Student Opinion: Fascism Descends on DC with the Capitol in Chaos

Image from The Washington Post
By Julietta BisharyanJanuary 10, 2021108 comments
Image from The Washington Post

By Jacob Vito

Before this week, I was hoping that 2021 would at least be a little bit more “normal” than last year. I was hoping that the coming months would be a reprieve from one of the worst stretches of the 21st century.

It appears as if my hope was misplaced.

On Wednesday, a pro-Trump mob swarmed Washington DC, occupying several areas and breaking into the Capitol building. According to a New York Times Report, areas like the House of Representatives floor were broken into, and violent clashes ensued. 

Such an invasion of the U.S. Capitol was unprecedented, with Wednesday being the first instance of a Congressional evacuation of the building. Rioters stormed the building and occupied it for several hours, raiding the elected officials’ offices and breaking onto the Congressional floors.

Don’t be fooled: this was an act of domestic terrorism. Those who swarmed DC came with the express intent of disrupting the democratic process and allowing Trump to indefinitely remain as President. Those who constructed, orchestrated and encouraged this attack deserve punishment as harsh as the Oklahoma City bombers or the Tree of Life gunman.

Following the riot, both Democratic and Republican congresspeople have condemned the attack. According to NPR, representatives like Ilhan Omar have drafted articles of impeachment against Donald Trump for encouraging his supporters to come to DC and protest. 

But it is ultimately unhelpful to view this as a singular incident. Any Democrat or Republican in Congress is foolish to think that an act of far-right terror of this magnitude won’t happen again. 

A significant section of the American population is now primed for what can only be called fascism. It will undoubtedly react similarly to the next demagogue as they did this week if given the opportunity. A YouGov poll found that 45 percent of Republicans supported the attack on the Capitol building. Such beliefs are not uncommon and will not fade naturally. 

So, what can be done when a large section of the American population wants the destruction of any shred of American democracy? How can such a toxic and conspiratorial ideology be combatted? In truth, a fundamental change must happen because the American system is fatally incapable of dealing with this authoritarianism in its current state. 

After all, it’s not the first time these tactics have been used. Trump stole many of his slogans directly from Nixon’s campaigns, using a similar form of “Law and Order” messaging to galvanize and radicalize his followers. His courting of a myriad of far-right groups mirrors the strategy of Ronald Reagan’s coalition. America has been toying with these ideas for a while, and though they coalesced more than ever in Trump, they didn’t just appear. 

So, after years of disinformation and priming, millions of Americans have been taught to idolize an imagined version of the country and attack anyone attempting to better it. They are now fully susceptible to fascist rhetoric––therefore, we must stop such rhetoric in its tracks. 

Fascism is unique in its ability to leech off democratic systems. It acts like a parasite, using the expectation many have of healthy debate and egalitarianism towards its own selfish ends. Because of this, you cannot treat such an authoritarian and deceitful ideology democratically. 

There’s a concept called the paradox of intolerance. Originally attributed to Plato and explained by Karl Popper, it is the idea that absolute tolerance will lead to a domination of the intolerant. In short, allowing Trump’s toxicity to receive equal attention lets it overpower other information. Outright dangerous beliefs must be countered to maintain civility, and there are no beliefs more immediately dangerous to the United States than those of the far right.

Any tolerant society must be intolerant of fascism. Laws must be passed to restrict its spread, norms must be established that discourage its hateful beliefs and avenues must be set up for those enthralled in its language to escape from it. The only lasting solution to stopping such a toxic and destructive movement is to dismantle it completely. 

An act of terror, such as this, can happen again, but it does not need to. If the conspiracies and hate that fueled this attack are cut off, the continuation of fascism in America can be averted. This may have been the first assault on the Capital of its kind, but, with effort, it can also be the last one.

Jacob Vito is a first-year Community and Regional Development major at UC Davis. He is from western Pennsylvania.

Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:

Author

Categories:

Breaking News Opinion Vanguard at UC Davis

Tags:

108 comments

  1. Jacob

    Thank you for the article. I would like to add two more historic points of relevance to your citing of Nixon and Reagan. They go a bit further back but are highly relevant.

