Trump threatens Zuckerberg with life in prison

[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".

[Brian4Liberty]

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

Yeah, I am not familiar with the laws already passed by Congress regarding "election interference", but Zuckerberg exerting some editorial and content controls on his platform doesn't equate to election interference. Apply that to all of the "press". "Fair and balanced" is a joke all the way round.

Now, if Facebook was a fully govt funded contractor, would that make it a violation of the 1st Amendment? Obviously, the govt telling him what to censor behind closed doors is definitely a violation of the 1st.

The bigger problem here is govt abuse of any law. They can and do use a variety of laws for political and partisan punishment. They could accuse, indict, and probably successfully jail Zuckerberg for some tax violation if they wanted to.

[TheCount]

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

The censorship happens at the moment of threat, not the moment of jail.

[DamianTV]

$#@!erberg DESERVES LIFE IN PRISON.

You can NOT comply your way out of Tyranny.

He had a RESPONSIBILITY TO WARN PEOPLE of the Vaxtermination Shot, not act like a Presstitute and take money to only authorize LIES.

TRUTH IS TREASON IN THE EMPIRE OF LIES.

[Madison320]

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.

No he did not violate anyone's rights. Zuckerberg is not obligated to post your speech. The 1st amendment only applies to the use of government force against private individuals.

You want the government to force Zuckerberg to post stuff he doesn't want to post. That the opposite of the intention of the 1st amendment.

[Madison320]

Yeah, I am not familiar with the laws already passed by Congress regarding "election interference", but Zuckerberg exerting some editorial and content controls on his platform doesn't equate to election interference. Apply that to all of the "press". "Fair and balanced" is a joke all the way round.

I agree. My issue is there are two main groups. The people that see the media bias and want the govt to punish the media and the people that deny there's any media biased at all. I'm in the tiny minority that recognizes the media bias but doesn't want to use government force against them. At least I have good company, like Ron Paul for example.

Now, if Facebook was a fully govt funded contractor, would that make it a violation of the 1st Amendment? Obviously, the govt telling him what to censor behind closed doors is definitely a violation of the 1st.

Good question. I would say a fully funded govt contractor IS the government. So the question is "is it a crime for the government to have it's own version of Facebook"? I would say no, the only violation of rights I see is using taxpayer dollars but that's the case with all of govt.

The bigger problem here is govt abuse of any law. They can and do use a variety of laws for political and partisan punishment. They could accuse, indict, and probably successfully jail Zuckerberg for some tax violation if they wanted to.

Yeah, antitrust laws and discrimination laws are real useful for that also.

[Brian4Liberty]

...
Good question. I would say a fully funded govt contractor IS the government. So the question is "is it a crime for the government to have it's own version of Facebook"? I would say no, the only violation of rights I see is using taxpayer dollars but that's the case with all of govt.
...

Then the government could engage in censorship, which is a direct violation of the 1st Amendment. The government can not become "the press".

[acptulsa]

No he did not violate anyone's rights. Zuckerberg is not obligated to post your speech. The 1st amendment only applies to the use of government force against private individuals.

You want the government to force Zuckerberg to post stuff he doesn't want to post. That the opposite of the intention of the 1st amendment.

So said Mayorkas. Up for a second opinion?

[Madison320]

Then the government could engage in censorship, which is a direct violation of the 1st Amendment. The government can not become "the press".

Yeah, you're right, I think I got that one wrong. At first I was about to say that it would only be censorship if the government prevented other "facebooks" but if the govt only let registered democrats post content, yeah, that would be censorship. I tend to think of censorship when the govt directly bans something, but in that case you'd be stealing money from the taxpayers but only allowing certain ones to participate so I'd say that is censorship also, in a roundabout way.

[acptulsa]

I tend to think of censorship when the govt directly bans something, but in that case you'd be stealing money from the taxpayers but only allowing certain ones to participate so I'd say that is censorship also, in a roundabout way.

A lot of people do. But yes, having the CIA set up certain conversation sites not only gets "our dime" involved, but the way they're printing, what private enterprise stands a chance of competing?

We're breaking ourselves through devaluation to silence ourselves, and it's past time we figure out who's violating the First and how to punish them.

[Madison320]

A lot of people do. But yes, having the CIA set up certain conversation sites not only gets "our dime" involved, but the way they're printing, what private enterprise stands a chance of competing?

Yeah, I totally agree. That reminds me of the idiotic argument the left makes about having a public "option" for health insurance. They say "but I thought you were for competition?". It really pisses me off when they make that stupid argument. It's hardly fair competition when one "business" gets their income by stealing from everyone else including their competition.

[fisharmor]

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.

