#TrumpBanned – A dangerous precedent.

#TrumpBanned – A dangerous precedent.

#TrumpBanned sets a dangerous precedent.

#TrumpBanned is the trending hashtag regarding President Donald Trump’s permanent suspension from Twitter.

Trump Banned Article via AP News

This sets a dangerous precedent. While leftists have long been unfairly silenced by entities such as Twitter, according to reports from twitter accounts and friends of mine, de-platforming the sitting POTUS is a massive slippery slope.

Let me be clear: Trump himself hasn’t been censored in a meaningful way, but removing him from Twitter does nothing to solve fascism and sets a very dangerous precedent, which has already led to shutting down access to social networks and government forces trying to end the free speech of foreign leaders.

The man has a press corps. in his house and the world’s largest bully pulpit. He can still make his voice heard, easily and readily. However, the “little people” aren’t afforded that privilege, and apparently neither are foreign leaders, if certain bad actors get their way.

In addition to government officials trying to censor foreign leaders, Big Tech conglomerates such as Google have already limited access to Parler, via removal from app stores. Apple threatens to follow suit.



While I don’t always agree with devout conservatives, they (and leftists) are the ones leading the charge on ending censorship.

I have drafted model legislation that would, if enacted, extend 1st amendment protections to private social media and online platforms and create a publicly owned, electorally accountable public social media (like PBS for the 21st century) alternative, in order to foster competition in the social media markets.

You can check it out on my “Model Legislation” page.

One of the biggest concerns is how much we rely on the whims of privately held, profit-seeking corporations for day-to-day communication and digital infrastructure. The aforementioned model legislation addresses this, in part, by creating a publicly-owned social media that’s accountable to the people.

Ask yourselves this: If privately-held social media is continually allowed to kick people out based on its own whims and profit-motives, what’s to stop them from being bought by a politician or other public figure and then be weaponized to silence all critics or political opponents? (Mike Bloomberg, a candidate in the 2020 Democratic primary already owns several media outlets.) Private corporations owning the means in which we communicate, learn, and digest information such as news does not a democracy make.


  • Mark Powell
    Posted January 10, 2021 7:08 am 0Likes

    Trump’s banning wasn’t about censorship, it was about stopping dangerous, and illegal incitement to violence. That sort of speech IS NOT protected speech under the First Amendment. Remember that “your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins”. EVERY right has limitations on it, without exception, and NO right gives you liberty to take away anothers’ rights. Trump needed to be silenced, to stop further incitement, further violence. Period.

    • PDA
      Posted January 15, 2021 7:41 am 0Likes

      I’m aware Trump’s banning was about unprotected speech. My point was more that the decision to ban should’ve been made by a publicly accountable body rather than a handful of stockholders and tech CEOs.

Add Comment