You could say requesting dox is a form of violence. But it's a lot less violent than ordering the military to shoot people. It's reasonable that a policy of removing tweets that glorify violence would catch one but not the other.

''But it's a lot less violent than ordering the military to shoot people.'' You know, he is president, that gives him right to use or threaten with violence if he thinks that safety of country is seriously in danger. If you think that he is breaking constitution there is court to decide about that.

> ''But it's a lot less violent than ordering the military to shoot people.'' You know, he is president, that gives him right to use or threaten with violence if he thinks that safety of country is seriously in danger. If you think that he is breaking constitution there is court to decide about that.

That's actually not true. There are legal bounds to what violence he can and cannot threaten. The President is not a dictator, in which case you would be correct. And we don't have to wait for a court to decide that the order is illegal. Members of the military are actually supposed to refuse illegal orders, not obey them blindly like good little Nazis.

> Unfortunately, what you are saying lead to anarchy.

That is a big, and unjustified, leap. Can you explain this assertion?

> You just said that we live in democracy.

I didn't say that, though it is a statement I'd agree with.

> In democracy disputes are settled in court.

This is not actually required to be a democracy. I'm not sure where you get this idea from.

Many things are already settled, either in law, the constitution, treaties, or, yes, court decisions, but do not require further court decisions. One of those is this: Military members are not obligated to follow illegal orders, and can actually be held accountable for failure to disobey.

''Military members are not obligated to follow illegal orders''. Ok, but this is not clear situation. Violence exists, therefore it needs to be stopped. Police station is burned down. Once police is not able to stop violence using military is only option.

Police (and the military if they're being used as a police force) do not have the authority to fire on looters. It would actually be illegal. And an order to do so is, as a consequence, an illegal order.

Regarding the burning down of the police station, that is a different kind of violence and a violent response from the police would've been more warranted.

But what if looters as in this case are also burning buildings that they are looting?

Then that is a different circumstance. What's your point?

agreed, im not saying this is equal to trump, but i don't think anyone here downvoting me would want to be doxed by someone with 2.1 million followers, regardless of if she is a comedian or not.

Which is violence: Doxing, or using the information to call in a swat team? If the swatting occured, it was the Doxing which directly led to it. It's a loaded gun.

That's not a violation of the ToS.

im not the trump crowd

If you read the replies to Trump's tweet on Twitter, half of them are whining about Kathy Griffin. She's their favorite example of how Twitter has a liberal bias today. Maybe you coincidentally picked the same example as them.

I listen to both sides, and I don't pay attention to what people say on twitter too much (it's the not "real" world). again, I'm not saying this tweet is equal to what trump said, it's clearly not --- But if someone had harmed or killed one of these kids because of this dox, I'm not sure your objections would stand. And with 2.1M followers, that is in realm of possibilities

Do you think twitter has a liberal bias?

As i said above, I'm not a trump supporter.