Thanks. I'll find some time and read it.
Again I ask you: what are the limits of freedom of speech? When does it go too far?
Direct incitement or threats to credible violence. In this case, I haven't really seen any. I saw him asking people to go home. I haven't seen all of his tweets/posts(some of the accusations you made in your last post), so maybe I'm just poorly informed. If so, fair enough that he was deplatformed. But when I was talking about free speech, I meant generally. It's not just Trump that's being censored.
My view was that it's better to have more speech than not. With social media having the influence it's having, I'm not sure any more. Censorship isn't the answer, that's for sure.
Claudius wrote:
Est. Let’s keep it very simple when we talk about alternative facts. America held an election. Biden won it. This was decided by voters. It was confirmed by election officials overseen by Governors and Secretaries General from the Republican Party. There were recounts that confirmed the Biden victory. Despite this, Trump and his affiliates filed 60 lawsuits contesting election processes, vote counting, and the vote certification process in multiple states, including Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Many of the various state and Supreme Court justices who rejected these lawsuits were appointed by Trump. He lost all of 60 them.
Despite the above sequence of events, thousands of Trump supporters descended on the Capitol to take back their country because Trump, his sycophants, Fox, OAN, Breitbart and conservative radio had peddled the myth of a stolen election. And these are the consequences. This is what we mean by alternative facts. That mob perceives an altogether different reality because of the information they consume
Did the Democrats accept the 2016 elections? To me, as an outsider, it looks like a case of kettle and pot both being black.
The cases against Trump were investigated for years, while the cases about this election were seemingly quickly dismissed by the courts. I can understand why someone believing there had been foul-play involved can be frustrated. These are the same people that for the last few years have been labelled racist, white-supremacist etc. without meaningfully engaging in whatever they have to say.
Although there were thousands of people at the Capitol, you have to take into account that some 74m people voted for Trump. You will find people that resort to physical violence and intimidation when they don't get what they want in crowds much smaller than that. Now painting all 74m of his voters with the same brush as those at the Capitol will just increase the divide. You didn't want to do it with the 'mostly peaceful protests' not long ago, why is it OK now?
