President Trump blasts social media ‘censorship’

“President Donald Trump used Twitter to tear into social media companies Saturday morning, claiming they were ‘totally discriminating against Republican/Conservative voices,'” Lee Moran reports for The Huffington Post.

“But he does have a solution,” Moran reports. “Trump tweeted that ‘too many voices are being destroyed, some good and some bad, and that cannot be allowed to happen.’ So, he added: ‘Let everybody participate, good & bad, and we will all just have to figure it out!'”

Moran reports, “Trump accused social media giants of ‘closing down the opinions of many people on the RIGHT, while at the same time doing nothing to others.'”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take:

Of course, the inherent danger of censorship is that you make the censored more alluring by elevating their musings into ideas too “dangerous” to hear.MacDailyNews, August 6, 2018

Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman. — Louis D. Brandeis

“Hate speech” too often means, “I hate your speech, so I’m going to try to shut you up.”MacDailyNews, August 8, 2018

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. — Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey: I ‘fully admit’ our bias is ‘more left-leaning’ – August 20, 2018
Twitter bans Alex Jones from posting on Twitter for seven days – August 15, 2018
Apple is monitoring Alex Jones’ Infowars app for content violations as it becomes 3rd-most downloaded app this week – August 9, 2018
Alex Jones: Infowars has racked up 5.6 million new subscribers in the past 48 hours – August 8, 2018
Tim Cook sends Mark Zuckerberg, YouTube, and Spotify scrambling over Infowars’ Alex Jones – August 8, 2018
Jack Dorsey explains why Twitter isn’t banning Alex Jones and Infowars – August 8, 2018
Infowars’ Alex Jones blasts Apple, Google, others; warns on internet censorship – August 7, 2018
Apple’s ‘Infowars’ move thrusts tech giant into the debate over censoring content on internet platforms – August 6, 2018
Apple removes most of Alex Jones’ Infowars podcasts from iTunes Store – August 6, 2018


  1. “Oppression is not hearing a word that offends you. Oppression is being told that you cannot say certain words because you will offend someone else.” ~ Blaire White.

    I will spare no effort to defend your right to free speech. But this also means that I have the right to offend you with my free speech.

    We have the right to speak freely in the USA. The answer to free speech with which you don’t agree is your own free speech.


    1. While my politics are left and right of center depending I don’t know how any true conservative could truly approve of Trump’s reckless & dangerous actions and the flaunting & subversion of American ideals. He’s got to go, but then so do both the Democratic and Republican parties who’ve stalemated politics into self-serving and polarized ineffectual forces.

      Dem & Rep politicians no longer serve the people, just themselves. They all need to be unceremoniously grabbed by the scruff of their traitorous necks and given the bum’s rush out the door, with a good drop kick administered for good distance & measure.

      1. Please document what is so dangerous and reckless about…

        1. Speaking out against censorship.
        2. Improving the crap out of an all but dead economy.
        3. Pushing back against those who bully the U.S. instead of bowing to them.
        4. Speaking out for all Americans instead of just your pet political identity groups.
        5. Not kowtowing to liberal and PC fascism
        6. Lowering unemployment to dramatically better levels.
        7. Lowering black unemployment to its lowest levels ever.
        8. Preventing the reboot of the Obama administration under Hillary Clinton.

        9. Appointing Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and more than 75 other constitutionally sound federal judges, 30 of which are serving.

        10. Cracking down on illegal immigration and “sanctuary cities.” Not allowing people to be imported simply for votes. The Democratic party is only one step above human trafficking here.

        11. Bringing back manufacturing jobs that supposedly would never come back. In doing so helping to feed more American families than the Obama administration ever did.

        12. Cracked down on sex trafficking. President Trump signed a law allowing states to move against sex-ad Internet sites, and the Justice Department on April 6 seized and shut down, which carried ads for prostitution, including trafficked children.

        13. Working with Central American nations to crack down on MS-13 gangs.

        14. Recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and repairing the damage that Mr. Obama did to the U.S.-Israel relationship.

        I take it that unless your administration is one of cowardice and incompetence where the only goal is screwing up the United States, you’re dangerous and reckless.