Who is punishing anyone? Did I express joy at the thought of him being in prison?
No. I verbally yawned at the prospect.
Zuck didn't take a principled stand against the national intelligence apparatus dragnetting his sites.
Zuck didn't have a problem with helping to install someone as president who obviously didn't get the necessary votes.
He didn't have a problem with silencing people who spoke up about it.
He didn't have a problem banning people who have well founded and impeccably reasoned problems with the lockdowns or the vax.
He helped facilitate the transfer of wealth from individual business owners to megacorps over the last 4 years.
He has actively lobbied congress to create rules that will crush his competition and keep him on top doing these things for the rest of his life.

I have trouble naming single people who have done more to damage liberty, my standard of living, and the American way of life in the last 10 years than Mark Zuckerberg.

And my response was not "oh great let's lynch him" - my response was, in two words, "$#@! him".
All I'm going to do in response is not carry any water for him. Not go out of my way to defend him.
Hell yes I don't like him - but my dislike isn't based on nothing, and if I'm going to go out of my way to defend people who may be getting the short end of the stick, it's going to be people who haven't made billions hoarding the long ends.

[Anti Globalist]

Trump shouldn't be threatening people with jail time he damn well knows will never see the inside of a cell.

[Madison320]

Who is punishing anyone? Did I express joy at the thought of him being in prison?
No. I verbally yawned at the prospect.
Zuck didn't take a principled stand against the national intelligence apparatus dragnetting his sites.
Zuck didn't have a problem with helping to install someone as president who obviously didn't get the necessary votes.
He didn't have a problem with silencing people who spoke up about it.
He didn't have a problem banning people who have well founded and impeccably reasoned problems with the lockdowns or the vax.
He helped facilitate the transfer of wealth from individual business owners to megacorps over the last 4 years.
He has actively lobbied congress to create rules that will crush his competition and keep him on top doing these things for the rest of his life.

I have trouble naming single people who have done more to damage liberty, my standard of living, and the American way of life in the last 10 years than Mark Zuckerberg.

And my response was not "oh great let's lynch him" - my response was, in two words, "$#@! him".
All I'm going to do in response is not carry any water for him. Not go out of my way to defend him.
Hell yes I don't like him - but my dislike isn't based on nothing, and if I'm going to go out of my way to defend people who may be getting the short end of the stick, it's going to be people who haven't made billions hoarding the long ends.

As long as you agree that it's wrong to prosecute Zuckerberg, that he didn't commit a crime in the libertarian sense, then it's irrelevant to me how you feel about him getting prosecuted.

I'm only concerned with the logical argument of what whether an action is an actual crime.

[CaptUSA]

that he didn't commit a crime in the libertarian sense

I understand what you're trying to say, but in a true libertarian sense, if you obey an unconstitutional demand from a government, and violate someone's freedom of speech without their knowledge based on that demand, for the purpose of helping that government undermine the informed will of the electorate, then you have, in fact, committed a crime.

Further, Zuck has received immunity as a result of being a host, rather than a publisher. At the very least, his immunity can be stripped which can allow his customers to seek recourse without the government's protection.

[fisharmor]

As long as you agree that it's wrong to prosecute Zuckerberg, that he didn't commit a crime in the libertarian sense, then it's irrelevant to me how you feel about him getting prosecuted.

I'm only concerned with the logical argument of what whether an action is an actual crime.

Fraud is a crime in a libertarian sense.

[Madison320]

I understand what you're trying to say, but in a true libertarian sense, if you obey an unconstitutional demand from a government, and violate someone's freedom of speech without their knowledge based on that demand, for the purpose of helping that government undermine the informed will of the electorate, then you have, in fact, committed a crime.

Further, Zuck has received immunity as a result of being a host, rather than a publisher. At the very least, his immunity can be stripped which can allow his customers to seek recourse without the government's protection.

So, more basically, if the government orders you to violate someone else's right, and you do it, you've committed a crime?

[Madison320]

Fraud is a crime in a libertarian sense.

Can you be a little more specific? How is Zuckerberg committing fraud?

Geez, I feel like I'm debating Kamala Harris.

[CaptUSA]

So, more basically, if the government orders you to violate someone else's right, and you do it, you've committed a crime?

Yes. Whether you've broken a law is another matter.

[Madison320]

Yes. Whether you've broken a law is another matter.

That would make almost everybody a criminal wouldn't it?

For example the govt makes businesses collect sales tax, are the business owners guilty of theft? I'm sure there's a million examples of that.

I still don't even see where the crime is with Zuckerberg. Would it be a crime if he decided, on his own, to only let democrats on his site?

[fisharmor]

Can you be a little more specific? How is Zuckerberg committing fraud?

Geez, I feel like I'm debating Kamala Harris.

Well I'm not walking through this and exhaustively documenting the stark difference between what Facebook claims to this very day to provide users and the well documented reality.
https://www.facebook.com/terms.php?p...cpDnh-spM&_rdr

Nothing in the first four bullet points of "The Services We Provide" is remotely close to the truth.
I'm sure everything thereafter about account controls and data harvesting is closer to being accurate. But this is a classic bait-and-switch.