    First, the witch hunts of Senator Joe McCarthy in which he labeled anyone either further to the left of himself and/or disloyal to him as a Communist. Viciously destroying careers and lives of not only those ideologically inclined towards communism but anyone favoring any social policy. If does not take much imagination to see the similarity to today’s attacks on Democrats, both centrist and left-leaning.

    Second, our rich history of support for fascists as represented by Charles Lindberg who strongly and openly supported overt racism and ideologic alliance with Hitler and his fascists. This long-standing thread of American thought was never expunged, only driven underground post World War II now to make its emergence openly under the guise of Trumpism.

     

    1. Who makes the determination on what views are acceptable and which aren’t?

      Deflection. I’m not down with violent overthrow of the government. Are you?

        1. Supporting Trump since 2016 has been about eventually overthrowing our open democratic system in a manner that guarantees the continued reign of the Trump family. Supporting the National Socialist Party in Germany in 1933 had the same effect. You and other may not have intended that type of support, but it has the same effect, just as standing aside while one man beats another enables that attack if you fail to step in and stop it. Not opposing bigotry or other heinous behavior because it facilitates your other goals is the same as endorsing that behavior and activities. You and Heinicke cannot wash your hands of this endorsement (just at Pilate is rightfully held to his decision on Jesus).

          And understand–free speech does NOT mean free of consequences. If others disagree with one’s speech, they have every right to act in a manner that might discourage further speech of that type. Social action is a way that we moderate and civilize our conversations. Those who want to live consequence free are the same as those who believe they have an undisputed right to be irresponsible in our society. That’s not how our society got to where it is. Community responsibility is key to our rise and continued success.

        3. Supporting Trump since 2016 has been about eventually overthrowing our open democratic system in a manner that guarantees the continued reign of the Trump family. 

           If others disagree with one’s speech, they have every right to act in a manner that might discourage further speech of that type. 

          I find a certain irony, in that these two comments were made by the same commenter.

           

      1. I believe it goes beyond that (e.g., attempts to fire someone based upon their views, etc.). I was just reading an article which mentioned this.

        Remember Mr. Pickles?

        At the moment, what do you think might happen to (say) a car with a Trump bumper sticker on it, parked in San Francisco? Or, even someone walking around in a MAGA hat, there?

        1. “(e.g., attempts to fire someone based upon their views, etc.)”

          I hear The Loyal Order of Buffaloes has stripped Jake Angeli (the guy in the Chewbacca bikini) of his membership and his hat.

           

        2. At the moment, what do you think might happen to (say) a car with a Trump bumper sticker on it

          At the moment what do think of a guy who placed Trump stickers on the cars of others, univited, or the guy (not sure it was same guy), who apparently lives on L Street, parades his big truck on L Street, with big Trump flaying from the bed of his truck, @ ~10 mph on L, impeding traffic, and when the guy immediately behind ‘tooted’ his horn one time, then slowed to 5 mph… then when the following guy signaled and legallly passed, was cursed out by the Trump supporter, given ‘the bird’, then he tailgated that guy for a 1/4 mile, leaning on his horn all the way?  Just curious… rational, 1st amendment?  Deranged?  just curious…

          And, yes, this happened, mid October… I don’t own a truck…

           

        4. See my comment about how free speech does not mean free of consequences. If you speak in a despicable manner, expect social and financial consequences. Rights are not boundless; they also come with responsibilities, including supporting the most basic morals and ethics of our society.

        5. So, I take it that you support management’s decision to shut-down Mr. Pickles.  (I do not, and found it cowardly.)

          Nor do I support the way that Colin Kaepernick was treated, though it’s less-clear to me what happened in that case.

          What about the other example I listed?

    3. Keith,

      Are you truly unable to see the difference between individuals verbally castigating other individuals for differing beliefs, and a terrorist attack on a Capitol in which the terrorists are threatening the lives of the VP and lawmakers? Have you so invested in right-wing delusion that these acts seem similar to you?

       

       

        2. Keith O

          You have continually raised the issue of moral equivalency in these comments by bringing up counterexamples from BLM protests, or in this case, the inability of the WFT QB to understand how his support of Trumpism enables the mob that stormed the Capitol. That you can’t recognize the implications of these statements is troubling to the rest of us.