        1. By the numbers…
          1. Strawman
          2. The economy has been on an upward trend since the banking crisis, so its good that Trump has continued the growth.
          3. Bullying? There are two sides to every agreement. Some you win, some you lose, but you can’t win everything otherwise there would be no international or domestic trade.
          4. All Americans? You’ll have to point out where Trump ‘hasn’t’ demonised everyone who ‘didn’t’ vote for him. Where are the policies with a broad spectrum of appeal that unite the nation?
          5. See 4.
          6. Strawman
          7. Strawman
          8. So not ‘all’ Americans then?
          9. “…constitutionally sound judges”. Well yes, installing group think judges is a long established presidential privilege that does not promote judicial independence that is beyond political interference or was accorded to president Obama by the GOP Senate majority’s quite outrageous filibustering on his appointments.
          10. “The Democratic party is only one step above human trafficking here.” Oh please! There you go with the demonising.
          11. Aspirational and unproven, but the reverse of the coin – tariffs, is already having a negative and conflicting effect, particularly in housing prices.
          12. 13. No problem and a welcome initiative.
          14. No. No. No. if ever there was a move cast-iron guaranteed to increase Middle Eastern tensions, that was it. I lived in Beirut for three years; it was in international but very diverse city, where all the Arab nations came to play and do deals – a bit like a mini Las Vegas, but the abiding memory from many conversations was that the fate of Jerusalem unified all Arab groups irrespective of Muslim sect status. It flies in the face of UN resolutions aimed at peace-keeping, decades of Israel’s own Supreme Court rulings that international laws govern the East Bank occupied territories and that previous treaties with Jordan were summarily cancelled to make the move possible. An extreme divisive decision that does absolutely nothing more than legitimise might over right by pouring petrol on a fire.

          I take it that if your ambition is to sow dissent, exert total domination and destroy joint international agreements, then you are reckless and dangerous.

          1. I’m not going to refute all your points but really? How is speaking out against censorship a Strawman?

            Do you even know what a strawman is? I doubt you do.

            Your comment isn’t worth reading.

            1. How a strawman? I don’t see anyone promoting censorship as a good thing. If there’s no argument…it’s a strawman, an empty worthless promotion of the false idea that the OP supported censorship.
              Good enough?
              Similarly, I don’t see anyone being anti jobs or anti black employment, so they too are strawman arguments.

        2. Oh please do I really have to explain the downside of Donald Trump? He’s no panacea. His questionable judgment and reasoning ability? His awful no class buffoonish manner? His attempts to “fake news” everything he doesn’t want to hear or is a truth he doesn’t want to get out? His vindictive behavior towards people? The refusal to acknowledge the Earth is warming up a tad? Calling Neo-Nazi’s “good people?”

          I don’t think Trump’s going to last another term but the major parties will unfortunately. The problem I have with most Republicans and Democrats is they are not representative of the people, only of themselves. Although of course the population seems to have wildly divergent views so maybe it’s impossible to unite the masses anymore.

          You seem to misunderstand – I have equal reasons to dislike liberals and conservatives for many of the reasons you bring up. Thank God Hillary wasn’t elected but on the other hand there were few other “outside the box” but not lethal alternatives except Trump who is WAY outside. In some respects I appreciate his “shock to the system” slapping and waking up conventional politicians and telling them that we are tired of status quo – as long as it doesn’t kill us or send us down a slippery slope to anarchy.

          BTW don’t be disingenuous. Some of the “good” Trump has done will soon come home to roost giving companies and the wealthy huge tax advantages at the expense of taxpayers and our national debt. Much as I liked seeing Apple able to repatriate their overseas money. But these could be very temporary economic advantages. We will see.

          Let’s hope the USA doesn’t end up the collapsed House Of Cards. AKA unintended but inevitable consequences.

          1. I’m fully behind everything you say.
            The problem is accountability. Actual delivery versus sound bites.
            Broad spectrum policies rather than tit for tat time and money costing retaliations.
            I’m not hopeful.

