4 ms·

But that is where it ends with him. Debate doesn't have to be healthy to still be debate, but he isn't stopping the people from saying the things against him.

But that is where it ends with him. Debate doesn't have to be healthy to still be debate, but he isn't stopping the people from saying the things against him. When you start trying to create laws or compel companies to shut down speech you disagree with or don't like, either through the guise of hate speech laws or "stopping disinformation", that is the scenario we are scared about that is rampant for abuse.

shoes_for_thee 7y ago
> he isn't stopping the people from saying the things against him. A) yes, he does. refer to the various people he has paid to stop talking about him through NDAs and catch & kill. b) yes, he does. refer to the trump campaign's refusal to credential bloomberg most recently. and various would-if-he-could: c) refer to trump saying SNL is an attack on his safety, eg. d) refer to trump referring to any non-fox media as 'the enemy of the people' e) refer to trump recommending treason charges against NYT. f) refer to trump recommending treason charges for people who refused to applaud at the state of the union and on and on and on. there are endless examples of trump requesting legal action against various people "saying things" about him that he doesn't like. those people are only protected by the constitution. i have no interest in creating laws to compel companies to shut down speech i disagree with. i am a free speech absolutist. but a) he does stop people from saying things via civil legal action and b) he would stop people from saying things via criminal action if it were legal to do so.