# data[].attributes.headline
Even if there is the freedom of speech, there are rules in social media. Being the president does not mean you do not have to follow them. Instagram for example gave him many chances to start publishing non- violent posts but he did not take these.  Also he is known for inciting violence in such posts. In interest of the public safety I would say it is was an appropriate measure.(Katharina)

# data[].attributes.subject
Even if there is the freedom of speech, there are rules in social media. Being the president does not mean you do not have to follow them. Instagram for example gave him many chances to start publishing non- violent posts but he did not take these.  Also he is known for inciting violence in such posts. In interest of the public safety I would say it is was an appropriate measure.(Katharina)

# data[].attributes.body
Everyone has the right of free speech in the US. It is a pure constitutional right to share your own opinion, therefore it can not be restricted. Especially not by a social media platform such as Twitter, which is alive because of sharing thoughts and individual statements. (Lotta)

# data[].attributes.headline
he did go against many platform's guidelines by swearing often for example, which would get a normal account, banned. (Eleni)

# data[].attributes.subject
he did go against many platform's guidelines by swearing often for example, which would get a normal account, banned. (Eleni)

# data[].attributes.headline
No, because he, in the end, did not do anything. He did not take action. Banning him from talking just because people reacted violently is irresponsible as there is always someone who takes offence and also someone who would react violently, if offended. People get agitated because of things others say, ON THEIR OWN. You cannot, at the end of the day, blame one man who said something just because gown men and women decided they wanted to riot. It's not like a gun was held to their heads, forcing them to. I have also not heard of threats to the rioters forcing them to. Not that I know of. As adults, they should take responsibility for their own actions. Trump is a person with huge influence so just like his words reach our ears, here in Germany, they reach these violent people's ears, too. But that could happen to anyone. One person says something, people misunderstand and start threatening. It does not even need to be a misunderstanding. He didn't say "start a riot", which is a clear, not cryptic message which he wrote (but only if the riots WERE his intention. If they were not intended and who are we to decide on another person's intentions, then what he wrote would mainly be complaining which is, due to the freedom of speech, not at all a crime. Everything regarding "intention" here, is just speculation.). So taking away his ability to talk, through social media because of those irresponsible people's violent behaviour and saying it was Trump's fault is not only twisting the fact that a comepletely healthy person has their own brains and can think for themselves which should especially be expected of adults (here, I am excluding people that cannot make their own decisions as, if they are mentally disabled, for example, most cannot be held accountable for anything which is understandable) he also did not participate in any active way which we know of and if we knew his intention for the post, THEN, and only then would we know if he had taken part in it on purpose, passively. (Eleni)

# data[].attributes.subject
No, because he, in the end, did not do anything. He did not take action. Banning him from talking just because people reacted violently is irresponsible as there is always someone who takes offence and also someone who would react violently, if offended. People get agitated because of things others say, ON THEIR OWN. You cannot, at the end of the day, blame one man who said something just because gown men and women decided they wanted to riot. It's not like a gun was held to their heads, forcing them to. I have also not heard of threats to the rioters forcing them to. Not that I know of. As adults, they should take responsibility for their own actions. Trump is a person with huge influence so just like his words reach our ears, here in Germany, they reach these violent people's ears, too. But that could happen to anyone. One person says something, people misunderstand and start threatening. It does not even need to be a misunderstanding. He didn't say "start a riot", which is a clear, not cryptic message which he wrote (but only if the riots WERE his intention. If they were not intended and who are we to decide on another person's intentions, then what he wrote would mainly be complaining which is, due to the freedom of speech, not at all a crime. Everything regarding "intention" here, is just speculation.). So taking away his ability to talk, through social media because of those irresponsible people's violent behaviour and saying it was Trump's fault is not only twisting the fact that a comepletely healthy person has their own brains and can think for themselves which should especially be expected of adults (here, I am excluding people that cannot make their own decisions as, if they are mentally disabled, for example, most cannot be held accountable for anything which is understandable) he also did not participate in any active way which we know of and if we knew his intention for the post, THEN, and only then would we know if he had taken part in it on purpose, passively. (Eleni)

# data[].attributes.body
I think it is not hard to suspend an account just like that. The real problem has not disappeared. The large group of Trump supporters will remain and may feel even more excluded from society if their ‘leader’ is banished. The problem must be solved by not dividing people into two groups but by making them a big one. And in any case, that’s so much easier to do if certain people, like Donald Trump, don’t have the power to influence a country and divide it. (Ella)

# data[].attributes.body
On the one hand, everyone should have the freedom to express their own opinion as well as freedom of speech, but on the other hand, his statements incite violence. Due to the fact, that twitter is used by a lot of (young) people, whose opinion may be dramatically influenced by certain utterances, his Tweets can and did spread false information and lead to riots, which should certainly not be allowed. The question arises as to wether freedom of speech is more important than a measure against Donald Trumps dubious statements, considering that people got banned from Twitter posting less violent tweets. However, a limited use of Twitter or ban could have also been considered.(Elisabeth)

# data[].attributes.body
There are laws and guidelines that all citizens must adhere to. If this is not done, there is no violation of freedom of speech. Additionally there is also a thin line between freedom of speech and hate speech with inciting violence. (Isabel)

# data[].attributes.headline
Trump has been a person with great power. With great power comes great responsibility for the things you say. Therefore you need to deal with consequences, if you spread unfounded  allegations or incite violence through social media, in a position where your words have an effect on many people.

# data[].attributes.subject
Trump has been a person with great power. With great power comes great responsibility for the things you say. Therefore you need to deal with consequences, if you spread unfounded  allegations or incite violence through social media, in a position where your words have an effect on many people.

# data[].attributes.headline
Trump is a person who likes to incite violence. Banning him is to secure safety, especially during times of Covid, crowds of people should be prevented 

# data[].attributes.subject
Trump is a person who likes to incite violence. Banning him is to secure safety, especially during times of Covid, crowds of people should be prevented 

# data[].attributes.headline
Even though there are massively different opinions,  based on the US constitution, he has the freedom of speech.

# data[].attributes.subject
Even though there are massively different opinions,  based on the US constitution, he has the freedom of speech.

# data[].attributes.headline
He has other ways to address the public. They didn't take away his freedom of speech, only took away his access to their own platform.

# data[].attributes.subject
He has other ways to address the public. They didn't take away his freedom of speech, only took away his access to their own platform.

# data[].attributes.headline
Civilians get banned from social media platforms too. When you create an account you (Donald Trump as well) accept the terms and conditions the platform has set up. If you act against those, the platform has every right to ban you.

# data[].attributes.subject
Civilians get banned from social media platforms too. When you create an account you (Donald Trump as well) accept the terms and conditions the platform has set up. If you act against those, the platform has every right to ban you.