Let's take it for what it is: a completely unacceptable act of violence by a few people instigated by the constant delivery of blatant lies.

At first the lies were shocking: "Biggest inauguration ever? What the hell is he talking about? Didn't he see the pictures? Oh, alternative facts.. LOL. Well, good thing they're incompetent and not dangerous."

Now the lies are dangerous. So many were complaining 4 years ago because this arc seemed inevitable. Let someone lie and verbally attack anyone who slightly disagrees with them without repercussion and they'll keep pushing to see where the line is.

So many thought: "I'm sure he's learned his lesson this time!" In reality, you'd have to be blinded by naiveté or something worse to think he was going to change or moderate his behavior or tactics.

It's not that people are scared that a few hundred people storming the capital will actually overturn our almost 250 year old democracy. It's that if we don't respond with intense rejection of this behavior, this behavior could easily become an existential threat to the republic. What's to stop the next President from bringing an armed secret service or a willing FBI SWAT team into a Senate proceeding?

The line should have been drawn long before this incident. But now, for sure, if you violently attack the halls of democracy you should be banned from far more than a few private digital platforms.

> if you violently attack the halls of democracy you should be banned from far more than a few private digital platforms

Not many take issue with that. It's banning the hundreds of thousands other people that's the more problematic thing.

> violently attack the halls of democracy

What makes the "attack" on the Capitol any worse than the "attack" on the White House in Sep 2020?

Mostly just how well security worked. That's it.

If security had done it's job on Jan 6, this would be done.

The currents exist either way. It boggles my mind to think that censorship is how to handle dissent.

> What makes the "attack" on the Capitol any worse than the "attack" on the White House in Sep 2020?

Those protesters didn't have bombs and guillotines. And they were being beaten and gassed by police, they weren't killing police officers. I hear you that if that mob killed someone it would be just as bad, 100% agree.

> It boggles my mind to think that censorship is how to handle dissent.

Because you have the right to be a jerk in your own house, but not in mine. Twitter is not Trump's house, it's Jack's and his shareholders. Trump's being a jerk so them kicked him out. Some things that will get you banned on Twitter, FB will let slide and visa versa. If people don't like their policies, they can leave. It's a free market, which is a traditional Republican position. It's never been a Republican position to force a company to allow someone to create their own Terms & Conditions or User Agreement or force companies to accept someone as a customer until this modern "free speech should apply to private companies" movement.

And dissent is different than lying. It's clear his ego can't handle losing and he will desperately resort to pressure folks to "find votes" in Georgia, or pressure Senators to not certify electoral votes that withstood every legal challenge. This isn't normal and this isn't OK. It's not like this is a healthy debate or a passionate dissent that someone's getting deplatformed for. This is a dangerous, self-indulgent, completely self-serving game of lying to the public that's already resulted in multiple deaths.

If Trump gets arrested for speaking his mind in a public park then we have a huge problem. Until then, he can build his own platform and spout his ideas there. No one is stopping him and no one should.

On May 31, they set fire to the Church of the Presidents, threatening the entire city.

(To be clear, as in most cases, I'm sure this was only a tiny minority of extremists.)

> Until then, he can build his own platform and spout his ideas there.

That's exactly what this is about: Parler.

---

EDIT: Not to mention there was an astonishingly low number of casualties for such a deliberately violent attack force.

Setting fire to an empty church (arson) is a lot different than attacking an active session of congress (terrorism) with the stated goal of forcibly blocking the certification of the next democratically elected President (coup). Yes, they're both crimes and both bad, but only in the same way that assault and murder are both crimes and both bad.

Parler is still free to operate. Just don't expect the tacit cooperation of those who understand just how bad situation could have been if the mob actually found Pence and did what they were chanting they wanted to do to him.

Kavanaugh's nomination was stopped by a mob too.

Yeah, but they weren’t instructed to go there by a politician. And their goal was to disrupt, not kill.

This is a classic “both sides” argument.

Are you arguing that both sides have done bad things? Yes, that’s true. Everyone at some point in their life has done a bad thing, so you will always be able to point out “a bad thing”.

