Lindsey Graham says Trump has constitutional right to spread lies

[AtlasHacked]

Senator Lindsey Graham, (R) South Carolina, publicly condemns the ban or suspension of Trump social media accounts and outlets. Graham is a long time defender of Trump, his intimate golfing partner and admirer.

Sen Graham apparently wants to restore Trump's ability to spread his lies and thereby winning his second term as President no matter what.

'The list so far' :

Apple (Parler app)
Discord (TheDonald.win)
Facebook (indefinitely)
Google (Parler app)
Instagram (subsidiary of Facebook)
PornHub (Trump inauguration video deleted)
Printerest (StoptheSteal)
Reddit (r/DonaldTrump)
Shopify (merchandise)
Snapchat (Discover platform)
Twitch (incendiary rhetoric)
Twitter (against platform rules)
YouTube (dangerous spread of misinformation)

Sources:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/lindsey-graham-twitters-trump-ban-ayatollah
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/every-social-media-platform-donald-trump-is-banned-from-using-so-far/ar-BB1cC52J
https://www.indiatimes.com/news/world/pornhub-airs-trump-s-inauguration-video-says-rich-white-man-fucks-the-entire-country-at-once-270514.html;

[samnsara]

1. pinterest doesnt even want trump!

[AC_Mem]

2. All privately owned

and absolutely NOTHING they can do about a privately owned company making its own rules. Isn't that what the GOP is all about? Free enterprise? I guess they are all for it unless it affects them, right?

Would they make this same argument if a Democrat had led this horrendous attack? Of course not - they would be enraged and prosecuting to the full extent of the law. But its always okay when its them, right?

I'm tired of having to exist with this parallel reality. We really have to continue to vote them out of office so that we can have an America to be proud of again.

[AtlasHacked]

3. I'm with you all the way

You could not have said it better: 'I'm tired of having to exist with this parallel reality.'

[pat_k]

8. Freedom of Speech is not Freedom of Reach

The "violating free speech" bullshit really angers me.

No one is silencing the speech, only limiting the avenues for spreading in an attempt to limit the damage it can do. (If you haven't seen it, check out the speech from Sasha Baron Cohen below)

To those concerned about the bans from certain social media platforms, publishers, or media outlets, I ask, would you have the NY Times forced to publish militant white supremacist or other loathsome speech because those people "have a right to be heard"? Obviously not. Does an outlet that has rules limiting content run the risk of being accused of being "unfair"? Sure. Outlets that limit content in ways that demonstrate what most would consider objectionable bias will get to be known for what they are. (Like Fox is known for what it is.) Calling rules governing unacceptable content "a violation of rights" is completely and utterly absurd.

Sure, within limits ("advocacy of the use of force" is unprotected when it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" ) everyone has a right to speak their minds, but no organization has an obligation to give them a megaphone. Simon and Shuster can't be forced to publish Hawley's claptrap any more than Regnery could be forced to publish a book by Bernie Sanders.

Any militant white supremacist or crazy conspiracy theorist can get a megaphone and shout their shit from a soapbox in the public square. Or raise funds to set up an internet host willing to host "anything goes" social media platforms.

Conservative social media sites are welcome to ban liberal voices as far as I'm concerned. The people occupying them have their minds closed anyway. Might as well make it explicit with rules that basically amount to "see no evil (social justice ideas), hear no evil (social justice ideas), speak no evil (social justice ideas)"

I am perfectly happy with outlets making their values clear in their rules. I am proud to participate in platforms that utterly reject right-wingnut insanity and hate speech. And if right-wingnut outlets want to make their rejection of sanity clear in their rules, fine. It would be up to us to find other avenues to try to reach those people (if we think we have a message that could possibly get through).

[AC_Mem]

9. Exactly!

He is entitled to say whatever the heck he wants to say. He can scream it from the top of a mountain. But he can't scream it from a privately owned company website.

My prediction is that we will soon hear of something like T_umpTV or T_umpMedia - someone will be dumb enough to bankroll him and he will probably set it up similar to GlennB_ck, a subscription pay for view of crazy. I hope smart people have bought up all the possible domain names that he might want to use.

As long as they are out of my orbit and not causing problems for my country, they can find themselves a little website/island and shout their crazy conspiracy theories at each other until the cows come home.

11 Days to Normal!!! My God I'm so excited!

[NoRoadUntravelled]

4. It's embarrassing to see anyone humiliate themselves in this way. So degrading to his humanity. nt

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

5. Pornhub?

Really? They've been cracking down on what content they will publish (or so I've heard). Trump's stuff must have been pretty vile to get blocked by their filters.

A teacher discovers one of her students is using pornstar Riley Reid as a reference:

[Deuxcents]

6. Can someone

Direct me to the part where his assertion is true?

[rurallib]

7. hTrump can get. printing press and post his shit on the bulletin board at the

Laundromat

[Faux pas]

10. Thank you

for sharing this AtlasHacked! Don't forget, leningrad lindsey is also known as the hump's fluffer

[Blue Owl]

11. Hey Lindsey...

[mdbl]

12. He needs to worry about his problems at the airports

and not the avenues for disinformation