        3. That you can’t recognize the implications of these statements is troubling to the rest of us.

          Yes, Keith – Richard speaks for everyone on here.  🙂

          I am deeply, deeply troubled by what you said, to the point where I’m not sure if I’ll ever get over it. (Whatever “it” was.)

          I’d suggest running your comments past the self-appointed Vanguard pc committee, before posting in the future.

        4. That you can’t recognize the implications of these statements is troubling to the rest of us.

          Oh I’m so sorry Richard that it’s so troubling to you.  I really don’t give a s…

  3. “Any tolerant society must be intolerant of fascism. Laws must be passed to restrict its spread, norms must be established that discourage its hateful beliefs and avenues must be set up for those enthralled in its language to escape from it. The only lasting solution to stopping such a toxic and destructive movement is to dismantle it completely.”

    It took a much longer and disabling event for Germany to realize and accept this.

    First, Trumpists must admit that they were wrong to follow a megalomaniac and wrong to continue to promote the big lies. They show little will or capacity to understand and accept this.

      2. Ron

        I am fine with shunning and shaming. I am fine with boycotts and the removal of advertisements. I am fine with social media companies strictly enforcing their terms of usage. I am fine with them losing jobs and not being hired because companies do not want to be associated with them. I am fine with impeachment and voting them all out of power.

        There are nonviolent means of dealing with those who choose violence to enforce their will on others.

        1. I agree with Tia. Protecting free speech does not mean protecting those from the consequences of their speech. Responding adversely to someone’s speech is a form of free speech also.

        2. Protecting free speech does notmean protecting those from theconsequencesof their speech.  Responding adversely to someone’s speech is a form of free speech also.

          So if a group of conservatives have a problem with a Democrat congressman’s free speech you won’t have a problem if they decide to protest at that congressman’s house with bullhorns and such?

           

  4. One could say that calling people N azis for saying something they don’t like is hate speech”. One could also claim that all the anti-white propaganda coming from B L M is “hate speech”. One could say antifa groups burning the flag it “hate speech” against half the country. Its a very slippery slope. Censorship is the tool for those whos ideas can’t withstand opposition in an open forum. Its a tool of cowards and tyrants. If you are praising censorship on either side, you are the same.

     

    Either way any speech falls under “free speech” as a whole and is protected under the constitution. For those who love censorship so much, please take part in some sort of foreign exchange program with those in Honk Kong that know the end results.

     

    3. Chris Griffith:

      One could say [fill in the blank] is hate speech.

      One could also say a toddler’s saying “I hate you mommy” is hate speech. One could say those things Mr. Griffith lists are hate speech, but one would be wrong under any existing legal standard for what constitutes hate speech.

    4. “One can say anything…”

      But some things that are said are factually true and some are lies. A truth would be calling a swastika carrying member of the Nazi Party a fascist. Is it hate speech to make a factual statement?  Is it not factually true that lynching has been historically a weapon used by whites against blacks in this country? Since when is pointing out factual truths “hate speech”?

    5. The limit of “hate speech” is when someone attacks a group of individuals based on their birth characteristics such as race, ethnic heritage or sexual orientation. These are immutable facts about those individuals and criticism on this basis is intolerable. This is particularly a problem when the class being attacked is in a disadvantaged position in our society. Much of the criticism from right wing extremists appears to be on this basis.

      On the other hand, almost all left wing extremism critiques classes for what they’ve done such as accruing excessive wealth, and things that can be be changed.

    6. Chris G

      Please provide a direct example of BLM or a person directly associated with the organization stating anti-white propaganda which is defined as calling for killing or imprisoning whites specifically or taking their property specifically. Otherwise, your claim is completely wild speculation and empty.

      As for burning a flag, that is a statement about dissatisfaction with the government, which is legitimate speech. That a part of the country has a problem with burning a flag is their problem of becoming overly associated with a symbol that belongs not just to them, but to everyone. Plus burning a flag clearly has no real consequences to anyone else of any kind.

      Censorship of spreading known falsehoods that inspire dangerous emotional and irrational responses is important. The Supreme Court decided a century ago that free speech that endangers others–“yelling fire in a crowded theater”–can be censored by the government. And commercial speech also can be regulated if it spreads falsehoods.