Are you arguing that both sides have done bad things of the same degree? No way. I’d love to hear an example of any other party leader in history using the inflammatory language Trump has used, lying about election results to supporters and begging politicians to overturn an election, resulting in terrorism and multiple deaths. This is unprecedented, inexcusable and unfortunately completely predictable.

I don't know of any example in the last 150 years of a party leader doing that.

But this isn't about Trump; this is about Parler and the consistency of AWS is applying to its Terms and Service to of service for hundreds of thousands of users over the weekend.

Trump doesn't even use Parler AFAIK; his actions are related but tangential to the core issue of Parler + AWS.

Parler is not independent though, in the sense that they rely on Amazon servers, and Amazon has a right to decide who they do business with.

Similarly, Google and Apple can choose who they allow to use their marketplaces. On Android I believe Parler wouldn't have too hard a time distributing their app on their own. But granted, on Apple devices, I think installing non App Store software is a non-starter for most people.

This begs a somewhat unrelated question though--why doesn't Parler just live as a web application that doesn't require an app? They would still have to migrate from AWS, but it would still allow people to continue using it despite Google and Apple's decisions, right?

and no one has said that parlor has to shut down. if you agree with the train of thought that if twitter doesn't want you go and start your own, then you apply that same logic to Apple and Google saying they don't want parlor.

What do you think an existential threat to the republic would look like?

1. Nuclear capabilities by North Korea or Iran.

2. Snowden-ish conspiracies by unelected, unaccountable intelligence agencies.

3. Large-scale conflict with China.

4. High-fatality disease: SARS or similar (COVID but more deadly)

Terrorism, foreign or domestic, doesn't even scratch the list of "existential threats." Terrorist acts don't win heats and minds and unless aided by state actors (dirty bombs, etc) are tiny in the numbers game, even for sometime like 9/11.

Governments is several countries have been toppled with exactly this kind of violence.

What about a decapitation strike resulting in the deaths of competing constitutional officers by allies of the president with the intent of subverting the peaceful transfer of presidential power? Would that not qualify as a threat to the republic?

In other words, what if the mob had gotten its hands on Pence, Pelosi, Grassley, or others? Don't you think that would have been a bigger deal than what transpired with Snowden?

Incidentally, there are reports that a number of Republican members of Congress voted in favor of the president on Wednesday because they feared for the safety of their families. It seems plausible that they might have been influenced by the rioters chanting "hang Mike Pence" as they entered the Capitol. Legislators voting against their judgement because of extortion seems a significant threat to the democratic order.

Multiple politicans have assassinated before, the Republic has carried on.

If there were a lot at once...yeah that could be bad.

But frankly there's just so little chance of that happening. If there was a chance in hell of that happening, Security Service/Capitol police would have actually done something about the protesters.

You seem to place a lot of faith in an institution—the Capitol Police—that most would agree failed spectacularly on Wednesday.

It was pure luck that the doors of the Senate were locked and barred just two minutes before the mob arrived. What do you think would have happened if the rioters had gotten there five minutes before they did, when the doors were still ajar? What do you think those men with flex cuffs were intending to do? It seems that one of them was a retired Air Force lt. colonel. What do you think his motivations were?

I don't think we've ever seen terrorism condoned or encouraged by anyone as admired or as powerful as Trump in the history of the country, save the Civil War.

It's not like these are some lunatics, they're obedient fans actively consuming what Trump is feeding them and violently acting on it.

Does he have the right to stand in a public park and spout his threats and lies? Absolutely.

Does he have the right to demand access to a private company platform to spout his threats and lies? No way.

Idiots get kicked out of bars for far less every day.

I think you're confused about the topic.

It's about Parler and its hundreds of thousands of users being deplatformed from AWS, not Twitter banning Trump.

AFAIK Trump doesn't even use Parler.

Sorry, you're right I went on a bit of a tangent there.

I guess the point I was making was that this violent language wouldn't be spreading on Parler if Trump hadn't have abused his Twitter account to drum up this kind of violent extremism with self-serving lies about a free and fair election.

