Jack Dorsey says he agrees with reversing Trump's Twitter ban • Hacker News Board

Re: Jack Dorsey says he agrees with reversing Trump's Twitter ban

#361

Post by dhzhzjsbevs » Fri, May 13, 2022, 12:04 AM UTC

dhzhzjsbevs wrote: post #357

netsec_burn wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The crime was inciting an insurrection. The president was not charged due to partisan politics, no president has ever actually been voted out by the Senate of their own party (correct me if I'm wrong), but historically this has been the most votes received from their party. It's recommended to understand both the background and the event on January 6th to get a clear picture, including attempts to overturn the electi…

> It's recommended to understand both the background and the event on January 6th to get a clear picture. As a non American who watched the summer of 2020 riots in absolute awe I will never understand why people even mention the 6th. It just doesn't compare.

No post body was provided.

Re: Jack Dorsey says he agrees with reversing Trump's Twitter ban

#362

Post by throw0101a » Fri, May 13, 2022, 2:03 AM UTC

dhzhzjsbevs wrote: post #209

ricardoplouis wrote: post #61

Is there just a different set of free speech rules for the rich and powerful? If I incited violence on the platform, I doubt Elon or Dorsey would be letting me come back after a ban.

When did trump incite violence? That sounds like a crime. Why wasn't he charged? Maybe you're confused? Anyhoo, what's that got to do with twitter? Since when did they become the police?

> When did trump incite violence? That sounds like a crime. Why wasn't he charged? Maybe you're confused?

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_impeachment_trial_of_Do...

Re: Jack Dorsey says he agrees with reversing Trump's Twitter ban

#363

Post by mccorrinall » Fri, May 13, 2022, 9:16 AM UTC

spicymaki wrote: post #53

mccorrinall wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Innocent until proven guilty. AFAIK Trump has not been convicted of any "illegal activity" in that regard.

That is a technicality. You cannot convict the President of anything (he controls enforcement of the laws, has pardon power, etc.). The senate would need to impeach him, remove him from office (which would never happen due to Republican opposition), then convict him as a private citizen (which would never happen due to political norms).

He hasn’t been president for a year already. Yet no one even tried to bring him to court because of anything; all I see are some keyboard warriors who don’t get how the presumption of innocence works. He is not guilty just because some random comment says it. He is only guilty when a court says so.

Re: Jack Dorsey says he agrees with reversing Trump's Twitter ban

#364

Post by Bud » Fri, May 13, 2022, 11:22 AM UTC

md2020 wrote: post #164

prezjordan wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lori Lightfoot is neither on the left (she is squarely a centrist), nor the President of the United States claiming that the election was stolen.

You’re splitting hairs. She’s making a “call to arms”, as mayor of one of the largest cities in the US, over an unsubstantiated claim that the Supreme Court is going to overturn the right to gay marriage, which they are not doing and have not indicated they will do. Seems pretty analogous to me.

"Splitting hairs"? Trump's words and actions KILLED PEOPLE. I think you need to get some perspective.

You're a fluent speaker of English. Please don't pretend not to know that "call to arms" is an idiomatic expression.

Re: Jack Dorsey says he agrees with reversing Trump's Twitter ban

#365

Post by spacemanmatt » Fri, May 13, 2022, 12:00 PM UTC

_-david-_ wrote: post #359

spacemanmatt wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Discrediting valid criticism because you don't feel consistency? Hmmm, I'm gonna call that right out.

It is not valid criticism if you are only critical of an person because you are on the other team.

That's like complaining that the cop should have stopped the guy in front of you who was arguably speeding even more.

Re: Jack Dorsey says he agrees with reversing Trump's Twitter ban

#366

Post by spacemanmatt » Sat, May 14, 2022, 10:21 PM UTC

_-david-_ wrote: post #267

spicymaki wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a technicality. You cannot convict the President of anything (he controls enforcement of the laws, has pardon power, etc.). The senate would need to impeach him, remove him from office (which would never happen due to Republican opposition), then convict him as a private citizen (which would never happen due to political norms).

You can convict a president of a state crime, just not federal crime.

That is false. The President enjoys immunity for many actions taken as President, but not all actions can be considered official, and not all actions are immunized.

State charges, especially committed before taking federal office, are certainly possible.