      Further, it would be government censorship if we required private entities and publications to carry opinions that they disagree with unless those entities are using public property for private gain, e.g., broadcast TV and radio use of public airwaves. In many cases, one person’s free speech will impinge on someone else’s free speech. Being a reactionary doesn’t mean that your free speech trumps my free speech, or the free speech of Twitter.

    7. I’ll also point out the irony of the hypocrisy when those on the right call middle of the road Democrats “socialists”, “communists” and “Marxists” when they are not even remotely close to those positions in economic management. Before expressing your outrage, look at those around you who are doing exactly what you criticize and are much farther off base.

      1. Richard: “Please provide a direct example of BLM or a person directly associated with the organization stating anti-white propaganda which is defined as calling for killing or imprisoning whites specifically or taking their property specifically.”

        How about this –

        BLM protesters demand white people ‘give up their homes’

        https://www.thechronicle.com.au/news/blm-protesters-demand-white-people-give-up-their-homes/news-story/857efdf252d4fcbdcd04bdddd322487e

        2. Really?  That’s the point you want to make?

          I recalled the incident, searched for it – and that’s the one I selected (the second in the search results, I think).  Feel free to select your own.

          Regardless, it includes a video, which usually speaks for itself.  (Feel free to interpret that however you’d like, as well.)

          The reason that I even recalled it is due to Richard’s challenge to Chris.

           

           

        5. Based on the video (YouTube) that you cited, no one person threatened or demanded the homes… except the anonymous ‘captioner’… to maintain otherwise, is to say an untruth… the context is frustration with ‘gentrification’, from the words actually spoken…

          Did a Black Lives Matter Activist ‘Demand’ That White People Give Up Their Homes? (snopes.com)

          I trust Snopes more than the “O-boys”, and their cites to date… [Anonymous YouTube, and an Australian Tabloid]

          1. There were a few right wing sites that picked it up, but not even the local papers or news stations did. Telling.

        6. Bill:  You probably paid more attention to this than I care to, but do you consider the guy you’re referring to as part of the “protest”?

          David:  There appears to be quite a few news organizations which picked up on the story.  (If some did not – based upon the actual statements as cited, do you think that says more about the news organizations, themselves?)

           

        7. Such as their own bias?

          Here’s some more selected quotes from the article I posted (which also has a reference to the NY Post, at the top of the article):

          Another woman in the crowd then urges the residents to “open their wallet” as the man continues to yell at the unidentified residents off-camera.

          A woman with a megaphone then urges the residents to “give up” their house, the footage shows.

          “Give black people back their homes!” she yells. “You’re sitting there comfortably — comfortable as f — k as if they didn’t help gentrify this neighbourhood! I used to live in this neighbourhood, and my family was pushed out, and you’re sitting up there having a good time with your other white friends!”

          A second clip purportedly shows BLM demonstrators and Antifa members calling for white people to “get the f – k out” as others in the crowd call for reparations.

          Yet another clip apparently shot in the aftermath of the protest also shows demonstrators threatening a business owner who allegedly called cops to report that a window had been shattered at his business.

          “You’re being racist, you’re being racist,” a protester tells the unidentified white business owner. “Check your privilege, check your privilege.”

          So, either this stuff happened, or it didn’t.  I didn’t write it.

          Assuming that it did, maybe you think this is “just fine”.

          But next time, maybe at least reference what’s in the article before you spout-off (regarding source, etc.)?

          1. The New York Post is a tabloid owned by Murdock, there is a reason why there are questions about the authenticity of this stuff.

        8. What part of the quotes (vs. what’s in the video) do you think are inaccurate?

          Does Murdock also own the Washington Times?

          Are conservative sources automatically presumed to be inaccurate? And/or, do you think they might be reporting news that is not welcome elsewhere?

          https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/aug/13/black-lives-matter-crowd-demands-seattle-homeowner/

          Just noticed this quote, from the article above:

          Another clip from the event circulating on Twitter features a man saying, “We’re coming for it. Reparation time.”

          1. Washington Times is also a right wing publication. Do you not understand this? Bill posted the problem with the artibutions. Not sure why you keep arguing this stuff.

        9. Bill posted an article which had nothing to do with this incident, and which seemed to have its own bias.

          I sometimes ask myself the same question – why bother posting, when some continuously resist discussing events which don’t fit what they’re trying to promote?  (Maybe that’s the reason, actually.)