    2. So, the President has your back when you tells your audience, which has a demonstrated propensity for violence, to keep a rifle at their side to fight the media, because it is now or never. Great.

      1. “which has a demonstrated propensity for violence”

        Of whom do you speak, oh great prognosticator? There’s got to be a “fork” in your answer, or there’s a blindness in your words.

          1. on the left that, w/o question, employ violence? You didn’t, so can we assume that their violence isn’t violent enough, or serve to a “good end,” or to an end that’s agreeable to you?

            Why one wouldn’t include Antifa, or Black Lives Matter when talking about violence seems to be more than a simple omission. Yes, I know, AJ is the news-rush today, but the 2 mentioned above are never, or rarely included when the left bemoans violence. Talking about contradiction and, or turning a blind eye.

            On a more pedestrian note exemplifying the point, when does a comment fit within the definition of “a figure of speech” breach over into inciting violence? A pop culture icon spoke of “bombing the White House” and another held a decapitated head of the president and no media organs, that I’m aware of, though it would worthy of the same judgement fitting of Alex Jones. You know as well as me, those a merely two pop-culture examples of with existential threats, but very well circulated (accepted) in media…w/o any scorn.

            1. What about the Jacobins? They beheaded hundreds of people, but nobody used them to excuse Kathy Griffin. It was logically irrelevant because her abominable acts deserved to stand or fall on their own demerits. She wasn’t a whit better just because of Robespierre.

              Similarly, we could debate until the cows come home whether people formally connected to the Black Lives Matter movement (aside from being black and alive) have promoted violence. That is simply irrelevant to whether Apple, Facebook, Twitter, et al. have a duty to let Alex Jones promote violence.

              If they do not have a duty to broadcast a message telling angry people who own guns that now is the time to employ them against journalists, the Government of the United States of America should not be threatening to make them.

        1. Talking about using an out (way) of context point to make your point! The Jacobins…give me a break. How about being relevant and contemporaneous? Why stop there? Let’s go back to Ancient Rome and imply some sort of parallelism.

          Madonna, Kathy Griffin et al get broad air-time as “meaningful” social statements from the liberal media and they are contemporaries of A Jones…not farkin Jacobins. Though the two mentioned are instances, there are many more and, in general, they bring a threat based reality that’s embraced, or “ok’d” by the left. There’s no related embarrassment, shame, or dismissal of those voices. In fact, they’re seen as healthy and worthy statements of truth in light of the “beast” they’re fighting.

          Alex Jones, the nutcase? “Kill ’em.” He and his cultists deserve it. Use some logic to explain the contradiction TX, not the Jacobins or any other big-swing historical irrelevance .

          1. You’re missing my point. Even if BLM were the worst mass murderers since Pol Pot, it would not make Alex Jones any more worthy of support. Hitler was not a nice man just because Stalin and Mao were arguably worse. The sins of Antifa are no more relevant to Jone’s merits than the sins of the Huns. Whataboutism is never a reasonable argument.

            Alex Jones is not “simply an unfortunate choice of target for the left.” The left did not make him do any of the loathsome things he has been doing for almost thirty years. He was not a grieving parent whose child was slaughtered, only to be mocked as a “crisis actor” playing a corpse. He was not driven repeatedly from his home by threats from people who believed that lie. He did not have his neighborhood pizza restaurant disrupted by threats and even an armed invasion because someone spread a rumor that there were child sex slaves in a nonexistent basement. He was not involved in a US Army training exercise disrupted by stories that it was going to round up patriots and lock them up in empty Walmart stores. He was not a news photographer who has been hounded by threats because somebody accused him of faking a photo that made neo-Nazis look bad.

            And no, I don’t “have my violence facts upside down.” Even if all this (and much, much more) were not right there on the InfoWars website, there are hundreds of people who have personally witnessed it. I am one of them.

            Does Jones have the right to spread his hateful opinions? Absolutely. Does he have the right to make up and repeat lies that contradict verifiable facts? Probably. Does he have the right to knowingly harm people with those lies? No.

