[pydry]

>We could post stuff about previous commenter, based on literally nothing, doing bad stuff to little kiddies and they would be deleted by HN.

And nobody would believe it if it wasnt deleted. They'd just be irritated by it.

Nonetheless that's not political speech (unlike the YouTube vids) . It's basic libel.

Goebbels was in favor of free political speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of freedom of political speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise - whether that's Trump or whomever. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.

[chillwaves]

It's not "free speech" for the president to lie and accuse state governments of defrauding the country, without evidence.

This is beyond political speech. It is inherently dangerous.

[pydry]

He is absolutely exercising his first amendment rights to freedom of political speech by lying about what happened without evidence.

The first amendment isn't there to protect you from his lies though. It's to protect you so that you can speak the truth when he or somebody like him wants to stop you.

Be careful what you wish for. The same mechanisms that are used to shut him up will be used to silence you one day.

[sanp]

And Twitter is free to block him as it pleases

[pydry]

Provided they forgo legal common carrier protections they are, yes.

Once they do start censoring on that basis they become criminally liable for all content posted on the platform though.

If they're willing to take the same legal responsibility over all tweets that a publisher would over every page of its magazine id say let them. I'd like them to take legal responsiblity for the toxicity their platform generates.

[chillwaves]

He's speaking as the POTUS not a private citizen. He has duties to the office and to the constitution that supersede your claim to 1A.

What Trump is doing right now is treason against the country. You can call it free speech if you like.

And I have zero worries that any of Trump's legal jeopardy will ever effect myself because I am not a career criminal as he is.

[throwmehaweh]

> without evidence.

we're talking about an election that was won with razor thin margins in a few specific swing states, with numerous statistical anomalies, hundreds of sworn affidavits, and a pending lawsuit to the scotus with 17 states attached.

prior to 2020 election, the democrats, CNN, NBC, and many others are _on record_ saying that Dominion Voting has the potential for massive fraud & shouldn't be used.

the problem is that they're effectively saying no one can question these anomalies, or the claims, and that "youtube" as the expert has adjudicated the election.

the truth is that it could take years of investigation to resolve whether or not some of the alleged evidence was credible or not, and neither youtube nor the claimants can say it's truth until then.

why does big tech get to decide who's right? that's the problem here & why it reeks Orwell.