          Again, do you assume right-leaning news organizations automatically “lie” about what occurred?  What part of their description is inaccurate?

          Seems that you and Bill are more interested in discussing “sources”, vs. what actually occurred. Is that a political tactic that you think is effective?

          I recall learning about this incident from another comment on this blog, sometime back. Were it not for that, I probably never would have known about it.

        10. Washington Times is also a right wing publication. Do you not understand this? Bill posted the problem with the artibutions. Not sure why you keep arguing this stuff.

          How many times have we been through this.  If you’re going to cast off every right leaning publication you need to do the same thing with your left leaning publications that you often cite like the NY Times and Washington Post for example.  Biased news is just as much about what doesn’t get reported as what does.  Left leaning publications won’t report on stories that don’t fit their agenda like the incident being discussed here.

          1. The Washington Times is not “leaning” right. They are far right and more importantly, they have a wholly different standard for journalism.

          1. That’s silly. The Washington Times was created as an ideological paper.

            “The Washington Times is like no major city daily in America in the way that it wears its political heart on its sleeve,” said the nation’s leading journalistic watchdog, the Columbia Journalism Review. “No major paper in America would dare be so partisan.”

            They don’t use the same journalistic standards as other papers. There’s a reason why you and other conservatives read it and not other papers. When I worked in DC over 20 years ago, one of my jobs was to read through right wing publications and find their errors, Washington Times was one of the publications on my list.

        13. Washington Times – Media Bias Fact Check

          Not a lot different than Keith’s, but explains more of how the rating was determined…

          Fits with my limited experience while in DC area for about a week… and the household we were staying has both the Times (dad), and the Post (son).  Except on-line, the publication area of the Times is DC and some limited areas in No VA and Maryland…

          Also,

          https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-post/#:~:text=Funded%20by%20%2F%20Ownership.%20The%20New%20York%20Post,is%20funded%20through%20advertising%2C%20subscriptions%20and%20newsstand%20sales.

          1. “We also rate them Questionable and factually mixed due to poor sourcing, holding editorial positions that are contrary to scientific consensus, and numerous failed fact checks.”

  5. Any tolerant society must be intolerant of fascism. Laws must be passed to restrict its spread, norms must be established that discourage its hateful beliefs and avenues must be set up for those enthralled in its language to escape from it.

    I share some of Keith’s concern here. Fascism isn’t tied to any ideology. It’s a means of seeking and maintaining power. On the other hand, presently, the greatest fascist threat is from the right.

    I’m curious as to what laws would be proposed to restrict the spread the spread of fascism? What would  the First Amendment implications be, for example?

    1. Fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.

      A commonly agreed to definition from Wikipedia.

      1. With all due respect to Wikipedia, fascism doesn’t fit neatly onto a right-left spectrum.

        From Merriam-Webster:

        Definition of fascism

        1: often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorialleader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

        2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

    2. I absolutely love this when EG and KO and the ACLU are all agreeing on censorship.  I almost gave in to my 100% stance on this, and briefly wavered until I heard Glenn Greenwald speak on the matter on Rising with Ball & Sagaar:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMVS9tfNyjc

      I agree with Ball that during an call for an insurgency, that may be a rare exception — however, Greenwald’s point is also valid that you have to consider how the ‘solution’ could be more harmful than the censorship.

  6. “ACLU Counsel Warns of ‘Unchecked Power’ of Twitter, Facebook After Trump Suspension”

    “I want a wide range of ideas, even those I loathe, to be heard, and I think Twitter especially holds a concerning degree of power over public discourse,” Gregory P. Magarian, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis told TheNew York Times.

    https://www.newsweek.com/aclu-counsel-warns-unchecked-power-twitter-facebook-after-trump-suspension-1560248

    1. While I generally support the ACLU, sometimes they go too far. They too often fail to acknowledge that “shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater” is NOT protected speech. We have not only rights, but also responsibilities. Much too often in our country today we ignore our responsibilities to others in this nation–I see acknowledging that irresponsibility as being at the core of our current discord.

  7. “I’m curious as to what laws would be proposed to restrict the spread the spread of fascism?”