Those hundreds of thousands of users flocked to Parler as a result of Twitter cracking down on this same type of violent speech. So is it really a surprise that AWS cracked down on them too for the same reasons? And Google? And Apple? And Shopify? And others? If you're repeatedly running into bans and suspensions, it could be a multi-company conspiracy to silence you, or it could just be you. I guess that's the debate.

The 1st amendment has limits like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater or coordinating to murder the VP of the US.

This isn't the same free speech debate as a professor refusing to use gender-neutral pronouns or someone publishing racist research or someone touting conspiracy theories or someone blowing off steam. This is about a small number of users using a platform to illegally threaten and coordinate violence on others in very explicit and direct terms and that platform standing by their right to do so. The only thing stopping them from following through is their low numbers.

What do we want 2 years from now? Parler letting thousands of people threaten to murder Biden, Pelosi, AOC, Romney or every elected official that doesn't subscribe to their version of reality? No way. History tells us this doesn't end well. "Fall in line or we'll shun you" politics is abhorrent. "Fall in line or we'll harm you" politics is the absolute bottom of group behavior. We have laws against violent speech and conspiracy to commit murder for very valid reasons.

Are the threats from the left a problem?

Kathy Griffen holding the President's bloody decapitated head?

Or "If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire fucking thing down"? https://twitter.com/rezaaslan/status/1307107507131875330

Or are those not as dangerous? Or have we simply realized that mass censorship makes the situation even worse?

I guess I don't know how free speech and violent political groups can coexist as violence itself is the most brutal form of censorship.

> Are the threats from the left a problem?

This is a "both sides" argument, that compares apples and oranges. Someone punches a person and someone drives a car into a crowd of innocent people. One is far worse than the other and they're not even in the same ballpark. But when the person who punched someone is "ANTIFA" and the person who drove the car into a crowd is "MAGA" then suddenly we have a debate where there wouldn't have been one if folks had a stronger moral compass than political identity.

Imagine this scenario: A Muslim group with dark skin and long beards, wearing hijabs, led by a billionaire Muslim who dodges condemning 9/11 and openly disparages white people, organizes a "march for Islam" on Marler (Parler for Mulsims) and tries to hunt down various white Christian conservative politicians in the capital building who advocated for the travel ban (killing a police officer in the process) with the stated objective of certifying their Muslim nominee for President who clearly lost the election, yet has been lying about winning and says he'll never concede. Would these same white Christian conservatives being hunted down by a relentless self-serving Muslim politican dust off their near death experience and immediately stand up for Marler and these "very fine" Muslism's right to continue to post their follow up plans for next week?

If modifying the roles in the scenario doesn't feel as comfortable, then this censorship debate might be more related to the social / political identity of those involved than it is about the principle of the debate.

> Or are those not as dangerous?

Kathy Griffen doesn't have the same power as the leader of the free world. Neither does Dr. Reza Aslan, whoever that is. Kathy Griffen's post was messed up and I think they did suspend her for that and made her delete it, right? "Burn the whole thing down" is a euphemism for "start over". Is it inflammatory? Sure. Is it a direct, actionable threat? I don't think so, but I would certainly see it differently if a mob of Aslan's followers showed up carrying torches. Would I have a problem with Twitter deleting the Tweet until he rephrased it to be clear that no violence was intended? No. The more civil our discourse, the more civil our society in my opinion.

I'm all for a very generous line on free speech to make room for very shocking or antagonizing points of views, but when your free speech encourages people to act towards violence and illegally overturning a court-upheld democratic election, I have a huge problem with that because that ultimately leads to more censorship, not less. You think AWS suspending your account and having to self-host is bad? Wait until the capitol mob destroys your business or threatens to kill you. That's true censorship, the kind that's so intimidating and so permanent that you don't dare speak up. That's the kind of censorship the capital mob was advocating for on Parler. Banning a digital account and making you create a new one somewhere else is literally the smallest, most insignificant form of censorship I can think of. And if literally no one will let you create a digital account with them, then maybe it's you and not everyone else. Violence, intimidation and death is the censorship I'm far more worried about. Just look at how brutally effective fascists or the mob can be in censoring entire communities or schools of thought.