            In particular, does he have the right to force unwilling third parties to help him spread his message? Absolutely not. Does the Federal Government have the power to compel such assistance? Not while the Constitution is still in effect. Yet we have Our President assuring us that if private parties such as social media companies choose to exercise their First Amendment rights of free speech and association to the disadvantage of his supporters, his Administration “won’t let that happen,” because “that cannot be allowed to happen.”

            That is a lot scarier than old rap lyrics or even InfoWars. It is a direct threat directed at everything that makes America great.

          2. “Talking about using an out (way) of context point to make your point! The Jacobins…give me a break. How about being relevant and contemporaneous? Why stop there? Let’s go back to Ancient Rome and imply some sort of parallelism.”

            Exactly. Glad you called him out on his pet word “whataboutism.” He practices it daily, but don’t anyone else dare to use it but him, hypocrite grande …

        2. BLM has no relationship to violence? You’ve again got to have your disingenuous goggles on. Are you claiming the RIOTS and other unrest that went on at Ferguson are w/o BLM prints?

          What about the well publicized march of BLM’rs singing/chanting “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon?” Ahh, that’s nothing, the police need to not be so sensitive, says TX user!

          What about the suit against BLMer’s for inciting violence that was connected to two police killed in Baton Rouge. Nothing, huh?
          It’s a loosely led group, but these are just a few examples of a group’s violence, or incitement therein. When exactly does a group’s history of such violence confirm there’s violence related to the group? Imo, there’s no need to waiting till “the cows come home”.

          Yeah, yeah, I know, they’re not monolithic. That doesn’t justify anything, in fact it’s part of their problem.

          I see there was no Antifa retort. That, to me is an admission of the left’s contradiction here. Just like the more “polite violence” (Madonna bombing the WH, Griffen with a severed Trump head), it’s “good” or worthwhile violence because of the “beast” being fought. Do I need to say that’s astonishing and befuddling?

      2. The issue isn’t Alex Jones here. He is simply the unfortunate choice of target by the left, today.

        Oppression makes strange bedfellows. Liberals have forced me to defend the KKK, the Confederate Flag, mean people who won’t bake a fucking cake, and so on. Conservatives have forced me recently to defend dumbass flag disrespecting football players.

        I know you don’t like it, but the President just demonstrated that he has YOUR back as well.

        “…America isn’t easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, ’cause it’s gonna put up a fight. It’s gonna say “You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who’s standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can’t just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the “land of the free”…” – Michael Douglas, The American President.

        I don’t follow Jones. Nonetheless, the times I’ve seen him, I didn’t disagree with. However, people have shown me some of the other stuff that he publishes & broadcasts and it’s quite ridiculous. It’s not hate-speech, it’s kook-speech. For example, he apparently believes the Sandy Hook mass shooting was a false flag operation. Either that or he believes his audience is a bunch of fools and he’s laughing all the way to the bank. Whatever.

        Apple, Inc., A CORPORATION, rolled this snowball down the hill a few days ago. One word from Apple and social media platforms start taking down his stuff, and it ultimately resulted in action by the FCC. A legal action they should have taken long ago, but Apple apparently gave them the courage.

        I am far more afraid of the power that Apple just demonstrated than I will ever be of nattering nincompoops like Jones, or bozos like the KKK, or the Nazis. Apple has proven they have the power to silence anyone they disagree with. Apple is now America’s Ministry of Cultural Police. Our Ministry of Truth.

        It’s time to re-shoot the 1984 commercial and put Tim Cook’s face in for Big Brother, as all the grey-clad liberal cultists of equality stare at his face.

        Liberals, true to form, are cheering the attack on Jones, once again demonstrating a complete lack of comprehension where politics, liberty, and individual freedom are concerned. To them, he equates to conservatism. Thier ignorance and millennial-esq lack of sophistication will carry Trump through the next 4 years.

        “The stations of uncensored expression are closing down; the lights are going out; but there is still time for those to whom freedom and parliamentary government mean something, to consult together. Let me, then, speak in truth and earnestness while time remains.” –
        Winston Churchill, in “The Defence of Freedom and Peace (The Lights are Going Out)”, radio broadcast to the United States and to London (16 October 1938)

        1. TMac, you talk a good game. I agree with the need to protect freedom of speech as a sacred foundation of Liberty. And I agree that part of that responsibility is protecting speech that opposes your own beliefs – religious, political, etc.

