21 ms·

> Calling thousands of supporters to go to the capitol and telling them "you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you hav

> Calling thousands of supporters to go to the capitol and telling them "you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong." is a very precise call to violence. "Kill them", "Attack them", "Burn down that building" is a very precise call to violence. "You have to be strong" is not. "You have to show strength" is not. #KillAllMen on the other hand is a very precise call to violence, and yet nobody cares about banning that on social media.

Voloskaya 6y ago
> "You have to be strong" is not. "You have to show strength" is not. It is, in the context of the events from the past few weeks. Some of his supporters had been saying for weeks now that they were "standing by" and ready to do "what had to be done" when Trump would call to them. His speech yesterday was predicably heard as the call. I don't believe for 1 second that he didn't intended for his words to be interpreted that way. And for the record, #KillAllWhatever should be banned as well in my book, I'm not defending it.
- al_chemist 6y ago
  > #KillAllWhatever should be banned as well in my book, I'm not defending it. Thank you. > It is, in the context of the events from the past few weeks If something is "very precise" in context, then it is not precise. If we have to interpret words, then we have multiple interpretations and everybody can have their own truth. You can't say something is "a very precise call to violence" because of some people may interpret it their way. His tweet (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1346912780700577792 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/13469127807005777...) is very precise. "I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence!"
  - arolihas 6y ago
    So the tweet that wasn’t taken down is the one that isn’t a call to violence. Good to know.
archagon 6y ago
> #KillAllMen on the other hand is a very precise call to violence, and yet nobody cares about banning that on social media. ...are you quite serious? Has a single person in the world taken this as an actual call to action?
- shard972 6y ago
  Yea, that axe wielding tranny in Australia who assaulted people at a service station
- arolihas 6y ago
  Either he’s serious and just deluded, or he’s acting in bad faith. In both cases you just shake your head and move on because no minds will be changed.
skulk 6y ago
It's a good thing our court system in the US doesn't play these games with semantics and instead tries to understand intent. You can use however many layers of coded language you want, but your intent still exists. This goes the other way too, with obviously satirical hashtags.
- NE2z2T9qi 6y ago
  Yeah, what could go wrong with courts analyzing for subtext and divining intent of free speech to see if secret crimes were being committed? I continue to be stunned by how utterly naive and blasé people are about freedom of expression.
  - skulk 6y ago
    > secret crime Sorry, I forgot 18 U.S. Code § 2383 hasn't been declassified yet. [/snark] It's not clear at all what your point is. Are you a freedom of speech absolutist? Do you not believe in due process?
    - NE2z2T9qi 6y ago
      My point is that I’m astounded by the non-stop hypocrisy of people who are desperate to censor speech... and the fact that they’re so nakedly biased means that we should not allow them to censor political speech. There were deadly riots over the summer with billions of dollars in damage. Numerous federal buildings were attacked while the media and politicians spurred them on or gave them cover as “peaceful protestors”. A church across from the White House was burned down and the only reason they didn’t invade the White House is almost certainly because the security was more competent, not because the rioters wouldn’t have done it. Today we had protestors and mild rioting (broken windows and doors, but no fires, no major damage) and the same media which called the summer riots “peaceful” somehow decided that people taking selfies in Nancy Pelosi’s office were “violent insurrectionists” and that Trump needed to be banned from communicating.
tshaddox 6y ago
I'm not familiar with #KillAllMen, but it sounds rhetorical, and even if it's not, it doesn't appear to meet the US standard of "imminent lawless action." Speech can only be limited if the speaker intends for it to incite violence, and that the violence is both imminent and likely. You can literally intend to incite violence at some unspecified future time and that speech is protected. You can also just tweet out incitement for violence at a specific time and it's probably protected if you're a random person with no following or influence that is likely to cause the violence to actually happen.

Voloskaya 6y ago

> "You have to be strong" is not. "You have to show strength" is not. It is, in the context of the events from the past few weeks. Some of his supporters had been saying for weeks now that they were "standing by" and ready to do "what had to be done" when Trump would call to them. His speech yesterday was predicably heard as the call. I don't believe for 1 second that he didn't intended for his words to be interpreted that way. And for the record, #KillAllWhatever should be banned as well in my book, I'm not defending it.

al_chemist 6y ago
> #KillAllWhatever should be banned as well in my book, I'm not defending it. Thank you. > It is, in the context of the events from the past few weeks If something is "very precise" in context, then it is not precise. If we have to interpret words, then we have multiple interpretations and everybody can have their own truth. You can't say something is "a very precise call to violence" because of some people may interpret it their way. His tweet (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1346912780700577792 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/13469127807005777...) is very precise. "I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence!"
- arolihas 6y ago
  So the tweet that wasn’t taken down is the one that isn’t a call to violence. Good to know.

archagon 6y ago

> #KillAllMen on the other hand is a very precise call to violence, and yet nobody cares about banning that on social media. ...are you quite serious? Has a single person in the world taken this as an actual call to action?

shard972 6y ago
Yea, that axe wielding tranny in Australia who assaulted people at a service station
arolihas 6y ago
Either he’s serious and just deluded, or he’s acting in bad faith. In both cases you just shake your head and move on because no minds will be changed.

skulk 6y ago

It's a good thing our court system in the US doesn't play these games with semantics and instead tries to understand intent. You can use however many layers of coded language you want, but your intent still exists. This goes the other way too, with obviously satirical hashtags.

NE2z2T9qi 6y ago
Yeah, what could go wrong with courts analyzing for subtext and divining intent of free speech to see if secret crimes were being committed? I continue to be stunned by how utterly naive and blasé people are about freedom of expression.
- skulk 6y ago
  > secret crime Sorry, I forgot 18 U.S. Code § 2383 hasn't been declassified yet. [/snark] It's not clear at all what your point is. Are you a freedom of speech absolutist? Do you not believe in due process?
  - NE2z2T9qi 6y ago
    My point is that I’m astounded by the non-stop hypocrisy of people who are desperate to censor speech... and the fact that they’re so nakedly biased means that we should not allow them to censor political speech. There were deadly riots over the summer with billions of dollars in damage. Numerous federal buildings were attacked while the media and politicians spurred them on or gave them cover as “peaceful protestors”. A church across from the White House was burned down and the only reason they didn’t invade the White House is almost certainly because the security was more competent, not because the rioters wouldn’t have done it. Today we had protestors and mild rioting (broken windows and doors, but no fires, no major damage) and the same media which called the summer riots “peaceful” somehow decided that people taking selfies in Nancy Pelosi’s office were “violent insurrectionists” and that Trump needed to be banned from communicating.

tshaddox 6y ago

I'm not familiar with #KillAllMen, but it sounds rhetorical, and even if it's not, it doesn't appear to meet the US standard of "imminent lawless action." Speech can only be limited if the speaker intends for it to incite violence, and that the violence is both imminent and likely. You can literally intend to incite violence at some unspecified future time and that speech is protected. You can also just tweet out incitement for violence at a specific time and it's probably protected if you're a random person with no following or influence that is likely to cause the violence to actually happen.