> Or have we simply realized that mass censorship makes the situation even worse?

Let's look at Germany who banned Mein Kampf and have "mass censored" the Nazi party, it's symbols and it's ideas. It's not just shunned in Germany to be a Nazi or spread Nazi ideas, it's illegal. Why does Germany believe in "mass censorship"? Because freedom of speech is not all or nothing and censoring Nazis pales in comparison to the alternative of letting Nazi groups freely organize. So, it's not like this road of letting Parlor continue to allow violent political groups to coordinate an uprising leads to more freedom in the long run, it's quite the opposite. From Germany's experience: Want peace and freedom? Then censor those who don't.

In Arnold's recent video (https://twitter.com/Schwarzenegger/status/134824948128487424...) he talks about his father's personal experience with slowly going along with Naziism. I've lived in Germany and Austria and seen the remnants of fascism and it's horrifying. What's even more horrifying is how easy it was for 1930's men and women to dismiss Hitler as "not that bad" or "yeah, he says some outrageous things, but he'd never do it" or "at least he's fighting for Germany" or "he went a little far there, but he won't do it again" or "at least Hitler's on my side" (until he isn't). Sure, people like me might sound alarmist and maybe the capital mob fades quietly into history with no further violence, but my Austrian professor who lived through WWII talked at great length about how seamless and natural the transition from the Weimar Republic to Naziism was and this action at the capital certainly reminded me of his stories, just like it reminded Arnold of his father's story. Giving Parler and the capital mob another shot is not the nail in the coffin for democracy, but it is another notch in violent political extremism's tightening belt. And no one knows which notch is the final one, but when it is, there's no room for anyone to breathe. So, instead of flirting with a violent fascist takeover we're asking Parler's users to please rephrase their beliefs in a non-violent way. Seems a pretty small ask.

Many dismiss the capital mob as lunatics, but Hitler was a 3rd rate fanatic and a recurring failure for years before he took power. In fact, the Weimar Republic wanted to work with him specifically because of how inept and easily manipulated they thought he was. Dismissing the gravity of the capital attack because it failed is a huge mistake in my opinion. Germany wasn't a country of evil citizens who loved Naziism, it was a country of really good people who slowly went along with a few really bad people bending the norms until they had normalized the ultimate censorship: death.

Here we know we have a few really bad people. We don't need to be the good people that go along with it and I'm glad that there are people in powerful positions who aren't.

If you were to end the republic without the usual mass murder (nuclear war, pandemics, etc.) How would you do it?

If you took out the Senate and legislature, would that work? What if you could guaranteed their protection was understaffed when you attempted it?

> If you took out the Senate and legislature, would that work? What if you could guaranteed their protection was understaffed when you attempted it?

Nope, all of the states would appoint new representatives. There are processes for all of these scenarios.

The senate and house are not necessary for the day to day operation if the republic. They aren’t even there all of the time. Killing a bunch of politicians is not a threat to the republic.

This seems naive - if Senators were executed we would possibly be talking about a full blown transition to an authoritarian Trump regime.

In a scenario where a Trump incited mob executes Senators while the police and national guard do nothing is tantamount to a military coup. The replacements would have no reason to believe that their lives wouldn't also be in danger if they didn't certify Trump as the winner of the 2020 elections. At that point Trump has effectively side stepped the Constitution and usurped power through violence - which is literally the end of the republic.

> In a scenario where a Trump incited mob executes Senators while the police and national guard do nothing is tantamount to a military coup.

But that’s not even close to what happened. The national guard doing nothing would require buy-in from the entire military chain of command, which has never been very supportive of Trump.

Nobody died, that's what happened. I'm simply answering your hypothetical if the Senators were actually killed.

