Trump threatens Zuckerberg with life in prison

[Madison320]

Yes, I do care. And what do you mean by "if"? Durov's in jail and Pavlovski fled France.

So you're ok if "bad" owners get locked up like Musk and Zuckeberg but you're not ok if "good" ones are locked up like Durov and Pavlovski? Don't you see the problem with that?

 

[Madison320]

If that's true, why is Trump the one threatening it?

Trump is threatening censorship. Biden/Harris are actively engaging in it.

 

[Madison320]

I think the warning (screwed up in typical Trump fashion) is to put pressure on Zuck to NOT be coerced by the government pressure because there'll be a new sheriff in town soon.

In other words, "Hey Zuck, if you shoot and miss, even if they tell you to shoot, the new Justice department will be directed at you. And, 'I was just following their orders', isn't going to be a good defense."

I actually don't think Trump is going to do any censoring, but he's still wrong for saying it.

Part of the purpose of this thread is to see who actually believes in free speech here. There's a lot of hatred of Zuckerberg and people are willing to make exceptions to "punish" people they don't like.

 

[acptulsa]

So you're ok if "bad" owners get locked up like Musk and Zuckeberg but you're not ok if "good" ones are locked up like Durov and Pavlovski? Don't you see the problem with that?

It has nothing to do with my definitions of good and bad. Proven collaborators with my enemy are my enemy. When you work with the government to put the official slant on political speech you violate the First Amendment, and you're a criminal. I don't know that's true about Musk, nor that it's untrue. I know it's true of Zuckerberg. Hell, he admitted it.

Do you feel it was immoral to bomb the Daimler-Benz factory in Stuttgart because we had only declared war with Hitler's government, not the private enterprise that made what it did possible? Don't you see a problem with that?

No? Then you get it.

 

[TheCount]

Trump is threatening censorship. Biden/Harris are actively engaging in it.

Your personal definition of censorship is fascinating.

 

[WarriorLiberty]

If that's true, why is Trump the one threatening it?

Well which version of America u prefer to see or have? one where America is like Germany arresting users for calling people who are fat fat? because ERRRRRRRRR fatphobic!!!!!!



Arresting users for making comments on mass deportations of migrants?

Because this what the leftist progressives wants.

 

[Madison320]

Your personal definition of censorship is fascinating.

What is my definition for censorship?

 

[Madison320]

It has nothing to do with my definitions of good and bad. Proven collaborators with my enemy are my enemy. When you work with the government to put the official slant on political speech you violate the First Amendment, and you're a criminal. I don't know that's true about Musk, nor that it's untrue. I know it's true of Zuckerberg. Hell, he admitted it.

Those are some pretty subjective standards, don't you think?

 

[Valli6]

I see a lot of people are jumping to the conclusion that because Trump made another terse statement, we can only conclude that he intends to use lordly decree in order to lock Zuckerberg away for life.

We still have laws and the court system hasn’t been quite entirely captured yet. Just because democrats have demonstrated they have no shame uniting to ignore the law for selfish political reasons, doesn’t mean Trump and every republican will also find this acceptable. Are we not morally better people than democrats?!

• I expect an examination of all the actions Zuckerberg took to “fortify” this and past elections.
• I expect an evaluation of these actions and a determination of which, if any of these actions, broke the law.
• I expect serious charges to be filed where applicable, followed by a public hearing.

This was not a crime against Trump.
It was a crime against me and all other citizens.

If this results in a determination of guilt being made, and a life sentence or an execution can be applied as a result, so be it.

Meanwhile, fire up the civil asset forfeiture engines for this one. We’ve got a debt to pay off.

 

[acptulsa]

Those are some pretty subjective standards, don't you think?

No. I don't know that I'm 100% objective about the Bill of Rights, but I still consider any organized, covert operation to violate them on a nationwide scale a criminal enterprise.

Nothing subjective about this: The government colluded with CEO Z to violate the First Amendment. Zuckerberg is just as guilty as the government. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Remember what a plea of "just following orders" got defendants at Nuremberg.

If Congress had only bothered once in 239 years to codify a statute against conspiracy to defraud all Americans of their Constitutional rights we'd know what to charge him with and how long to lock him up for. But whether they ever bothered to put a name and sentencing guidelines to it, it's still a crime.

Dickens was right. The law is a ass. But the Constitution's clear enough. He broke the law of the land.

 

[acptulsa]

Just because democrats have demonstrated they have no shame uniting to ignore the law for selfish political reasons, doesn’t mean Trump and every republican will also find this acceptable.

