the perspective of a foreign government, why let them control information in your country? As I said, it makes no sense for them to do so.
"restricting the speech of the president of America, clearly they’ll have no issue manipulating other governments."
Even if they did cite his speech as a reason, looking at it as a single event is sort of missing the point. They engaged in similar behavior for years beforehand.
> The policy on “hacked” materials is a good example that was selectively applied only against one side.
On the side that pushes fake news, yes. That's a good bias to have.
As I said, if you think one side is somehow unbiased and just, you aren’t paying attention.
If you're a foreign government you do not want some committee of Bay Area Twitter employees deciding that for your national affairs.
> how do you define hate speech
Ira Glasser explains it precisely: "When people say they want to ban hate speech, what they mean is they want to ban speech that they hate ... But if you allowed something called ‘hate speech’ to be banned, then the only important question would be ‘who decides? ... If the government is going to be the one to decide what hate speech to ban, it’s not going to be the same speech as the speech you hate, it’s going to be the speech they hate, ... It all ends up coming down to who decides and most often, it ain’t you' https://reclaimthenet.org/former-aclu-head-ira-glasser-expla...
> and what counts as inciting violence?
This is better explained by the legal scholar Jonathan Turley,
"The reason is that while the crime is not clear, the case law is. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that even calling for violence is protected under the First Amendment unless there is a threat of “imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
Trump never called for violence and instead told his followers to go to the Capitol peacefully to “cheer” on those challenging the electoral votes. Such protests at capitals are common and, while reckless, Trump’s speech could as easily be interpreted as a call for protest rather than violence."
https://jonathanturley.org/2021/02/19/want-to-prosecute-trum...
By stating again and again that the election was stolen what, exactly, was Trump wanting his followers to do about it? What, exactly, did he want for the people marching on the Capitol to do to stop the election from being stolen? Stand outside? Come on...
With a ToS you can make it up as you like. Speaking against having pets could be hate speech against pet owners. I mean it could mean whatever the mods want it to mean. You can circumscribe it to only affect people you want affected for whatever reason.
To be fair, Congress could, on a whim, change the definitions of hate speech whenever they felt like it. If you're arguing about selective enforcement with TOS, the police already selectively enforce laws. Hate speech would just be another one they could use against people they don't like, while ignoring those they do. There's no good solution.
That said, things like speed limits for example. We all on principle agree to this type of enforcement. One via the licensing and second via legislation. We could make changes if we thought it important enough.
Look at prop 47. People erroneously thought we were prosecuting too many minor thefts. So the law was changed. Now many people are looking to reverse it given the unintended consequences. Point is, at least we can affect legislation directly. Not so with ToSes unless Congress takes up the issue -which so far they are loath to do.
In the US, the legislature cannot unilaterally create rules that outlaw certain speech (unless that speech falls outside of the guarantees of the US Constitution). Also, there's no current definition of 'hate speech' in federal law.
If it is not clear enough to stand prosecution, then it is not 'hate speech' really. There needs to be clear-cut definitions and enforced uniformly.
Twitter has lost that trust, and now raises alarmms across the world.
Interesting, but what I don't understand is ... if Trump clearly incited violence, why was he not convicted? Would you say that the American justice system is not fair?
*edit: responding to comment from zimmerman below,
I watched the full trial, but have not seen any clear arguments made in favor of proving incitement. The legal scholar Jonathan Turley explains it better:
"The reason is that while the crime is not clear, the case law is. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that even calling for violence is protected under the First Amendment unless there is a threat of “imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
Trump never called for violence and instead told his followers to go to the Capitol peacefully to “cheer” on those challenging the electoral votes. Such protests at capitals are common and, while reckless, Trump’s speech could as easily be interpreted as a call for protest rather than violence."
https://jonathanturley.org/2021/02/19/want-to-prosecute-trum...
*edit: Here's an informative video on House managers presenting fake evidence (as foolinaround explains below) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW3I3wXrBoo
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fact-check-yes-mccon...
Which, if you paid attention to the trial was extremely well reported, so either you genuinely didn't pay attention at all or you're trying to imply anyone in Congress seriously believed he wasn't culpable.
So to answer your question simply, he wasn't convicted because it wasn't politically expedient to the rest of his political party.
If the impeachment managers did this stuff (fake the evidence such as videos, tweets, etc) in a real court, they would face serious consequences.
The Chief Justice recognized it as a sham and did not participate, and one does not need to like Trump to know what this second round was.
The first one was atleast done by the book...
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Everyone is biased, so it would be far more productive to just refute the central point, which in the case of mrzimmerman's comments on this thread (as you may realize) is rather straightforward[1] to do.
http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
[1] For example, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26198380
We all have biases, and yes, it is obvious without me alluding to it.
I have stated the facts that counter zimmerman's note
So to summarize, Trump delivers a speech, he explicitly calls for a peaceful protest (visible in transcripts), and a very very small number of people break the law. That doesn't sound like incitement - it sounds to me like a few individuals made bad decisions and hold personal responsibility for their own actions and should be held accountable. But no court has found Trump guilty of incitement, and I bet none ever will - the evidence is simply not there.
As for Twitter - their power and influence is larger than most governments, and they should not be making unilateral decisions judging incitement and instituting bans of public figures. They operate the new public town square - and they need to be regulated like a public entity. or just nationalized like a utility and required to uphold the first amendment. And other leaders like Macron (https://www.axios.com/macron-social-media-bans-trump-twitter...) and Merkel (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/11/germanys-merkel-hits-out-at-...) are absolutely correct to be alarmed at the reckless actions and immense power of American tech giants, who are ideologically very biased.
You're asking everyone who watched the capitol riots to ignore what they saw with their own eyes.
I think taking quotes out of context does not present things as they actually happened or provide a fair analysis. We have to be careful of cherry-picking.
Here's the full context: “fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” ... “We will not be intimidated into accepting the hoaxes and the lies that we’ve been forced to believe over the past several weeks.”
Per legal scholars, like Jonathan Turley,[1], "those words could be equally consistent with calling for a protest, not violence, as many groups routinely do at state and federal capitals." which explains why the legal system has not been able to convict Trump.
People seem to have varying opinions on this topic, but at the end of the day if you look at the facts, it becomes much simpler to understand.
[1] https://jonathanturley.org/2021/02/11/reckless-rhetoric-is-a...
Also, consider that Democrats frequently use the same rhetoric when they are talking to their own audiences as well. The Trump defense team showed a 9 minute clip of Democrats using the word "fight" in the recent impeachment proceedings (https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-impeachment-defense-team-sh...).