          But every freedom has limits. You cannot endanger other with reckless act, for instance – the classic example of running into a theater and screaming “fire” when there is not one comes to mind. And freedom of speech goes both ways – the freedom to say something as well as the freedom to refrain from saying something.

          I am tired of each political faction blaming the other for excesses. Both deal in excesses to the detriment of this country. But there are ebbs and flows in this tide and currently, the political right is the one fanning the flames of excess with the greatest amount of zeal. It is clearly a quest for power at all costs, and it is sickening. It is hurting people. It is hurting this country. And the people who are benefiting the most are laughing at the people who are lapping all of this crap up like a Scientology lesson.

          1. “the political right is the one fanning the flames of excess with the greatest amount of zeal.“

            The political left is doing ALL the CENSORSHIP with the “greatest amount of zeal.”

            The oppressed right is simply fighting back …

            1. GoeB: “The oppressed right is simply fighting back…”

              I guess that makes it alright, then. What a joke.

              You are taking lessons from Trump with your wild capitalizations and excessive claims.

              GoeB: “The political left is doing ALL the CENSORSHIP…”

              Really? No attempts at censorship on the right? None at all? No deletions of thousands of government web pages or content on pages dealing with climate change? No doctoring of *official* Government records (video/audio) of Trump-Putin meeting? No barring of targeted “main stream media” outlets to White House functions because they have offended Trump? The list goes on and on and on…

              GoeB, you ought to be very careful before making assertions that include the words “all,” “never,” etc. Such assertions are seldom truthful/factual. You need to break out of your conservative tunnel and get a clue that you are not right about everything, and that the political left and center have some valid points, as well.

      3. You got your violance facts upside down.. big time..
        Will the left ever stop deceit and lies and the pinning their own attributes on the right

        Sick …
        The most cumning and decietful bunch of bigots !!!!

    3. I still just can’t possibly have a problem with a private company determining what’s done on their property. If you’re for that, then you’re also agreeing that, once the massive conservative network has been created, whiney liberals will be able to force their content on OUR network.

      Conservatives just need to get about the business of building that network. It’s time to stop the whining and SOLVE the problem.

      1. the same thing when the left wanted to and will again, request controlling the radio waves? It’s a network the left hasn’t been able to corral and to make things “fairer”, the left wanted to impose the “Fairness Doctrine” to curtail the the reach of right-radio.

        How about it Wrong Again? Did you have the same opinion then and will you going forward? Or will “whining” be your attempt to “solve,” or will you dedicate yourself to “build the network” for the voices you support?

        Btw, it’s not a matter of a private co having the right to limit on their own network…they do have the right. It’s about that company proclaiming one thing and limiting another per their own paradigm and the public, rightfully calling out a contradiction. Apple is a great example of contradiction…removing A. Jones, but embracing music that’s violent & misogynistic. AAPL, please embrace the freedom to speak of such things that you very curiously embrace (aberrant), but favor me please and explain, if free speech is truly an ideal, why then is the “otherguy” with the aberrant view removed?

        One company, one individual with such actions cannot claim to uphold “free speech” in its truest and purest form. One that sides with such a company’s action cannot make the claim either…w/o being delusional, irrational, or a liar.

        1. Would you, did you actually read the tweets from Our President? He is quite specifically promising that his Administration is going to force the social media to publish material with which they disagree. The only difference between that and the old FCC Fairness Doctrine is that broadcasters had only limited First Amendment protections because they licensed the public airwaves. Social media companies are—or were—fully protected. Apparently the Constitution is just a bit of paper since January 2017.

          1. it’s none of his business and surely NOT in his purview. He often spouts without control and this appears to be an instance. Per such spouts, a revision will follow. Both his opinion and his method of voicing are dumb. Yes, I did read about the tweets.

        2. “Apple is a great example of contradiction…removing A. Jones, but embracing music that’s violent & misogynistic.”