But they always do. Democrats create "new government powers" and the Republicans preserve them. Democrats create The Ring, Republicans take it away from them and, wait for it, refuse to throw it in the fire.

Are we not morally better people than democrats?!

Only if you force your own politicians to throw it in the damned fire. But no. Like hometown little league umpires, "our own" guys get away with murder.

They're quick-marching us into tyranny left-right-left-right hup-two-three-four by misbehaving, then escalating their own misbehavior, and getting us caught up in the "two sides" of it.

If you wanted to de-escalate a situation, would you hire Donald Yugest Trump (very stable genius) for the job?

 

[Madison320]

No. I don't know that I'm 100% objective about the Bill of Rights, but I still consider any organized, covert operation to violate them on a nationwide scale a criminal enterprise.

Nothing subjective about this: The government colluded with CEO Z to violate the First Amendment. Zuckerberg is just as guilty as the government. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Remember what a plea of "just following orders" got defendants at Nuremberg.

If Congress had only bothered once in 239 years to codify a statute against conspiracy to defraud all Americans of their Constitutional rights we'd know what to charge him with and how long to lock him up for. But whether they ever bothered to put a name and sentencing guidelines to it, it's still a crime.

Dickens was right. The law is a ass. But the Constitution's clear enough. He broke the law of the land.

Can you be more specific on what law Zuckerberg broke?

Whose rights did Zuckerberg violate?

 

[TheCount]

Well which version of America u prefer to see or have? one where America is like Germany arresting users for calling people who are fat fat? because ERRRRRRRRR fatphobic!!!!!!



Arresting users for making comments on mass deportations of migrants?

Because this what the leftist progressives wants.

As opposed to... arresting users for being insufficiently supportive of the government, Russia-style?


You know, 'neither' is also an option. Let's be neither Russia nor Germany.

 

[TheCount]

What is my definition for censorship?

Putting people in jail

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Zuckerberg has been "meddling" in elections since he started censoring Ron Paul content in 2008.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

This is an article on zerohedge. Apparently in his book Trump said he'll put Zuckerberg in jail if he interferes with the election. Trump is totally wrong here. He's got it backwards. The crime was the government threatening Zuckerberg, not Zuckerberg's actions.

Trump Warns Zuckerberg And Anyone Who Illegally Interferes In Election Will Be Jailed For Life
...

It used to be that Administrations couldn't arbitrarily decide what a crime is and what it's punishment should be.

That went out the window with the Biden Administration and the CCP inspired DNC takeover of government.

Punishment for taking an unscheduled tour of the Capitol rotunda? How about years of imprisonment naked on a cement floor?

 

[Madison320]

Putting people in jail

Where did I imply that?

For the record I'm talking about the 1st amendment where the government is not allowed to censor. Private citizens should be allowed to say whatever they want except under very limited situations like defamation where you actually cause harm.

Trump is threatening it, Biden/Harris are doing it.

 

[Madison320]

It used to be that Administrations couldn't arbitrarily decide what a crime is and what it's punishment should be.

That went out the window with the Biden Administration and the CCP inspired DNC takeover of government.

Punishment for taking an unscheduled tour of the Capitol rotunda? How about years of imprisonment naked on a cement floor?

I agree. My point is that Trump is just as wrong for going after Zuckerberg.

 

[acptulsa]

Can you be more specific on what law Zuckerberg broke?

Whose rights did Zuckerberg violate?

He violated the First Amendment and violated everyone's rights.

What I was trying to say is, I don't think Congress (for all the zillion pages of garbage they've passed) has ever bothered to make a statute covering this obvious violation of the Bill of Rights.

 

[CaptUSA]

He violated the First Amendment and violated everyone's rights.

What I was trying to say is, I don't think Congress (for all the zillion pages of garbage they've passed) has ever bothered to make a statute covering this obvious violation of the Bill of Rights.

There are SCOTUS rulings that the government is not allowed to use its power to persuade other organizations or people to violate someone's rights. I'm not so sure that there are penalties for the organizations or people who may bend to the government's strongarm tactics.

For example, the government wouldn't be allowed to make a venue owner prohibit legal guns from being carried onto their property, but venue owners are allowed to make those rules on their own.

If anything, I think you may be able to go after FB on fraud if their selective censorship is being done without the knowledge of those who give the site their data.

I think there's an EASY case to be made that they could lose their section 230 immunity protections since they have been acting as a "publisher" of information, rather than a "host".