Remember he's not acting in the best interest of America. Create as much discord and division as possible.
The pact is very vaguely worded, has the potential to be widely abused by abusive governments, and calls for states to pass laws on speech online which have a pretty bad track record of success. And the White House is ultimately correct that they would not pass the US constitution. Trump is a shitshow, but ultimately it is difficult to see how any American government could have signed the pact as is, ever.
The pact is very vaguely worded, has the potential to be widely abused by abusive governments, and calls for states to pass laws on speech online which have a pretty bad track record of success. And the White House is ultimately correct that they would not pass the US constitution.
Trump is a shitshow, but ultimately it is difficult to see how any American government could have signed the pact as is, ever.
The pact is very vaguely worded, has the potential to be widely abused by abusive governments, and calls for states to pass laws on speech online which have a pretty bad track record of success. And the White House is ultimately correct that they would not pass the US constitution.
Trump is a shitshow, but ultimately it is difficult to see how any American government could have signed the pact as is, ever.
It doesn't recommend anything beyond being support of voluntary industry(social media) standards and the government offering information on how to spot propaganda by extremists as well as sharing info about credible threats to other governments.
Did you get this info from Fox News?
Newsflash, they're nothing but propaganda and lies. Just an FYI.
Lol not vaguely worded.
It literally says governments will "consider regulatory or policy measures".
So non-vague you've missed critical points of it's text?
It literally says governments will "consider regulatory or policy measures".
I am certainly no Constitutional scholar, but I'm looking at my Penguin Guide to the United States Constitution here. Under the section for the 1st Amendment, it is noted that in a Supreme Court opinion in Schenck v United States (1919), Oliver Wendell Holmes contended that the guarantees of free speech do not extend to the right to shout "Fire in a theater" and causing a panic.
...It's 100 years later, and think the same opinion should apply to extremism/hate speech. Except in this case, the shouting is about the threat of Muslims, minorities, etc., where there is none.
These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. . . . A statute which fails to draw this distinction impermissibly intrudes upon the freedoms guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. It sweeps within its condemnation speech which our Constitution has immunized from governmental control.
advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action
Does consider mean implement? Has the definition changed without me knowing?Lol not vaguely worded.
It literally says governments will "consider regulatory or policy measures".
So non-vague you've missed critical points of it's text?
That court case was overturned decades ago.I am certainly no Constitutional scholar, but I'm looking at my Penguin Guide to the United States Constitution here. Under the section for the 1st Amendment, it is noted that in a Supreme Court opinion in Schenck v United States (1919), Oliver Wendell Holmes contended that the guarantees of free speech do not extend to the right to shout "Fire in a theater" and causing a panic.
...It's 100 years later, and think the same opinion should apply to extremism/hate speech. Except in this case, the shouting is about the threat of Muslims, minorities, etc., where there is none.
Oh dear lord. Holmes was staunchly anti First Amendment in Schenck and upheld the conviction of someone who used speech to protest conscription and US involvement in WWI
Please use Brandenburg v. Ohio in the future. It's just more constitutionally responsible.
This is the important bit to remember:
And fuck Trump to high hell for not supporting this because he knows his base is made up of these scumbags.
Lol not vaguely worded.
It literally says governments will "consider regulatory or policy measures".
So non-vague you've missed critical points of it's text?
Lol not vaguely worded.
It literally says governments will "consider regulatory or policy measures".
So non-vague you've missed critical points of it's text?
Not American. Heck, Fox News is banned in the UK.
I read the actual text. I think it's bad.
They're not gaffes.
It's kind of depressing that millions of Americans are realizing the relevance of this, while at least 30 million never will.
Trump about to unveil a new American flag with rats anus' replacing stars.