German Chancellor Angela Merkel has criticized Twitter for banning President Trump,

[yaesu]

saying that social media networks shouldn’t have the power to decide who is allowed to exercise free speech.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-11/merkel-sees-closing-trump-s-social-media-accounts-problematic?cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_content=business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic



Hey Angela, tRump has broken TOS a million times so like anyone that does that should get the boot

[WhiskeyGrinder]

1. It's not a free speech issue, the end.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

32. Exactly

This is one of the first missteps I've heard from her. Businesses don't owe anybody a platform if they're not using it appropriately or safely.

[soothsayer]

2. He has plenty of avenues to speak

[Tanuki]

10. No kidding! He can hold a press conference any time he wants and it will

be covered in all the media. If he doesn't feel like showing up in person, he commands an entire press and communications staff, paid for by us taxpayers, who can deliver his message.

[soothsayer]

16. Zactly

[Skittles]

3. I thought she was smarter than that

ya know?

[soothsayer]

20. You'd think her hitler-dar would be a little more attuned

[CurtEastPoint]

4. She must be hoping for a Drumpf shoulder rub.

[DonaldsRump]

5. Angela: Love you lots!

But this is ridiculous: free speech (in the US context) relates to governmental restrictions on speech, not those imposed by non-governmental/private actors like Twitter.

Twitter can do what it wants.

[onecaliberal]

7. Inciting Insurrection is NOT free speech. PERIOD!

[Crunchy Frog]

8. He's not acting as president, and he is fomenting violent insurrection.

This is NOT a free speech issue.

Angela would do well to recall her own country's history.

[C_U_L8R]

9. It's not about speech

It's about planning, organizing, deploying and executing terrorism. That's what these technologies are being used for.

[leftstreet]

11. Wasn't it on Congress to dump Trump, not Twitter?

Congress had the responsibility to remove him

[njhoneybadger]

12. Really, stay in your own freaking lane Chancellor.

[EarthFirst]

13. She's welcomed to take those 74 million + 1 off our hands if she'd like...

Then she can mince words over free speech when it’s her debacle to reign in...

[GeorgeGist]

14. Hitler.

[Make7]

22. They let him write a book and look what happened. ( n/t )

[SamKnause]

15. Seriously, I don't think you have the facts.

[octoberlib]

17. She needs to min her own business. If Hitler was alive and tweeting, I'm sure her

opinion would be different.

[BumRushDaShow]

18. Unless...

someone starts invoking "Hitler" and "Nazis" there and then...

She should know better. The U.S. government isn't censoring the speech. The "President Trump@potus" and "The White House@WhiteHouse" accounts are both still up.

"Free market capitalism" has decided that seditionist rants on their platform weren't good for their "bottom line" and it took 4 years for them to finally get around to doing it.

[Ritabert]

19. It's a private platform

Consider that Twitter is a "Christian" bakery and Trump is a wedding cake for a gay marriage.

[Progressive dog]

21. This from the leader of a country that has bans on some speech

Tromp's supporters were wearing Auschwitz shirts, nazi emblems, and shirts with 6MWME which would are banned in Germany.

§ 261 The person who publicly declares sympathies with such a movement mentioned in § 260, will be punished by prison from 6 months to 3 years.

Austria, Germany, Hungary and Romania also ban other elements associated with Nazism, such as the display of Nazi symbols.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Holocaust_denial

[Doodley]

25. Her point is governments, not corporations should make these decisions. She's not saying Trump

should be allowed to incite hatred and violence.

[Progressive dog]

27. I don't agree with her.

I'm glad that Trump was banned by corporations because our government won't. The result is more tepid when corporations do it because they can only ban from places they control. So Merkel is saying Trump should continue to be allowed to incite hate and violence wherever he wants to.

[BusyBeingBest]

23. It's a business. It sets rules for use.

It cannot expose itself to liability when it's misused by account-holders, or it won't last long as a business. It is not speech. Trump can talk all day, every day, to everyone or no one, with any willing organization or person to broadcast or record it. Maybe Merkel doesn't understand that no business in America is REQUIRED to broadcast or disseminate his comments. Germany must operate differently.

[Doodley]

24. To be fair, she's saying lawmakers need to set the parameters, not tech companies, and possibly one

private individual that runs a social media company. I don't disagree. Our lawmakers need to accept responsibility first and not simply leave it for the heads of social media corporations.

[BusyBeingBest]

26. I do disagree. It's not up to lawmakers to tell Parler, Twitter, Facebook etc. who they have

to allow to use their platforms, and under which circumstances. For their own survival, they HAVE to monitor--and silence--troublemakers who use them to run afoul with the law. If your letters to the editor of your local fish wrap keep getting rejected, are they silencing you? Or have they made the decision they don't like what you're saying, and have the right not to run it?

[Doodley]

28. We are in this mess because of these platforms. The coup attempt would not have happened without

Twitter. Do you want the next Trump to keep posting conspiracy theories, hate-filled lies about opponents and incite more terror? If so, why trust the social media companies? They are reacting now because they know they played a role. It's too late. Lawmakers need to act to prevent this from happening again.

[BusyBeingBest]

29. You can't regulate the internets because you don't like the message

people are receiving. It can only be regulated as to what is legal and illegal in the United States. Examples of possible illegality: death threats. Exhortations to violence. Fraud. Conspiracy to commit crimes. Various kinds of pornography or other indecent material. Other than that, businesses who have platforms and blogs and servers etc. can police their own users and set their own terms for use, and I think that's the proper way to go about it.

[hauweg]

30. Most Germans don't agree with her

81 percent of Germans agree with Twitter's decision according to a poll. She's not representing the majority in this case.

[DFW]

31. Granted, Facebook and Twitter are private companies

They are thus subject to equal treatment laws, BUT, just like a restaurant has the „right to refuse service,“ FB and Twitter have the right, and a moral if not legal duty not to run afoul of incitement laws.

Besides, since by Germany has clear and strict laws restricting (Nazi) speech, she, of all people, should understand others trying to protect themselves against the same thing.

[moondust]

35. Yes she should.

They even passed a "Facebook Act" in 2017. I don't know what's in it but given their history assumed it was done partly to prevent the spread of dangerous propaganda.

[Generic Other]

33. They don't even allow you to post Nazi crap in Germany

How is Trump any different?

[Maine-i-acs]

34. And people who drive drunk have a right to drive some more.

And people who kill people with guns have a right to own more guns.
And people who kick dogs should be allowed to own more dogs, etc

Nobody took away his free speech mein frau, he still has vocal cords.

[Solly Mack]

36. He's the so-called "leader of the free world". His free speech rights have not been eroded.

He has a massive platform available to him as a president. He simply prefers to talk shit while he shits.