President Trump silenced on top social media platforms after mob storms Capitol

President Trump silenced on top social media platforms after mob storms Capitol
Share this
Share

The US president was locked out from posting new messages on his Facebook and Twitter accounts after an unruly group of supporters assembled outside the capitol building where Biden’s election win was being confirmed.

The lockdown on Twitter lasted 12 hours until the president removed tweets Twitter said violated its ‘civic integrity policy,’ but Zuckerburg said that Trump would be silenced on Facebook and Instagram for at least two more weeks until his presidential term was over. Facebook and Twitter are two of the main ways the president communicates with citizens and the world.

It is the first time social media platforms have chosen to limit the free speech of such an important figure.

Trump’s tweets from Jan 6, 2020, as recorded by thetrumparchive.com

Many news organizations covered the story using language such as ‘Trump Incites Rioters.’

Following Trumps ‘ban,’ there was renewed talk about treating social media platforms, where people share informative content, as publishers themselves, in part because their algorithms amplify things shared when those things are engaging. There was also talk about how the social media platforms that censored the president’s content did so as a response to content or events but without first drawing their ‘red line’ and saying which content is and isn’t allowed on their platforms.

Some of Trump’s staff resigned following the incident at the Capitol building, and there were also a lot of questions why the national guard wasn’t capable of handling the incident properly.

UPDATE January 8: Twitter permanently banned Trump’s account. Google removed Parler, an app like Twitter used by Trump supporters, from the Android app store to make it harder for people to download it, saying Google requires social media apps to have content moderation policies to remove posts that incite violence.

Swiss Court Fines Man for Liking Defamatory Comment

Share this
Share

The original post on Facebook was about whether animal rights groups should be allowed to take part in vegan street festivals, and it became discussed heatedly.

Several people were fined by the courts for making comments it deemed defamatory, and one man was fined for “liking” some comments which accused an animal rights activist of racism and antisemitism.

That activist was Erwin Kessler, who brought the lawsuit against the participants.

According to the court, “the defendant clearly endorsed the unseemly content and made it his own,” when he hit the “like” button.

Can we say everything in the name of freedom of speech ?

Can we say everything in the name of freedom of speech ?
Share this
Share

Can we say everything in the name of freedom of speech ?

While France rises in the name of freedom of expression — under threat after the attack against Charlie Hebdo — a 34-year-old man was sentenced to 4 years in prison for making an apology for the Kouachi brothers — “There should be more Kouachi… . I hope you will be the next… . You are a godsend for terrorists” — would he responded to the police who arrested him while he was drunkeness and had a car crash.

The naive question we could ask is: Why can we not say everything in the name of freedom of speech and expression?

First, we must redefine what freedom of expression is. Freedom of expression is defined by the great dictionary of the French language as “the fundamental right allowing any citizen to express his opinion.” OK. But what is an opinion? An opinion is a feeling, an individual or group of individuals think a certain way about a topic, based on facts… It is what he thinks.

Can we say everything in the name of freedom of speech ?

What he thinks. That’s the difference between his opinion and the performance of a speech act. The speech act is “a means used by a speaker to act on his environment through his words,. He seeks to inform, encourage, ask, persuade, promise etc… his interlocutor by this means.”

— I hope you will be the next –– is not an opinion but a speech act called a perlocutionary effect, which refers to the psychological effect felt by the recipient (here intimidation, intended to frighten). According to Austin, British philosopher and founder of the theory of language, the speech act is neither true nor false. It is successful or not.

Can we say everything in the name of freedom of speech ?

Finally, a perlocutionary speech act contrary to an expression of opinion, intended to cause effects (disturbances, changes …) in the communication situation.

An order, abuse, or harassment is not an opinion and can not therefore claim to freedom of expression.

Letter and photos by Esther Hervy

PARIS, France