    Germany places strict limits on speech and expression when it comes to right-wing extremism. It is illegal to produce, distribute or display symbols of the Nazi era — swastikas, the Hitler salute, along with many symbols that neo-Nazis have developed as proxies to get around the initial law. Holocaust denial is also illegal.

    There is the legal concept of “Volksverhetzung,” the incitement to hatred: Anybody who denigrates an individual or a group based on their ethnicity or religion, or anybody who tries to rouse hatred or promotes violence against such a group or an individual, could face a sentence of up to five years in prison.

    The Constitutional Court, Germany’s highest court, can ban parties it deems intent on impairing or destroying the political order.

    America’s way of dealing with Nazism and its symbols always seemed to me the more mature way of handling threats to liberal democracy until formerly decent people began wink-wink nod-nod at Rush Limbaugh. The right-wing propaganda machine, Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham et al has proven too effective at inciting the mob. We must not allow their lies to be published unlabeled. We must be able to call out the lies and the liars and when those liars cause harm to someone they must be prosecuted for their “hate crime.”

    1. Germany places strict limits on speech and expression when it comes to right-wing extremism. It is illegal to produce, distribute or display symbols of the Nazi era — swastikas, the Hitler salute, along with many symbols that neo-Nazis have developed as proxies to get around the initial law. Holocaust denial is also illegal.

      I’ve heard that regarding Germany, as well.  But apparently, it hasn’t stamped-out such thought.

      Have they passed similar laws regarding the type of extremism found in the middle east, for example?  (Trying to find a politically-acceptable word for where that can be found.)

      And, can any of that be found in European countries? (I already know the answer to the second question.)

      It is strange that those of a particular political persuasion seem to ignore a much larger, more organized and ongoing threat.

      Holocaust denial is “illegal” – wow.

    2. Germany places strict limits on speech and expression when it comes to right-wing extremism. It is illegal to produce, distribute or display symbols of the Nazi era — swastikas, the Hitler salute, along with many symbols that neo-Nazis have developed as proxies to get around the initial law. Holocaust denial is also illegal.

      Germany’s laws scare the hell out of me.  I also would like to see the swastika restored to the beautiful symbol that it once was, instead of continuing to give that symbol’s power to the f*cking Nazis.

  8. The Constitutional Court, Germany’s highest court, can ban parties it deems intent on impairing or destroying the political order.

    That also seems pretty “wide-ranging”, as written.

  9. I think we should be more concerned about how much of the open Internet in the US is under control of a few big corporations like Facebook, Twitter and Amazon I know its fun to censure Trump but this section 230 BS could affect YOUR free speech.

    2. I agree that Section 230 should be significantly amended. For one thing, it would force those companies to take responsibility for facilitating the organization of violent events, which is much more prevalent among right wing extremists.

      I suggest watching “The Social Dilemma” and visiting its website at https://www.thesocialdilemma.com/ to see how these companies have become so powerful. But I do NOT think that they have been censoring unduly right wing entities except to prevent the spread of truly false information that is carried by the likes of QAnon.

    3. I do not consider what was done to Trump as censorship. He was advised about the terms of usage. He was given a brief timeout to consider whether or not to comply with those terms. He could have easily chosen to phrase his comments in a way that was compatible with the terms of usage and he chose not to.

      On a few occasions, the moderator has pulled comments of mine. With other comments, he has made an “off-topic” warning. It is then 100% on me whether or not to modify my comments to meet the published standards or not. I am not a victim in these cases just as Trump is not a victim now.

  10. But I do NOT think that they have been censoring unduly right wing entities except to prevent the spread of truly false information that is carried by the likes of QAnon.

    And this is the very reason why after Donald Trump leaves office he’s going to make this a supreme Court case and he’s going to win and it’s going to make him a billionaire all over again ? just think maybe might make enough money to buy a CNN news ?

    1. Chris G

      Go read the Constitution. The First Amendment applies ONLY to government entities. Private entities are allowed to censor information in any way they choose. Limitations apply to “commercial speech” needing to be true (false statements are not allowed) and inciting dangerous actions (“shouting fire in a crowded theater”). Trump will have NO basis for a challenge to censorship by Twitter, Facebook or anyone else because they are NOT government entities. He’d be laughed out of court (although I can see Giuliani trying this as he is apparently idiotic).