          Yes, that is the saddest part. These tech companies are practing censorship of conservatives while the left can say and threaten anyone they want with impunity. It is biased, dead wrong and the leftist HYPOCRISY of our time.

          It was refreshing Saturday to see the common sense CEO of Twitter on CNN saying with conviction and making two very important points:

          1 Admitted the company leans LEFT.

          2 That said, assured us does not affect their business and they do NOT censor speech on either side.

          That is EXACTLY the type of common sense and fairness we need more of today, more than ever in this over saturated MEDIA BIASED world …

          1. I am still waiting for “Fair and Balanced” Fox News to admit that they are not and withdraw that claim. No one who has watched that show can claim with any credibility that Fox News is fair and balanced with respect to political or social topics. It would be (in your words) “refreshing” for Fox News to admit that they “lean right” and that much of their “news” is actually in the form of opinion segments. At least in the newspaper this type of opinion was placed in a special editorial section.

    4. Your quotes are fine, Fwhatever. I live by those sentiments. But the incessant whining that the “RIGHT” is being unfairly targeted and censored is ridiculous.

      Everyone on the political right has the freedom of speech, just like everyone else. That does *not* mean that you have the right to post that speech wherever you please. I don’t see Breitbart promoting liberal material. I don’t see Fox News promoting leftist (or even centrist) content, except to ridicule it. And Fox News claims to be “Fair and Balanced.”

      I do not believe that the main stream media is nearly as biased as you and others claim. Are they perfectly neutral? Nope. Nothing created by human beings is perfectly neutral. But the MSM is not corrupt, as Trump claims. The MSM is not the “enemy of the people” as Trump claims. I understand that the right needs a foe to motivate and unite the base. But undermining the foundations of this country is a terrible way to accomplish that objective. If you are true patriots, then you will cease that divisive action and begin working to improve bipartisan cooperation.

  2. However we think on the issue of censorship, we have to either agree with both President Trump AND Frank Zappa, or disagree with them both. There is no in-between.

  3. Ok, enough chest-beating. Twitter is a corporation that can publish or not publish as it chooses. Just as CATV is not required to include every channel, newspapers are not obligated to publish every letter to the editor, and so on… IMHO the only reason Twitter gives the most powerful man on earth a private channel to his followers is because it makes them money…lots of money. Twitter could just as easily take a principled stand that POTUS has the entire press corps hanging on his every word (and he also has the money to buy unlimited ads), so that blocking him from Twitter would not be an infringement of his free speech. I realize that that’s not what this post was about, it was about the parrot calling the tangerine orange…but this is what needs to be said.

    1. Trump isn’t violating Twitter’s Terms of Use. He can’t, because they have a special provision exempting Chiefs of State from all the other rules. Convenient, that.

  4. Yeah, right. Trump is a big Advocate for free speech. Believe me all you alt-fighters get plenty of air time on Fox, the single greatest source of Fake News in the country. Perhaps Trump is warming up to another of his myriad flip flops (Remember when this bothered Republicans so much?) and will stop stripping this country’s hero’s of their security clearance for criticizing his horrible behavior. Republicans, just keep supporting this sorry excuse for a human. Blue Wave coming! Doesn’t it make your anus twitch?

    1. Brennan lied under oath about serious things related to his job. This is not heroic at all.
      He has not been stopped from criticizing anyone, either – he’s still on tv talking . . .

  5. whine whine whine

    They shut down the idiot who was accusing victims of Sandy Hook shooting of being liars and staging the whole thing. That is slander and has caused them to get death threats and fear for their lies. It is sick and pathetic.

    They social media have rules against hate speech. You break them you get axed. Simple. You have any examples of leftist hate speech? Send it in to FB or Twitter they will cut them.

    Better yet – post them here and *I* will report it.

    What a Buch of babies.

  6. I find it interesting that a private business can or cannot discriminate against people based on their thoughts and opinions.

    What business am I talking about?
    -Christen Cake Baker
    -Muslim Bakery

    Before you jump all over this, you might want to check out the 14th Amendment and it’s jurisprudence, which extends Constitutional protections to citizens against adverse interests of private parties.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.