The very idea that we should concern ourselves with establishing rules of conduct that guarantee equal treatment for both ourselves & for the racist, murdering fascists who are aiming to carry out genocide & overthrow democratic governments makes no sense.

I appreciate everyone’s commitment to ideas of liberalism & equality but fascism exists outside of liberalism & there are people trying to kill us whose very ideology is based on the idea of there being no equality. They can only defeat us or be defeated.
There’s a reason we had an entire world war over this issue and it’s not because people at the time couldn’t figure out how to come up with a standard for free speech that applied equally to fascists & all the people they were trying to kill.
Furthermore, the idea we have to apply equal standards to all forms of speech implies all speech is equal. By that logic, there’s no difference b/w someone using social media to incite genocide v someone using it to advocate equal rights. Is that really the moral position?
The idea that holding Trump & other fascists to account might later have negative impact on others ignores that it’s already been the case that Black & brown ppl have received unequal policing & banishment online. The only thing new is that they’ve finally banned Trump.
Instead of accepting that our destinies be tied to the fate of the fascist movement, the focus should be on making clearer distinctions between what should constitute violations of social media policies and what shouldn’t.
Trump’s tenure of being allowed to incite violence on social media for yrs followed by an 11th hour ban is not indicative of anything except his privilege as a wealthy, powerful white man. It has no connection to the experience of the average person except as a point of contrast.
Figures of the fascist movement who were much lower on the totem pole with much smaller followings & much less power were banned years ago yet Trump was able to carry on inciting numerous incidents of violence against others. He is not the emblem for a debate on free speech.
If folks are genuinely concerned about free speech—something that should always be concern—we should pause & ask why the convo only moves to forefront when a powerful white man has faced consequences for his speech & not when the most marginalized are silenced on a daily basis.

More from Government

Long thread: Because I couldn’t find anything comprehensive, I’m just going to post everything I’ve seen in the news/Twitter about Trump’s activities related to the Jan 6th insurrection. I think the timing & context of his actions/inactions will matter a lot for a senate trial.

12/12: The earlier DC protest over the electoral college vote during clearly inspired Jan 6th. On Dec 12th, he tweeted: “Wow! Thousands of people forming in Washington (D.C.) for Stop the Steal. Didn’t know about this, but I’ll be seeing them! #MAGA.”


12/19: Trump announces the Jan. 6th event by tweeting, “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!” Immediately, insurrectionists begin to discuss the “Wild Protest.” Just 2 days later, this UK political analyst predicts the violence


12/26-27: Trump announces his participation on Twitter. On Dec. 29, the FBI sends out a nationwide bulletin warning legislatures about attacks https://t.co/Lgl4yk5aO1


1/1: Trump tweets the time of his protest. Then he retweets “The calvary is coming” on Jan. 6!” Sounds like a war? About this time, the FBI begins visiting right wing extremists to tell them not to go--does the FBI tell the president? https://t.co/3OxnB2AHdr
If you're curious what Trump's defense will look like, all you have to do is turn on Fox News. My latest at @mmfa

The tl;dr is that for years right-wing media have been excusing Trump's violent rhetoric by going, "Yes, but THE DEMOCRATS..." and then bending themselves into knots to pretend that Dems were calling for violence when they very, very clearly weren't.

And in fact, this predates Trump.

In 2008, Obama was talking about not backing down in the face of an ugly campaign. He said "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun."

https://t.co/i5YaQJsKop


That quote was from the movie The Untouchables. And there's no way anybody reading that quote in good faith could conclude that he was talking about actual guns and knives. But it became a big talking point on the

In 2018, Obama-era Attorney General Eric Holder was speaking to a group of Georgia Democrats about GOP voter suppression. He riffed on Michelle Obama's "When they go low, we go high" line from the 2016 DNC.

You May Also Like

My top 10 tweets of the year

A thread 👇

https://t.co/xj4js6shhy


https://t.co/b81zoW6u1d


https://t.co/1147it02zs


https://t.co/A7XCU5fC2m