If the Sentors and/or the VP were taken as hostages, or worse killed, it would mean national guard was either complicit or incompetent. However, as we know, the Secret Service sadly had to act with deadly force and managed to secure the legislature.

A. If assassination is the method to institute change, SCOTUS would be target #1, due to succession rules. (Side note: Pelican Brief.)

B. I'm not saying there wasn't any wacko who fantasized about overthrowing the the Government and throning an Emperor.

But regime change through force is an impossible task. See: The last 50 years of American foreign policy.

Regimes do change through force. See for example Ghana or Nigeria or Egypt.

However, the impetus has to come from within the country or else the new regime will be seen as a puppet state and face challenges it is unable or unwilling to handle.

> But regime change through force is an impossible task.

Isn't that exactly how most coups are done? Take Iran in '79 as an example.

It would be a big problem, but I don't think so. It wasn't in the realm of possibility on January 6, but for sake of argument.... Say the entire Sentate and House is wiped out somehow. They are not essential for day to day governance. State Governors would make emergency appointments to replace them as a first response. It would be hugely disruptive and chaotic, but I think the republic would survive. The republic is the states. The people in Washington are just the representatives.

They wouldn't wipe out the entire US House and Senate. They would wipe out only those who didn't agree to object to the certification of the Biden's election. They would eliminate Senators and Representatives until Trump was appointed. Now you have an illegitimate president. As you say, the republic is the states, and I don't see how e.g. the Republic of California continues in the Union at that point.

> They are not essential for day to day governance.

Remember that states are not allowed to print their own money as the federal government is. States are now spending vast amounts of money to combat Covid. The federal government is funding these efforts by literally printing dollar bills. If the federal government fails to prop up states, you're looking at states unable to fund hospitals, police, teachers, utilities, etc. If the entire House is eliminated, there's no one to vote on federal budgets, and governors cannot just appoint Representatives as they can Senators -- Representatives must be elected in a special election in their districts according to the constitution. Meaning money from the federal government would just dry up without the House. Obviously the framers never anticipated this edge case.

This could have led to Trump's appointment, depending on how the states were allocated votes (allocated by whom?)

That would have been a very bad situation that I wouldn't want to see how it played out.

Having lived through the collapse of the USSR, the key events could be:

1. New leaders emerge. Industrialists, generals, university professors, even shipyard electricians. They obtain enormous influence through their personal charisma, leadership skills and the political platform they advocate for (think Martin Luther King).

2. Local municipal authorities stop recognizing the central government. They establish democratically-elected councils to temporarily run things in the power vacuum.

3. Security apparatus flips - police and military will stand by, do nothing and just wait to see how the situation develops. Each battalion and police station aims to maintain reasonable peace in their own district (in cooperation with local authorities) and ignores other orders.

4. Having lost all support and control, the central government collapses under its own weight. They may issue orders, but no-one's following them.

5. A grassroots, national assembly type institution with universal popular support emerges to prepare major legislative reforms such as a new constitution to formalize power transfer to new institutions (new government, new parliament). A referendum or general election seals the deal.

In contrast, a bunch of rednecks breaking in for a few hours, taking selfies and stealing minor items is nowhere near this. They have no real leaders, no platform, no support.

> Each battalion and police station aims to maintain reasonable peace in their own district (in cooperation with local authorities) and ignores other orders.

Well, considering that this is how domestic police and national guard already operate in the US—with police operating under municipal authority, or under the authority of the local elected sheriff, and with national guard operating under the authority of each state governor—I don't think observing this would give you any indication that the republic is under threat.

In fact, your points 1, 2 and 3 seem to describe the normal operation of American democracy for the past 200 years or so, with regards to most domestic affairs.

I think this is a good response, but I do urge you to consider that there is not one specific form a failing Republic will take.

Also, I would argue that many of these things did take place. America is fortunate there was a competence problem, but I identify many of the items you listed here as having transpired.

A failed <thing> is still an attempted <thing>.

Orange.

Why are you ignoring that the President instigated the insurrection? Is that irrelevant? The president does have actual power …

More speech is what got us here in the first place

THANK YOU.