and it s a difficult situation where you have someone who s leading the republican nomination for president to say that they should not have a forum on essentially a modern public square. so i guess where i come out as, after gonna lift the ban but take action to ban him again if he has any posts that incite violence, that seems like a reasonable compromise. so you re confident that the new guardrails meta has ruled out will be significant to keep trump in check? i don t know if they ll be sufficient to keep him in check. their brandenburg or, first amendment law, which i think should inform facebook, because it s one of the greatest decisions along with new york times sullivan, if someone is posting or saying something that incites violence, that actually is not protected speech. if donald trump does that again, like he was doing on january six, they should be a clear
consequence for that, and he should be removed. the question is, at they re gonna enforce those guardrails? the question of what is inciting violence and what is just tough talk, i mean, it s suggesting the election was stolen and directing supporters to target election officials in an unspecified manner is that tough talk? is that inciting violence? how do you draw the line? are you confident that internally, meta has the systems personnel to sort of make those very tough calls? alice, i think it s a great point. that s why i think we should leave it to first amendment jurisprudence. those calls are made all the time by advisers, and it has to be eminent, the threat. it has to be leading just words are not enough. that was actually new york times v. sullivan, who offered to protect, frankly, the civil rights movement, where anti vietnam protesters saying you
with security. but alex, i m a classical liberal, and i do believe very strongly in free speech and in getting different viewpoints, and it s a difficult situation where you have someone who s leading the republican nomination for president to say that they should not have a forum on essentially a modern public square. so i guess where i come out as, after gonna lift the ban but take action to ban him again if he has any posts that incite violence, that seems like a reasonable compromise. so you re confident that the new guardrails meta has ruled out will be significant to keep trump in check? i don t know if they ll be sufficient to keep him in check. their brandenburg or, first amendment law, which i think should inform facebook, because it s one of the greatest decisions along with new york times sullivan, if someone is posting or saying something that incites violence, that actually is not protected
speech. if donald trump does that again, like he was doing on january six, they should be a clear consequence for that, and he should be removed. the question is, at they re gonna enforce those guardrails? the question of what is inciting violence and what is just tough talk, i mean, it s suggesting the election was stolen and directing supporters to target election officials in an unspecified manner is that tough talk? is that inciting violence? how do you draw the line? are you confident that internally, mega money has the systems and personnel to sort of make those very tough calls? alice, i think it s a great point. that s why i think we should leave it to first amendment jurisprudence. those calls are made all the time by advisers, and it has to be eminent, the threat. it has to be leading just words are not enough. that was actually new york times v. sullivan, who offered
kayleigh mcenany had her account locked, trump campaign angrily wrote: nobody on this team called me regarding news you ll be censoring news articles. this reason for the ban, hacked materials. yeah. at that point there was no evidence it was hacked, yet to be any evidence it was hacked. this all appears to come from the laptop left at a store by hunter biden full of unflattering information. and i can understand why the biden campaign and other democrats wouldn t want this out, but the fact that you don t doesn t make i it any less true. and is one of the rare surprises in this ugly tale was democratic congress ro khanna reminding the twitter executives and the twitter legal team, well, there s a constitution. there s new york times v. sullivan, and the standards for the government saying, no, you can t do that is very strict. why should twitter have even more lenient howard: yeah. iowa sheer ameshia, twitter suppressed the story on its own,