      I will point out the David has every right to ban you (or me) from the Vanguard posting as he owns a private site that is not subject to the First Amendment.

        1. No, time will not tell. This is a well settled legal issue. This is the type of delusional thinking that has perpetuated the falsehoods through the right wing community, such as the ability of the VP to throw out Electoral College votes. Please stop believing in the impossible.

  11. Think of it this way: your cellular phone plan is through a private corporation. Do you think it would be acceptable for them to start “bleeping” out words in your conversation and blocking/altering text messages you send based on their own political biases? The information is traveling through their privately owned system.

     

    Facebook and Twitter are in the same situation. You get to be an information publisher where you can curate what information you’re putting out there (and can present whatever bias you want), OR you can be a communications platform that allows unfettered exchange of information between entities outside of your organization, but you can’t be both.

    2. Chris

      I believe you are confusing what is “acceptable” with what is legal. If enough people dislike the terms of service of a communications provider, they will not utilize that service. That does not make the terms of service illegal or unconstitutional, but it may make them so onerous or undesirable that they are not sustainable as part of the companies business model.

  12. “Censorship” has become the great pivot of Trump supporters desperately trying to change the subject to anything other than the fact that the president of the United States incited a mob that attacked and occupied the Capitol building, killed a police officer, and attempted to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power.

     

  13. ACLU: “it should concern everyone when companies like Facebook and Twitter wield the unchecked power to remove people from platforms that have become indispensable for the speech of billions.”

    I would say I agree with them in general.  But I don’t know that there is a right to tell lies and incite violence.

  14. If law enforcement doesn’t already have back-end access to this data, they will soon. I imagine the information gets even more detailed and accurate once you aggregate data from all the tracking companies (Apple, Facebook, Google) together. Not to mention the NSA’s own databases.You could easily imagine a system being developed to track not just currently-happening riots, but the likelihood a riot will happen in the near future. Which area it’s likely to happen in. Who is likely to participate.Of course, charging people in open court with pre-crime probably won’t fly. And a predictive system like this is always going to be a game of probabilities, it might not have the “resolution” to predict individual actions. What you can do is systematically target groups of people for surveillance or manipulation. Not that we aren’t already doing that, but now it’s more effective. And who the data tells us to watch might end up being somebody different than they watch today.

  16. Keith

    “Tia, here we go again.  Where in the Hell did I say that those two acts are similar?”

    Nor did I suggest you did. I made an inquiry and you apparently chose not to respond.

     

      1. Keith

        I do not speak for the practices of others, but I write exactly what I mean. If I punctuate the sentence with a question mark, I am asking a question. If I believe something to be true, I will write it as a declarative. We have covered this point in previous conversations.

         

  18. You know the one thing that we haven’t discussed on any of these threads pertaining to the first amendment rights of Congress critters and Trump.

    How much sensitive data was stolen during that  protest/ security breach at the capital how many bugs were planted in congressman’s offices that I think concerns me more than anything.

     

  19. It would be really really easy for just a few subversives to whip a crowd into a frenzy so you can gain access to the Capitol building the Garner sensitive and top secret information and if I that doesn’t even have a sixth grade education configure this out I can only imagine what some of our foreign adversaries can do.

  20. I just removed a bunch of off-topic comments. Some others may have disappeared collaterally. Please keep to the topic and let’s not rehash a bunch of local stories here.

  21. The clock seems to have a third “hand” (beyond minute and ‘second’ … depending on topic, content (perhaps some ‘key-words’?), and poster… not sure if it is benevolent, or malevolent… or a quirk DV says doesn’t exist, and the ‘service’ cannot duplicate, therefore cannot ‘fix’…

    1. depending on topic, content (perhaps some ‘key-words’?), and poster… not sure if it is benevolent, or malevolent

      The problems that you and others are having with the edit clock has nothing to do with the content of the posts or who is making them.

      1. OK… yet there has been a consistent denial of the issue (shot/sh*t clock), which IS, arguably, on topic, as there has been a consistent denial by POTUS as to election results… which led to the events of the last 2 months, and are likely to extend at least two weeks…

        But, as for me, I’ll take you at your word, Don…

         

Leave a Comment