Blocked Twitter Users Suing Trump

[Hell-Nicø]

That stuff is so funny.


It's so rich from the left, a side well known to be ban happy with ANYONE that isn't thinking like them and posing as professional victim cry over harassing from "haters" (ie people disagreeing with them), to whine about a guy that chose to ban REAL insane haters (real one, hateful and insane one) that are harassing him.

Ho, the irony.

But again, irony is a forme of humor, and SJW don't even remember what that word mean.

[Beardless Man]

Where do people think it's unconstitutional when the PotUS can follow Twitter's Code of Conduct and Terms of Service and block those he wants no association from? It's his personal twitter and he has free reign on it. Besides, there's millions of ways to view said tweets and people are being pathetic.

[Phookah]

Source: http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/11/tech...uit/index.html

Some twitter users are saying President Trump violated the First Amendment by blocking them on Twitter. It's interesting, because Sean Spicer said the President's tweets are official statements.

Do you think this law suit has any merit, or just more energy being wasting hating on Trump?

As long as their win just results in them getting unblocked on twitter... Yay, I can read the cheeto-in-chiefs tweets first hand now instead of immediately reading them on the news because of how asinine they were?

[yoma]

I could care less either way, but if the courts rule that Trump has to unblock everyone, I hope to hell one of the moles in the WH leaks his reaction with each click. Let. It. Be. So.

[Draco-Onis]

Add it to the insanely long list of lawsuits against Trump, you have to give it to the man he probably is propping up the lawyer market by himself.

[Phookah]

Trump critics in his twitter ARE THE MOST RETARDED PEOPLE ON PLANET EARTH.

i mean conservatives spamming memes there are also of no high intelligence, but man...

No, Trump is the most retarded person on his twitter by an almost infinite margin.

[rhorle]

Blocking you on Twitter doesn't stop you from seeing the tweets though. You just log out, and voila. Or just use a second (unblocked) account. It's also not as if there aren't plenty of other ways to petition the government, all of which have, until now, been found perfectly adequate by everyone, stretching right back to George Washington and the good old mail bag.

The law doesn't care if you can log out and see it. Of course their are other ways to see the tweets but seeing them first-hand can be a protected part of the government. It doesn't matter that there are other ways to petition the government. That isn't how the law works.

- - - Updated - - -

There are plenty of other public forums the President participates in that block people from providing feedback: press conferences in general come to mind. People are free to speak their mind, free to give feedback. Just like in Twitter, if the President doesn't want to provide you with the opportunity to provide feedback he doesn't have to.

All public forums are to be treated equally under the law. That is the whole basis of the lawsuit against trump and others who use social media and censor through blocking or just block. This isn't the first time these laws have been challenged it is just the highest person being challenged. And yes the president, or any other government official, needs to follow the law. A public forum has specific laws on who can attend/comment and how the government can censor or block attendance/comment.

You are completely ignoring the legal argument here and in doing so showing your ignorance.

[Hell-Nicø]

The law doesn't care if you can log out and see it. Of course their are other ways to see the tweets but seeing them first-hand can be a protected part of the government. It doesn't matter that there are other ways to petition the government. That isn't how the law works.

Can you stop talking about the law for a second? Because you have clearly no idea about how the law actually works.
That lawsuit has ZERO ground and everyone with a bit of honesty can see it, now strop trying to pretend that's not the case and move on.

[ohiostate124]

I wonder how many of the people that were blocked were some of the more rabid posters here. I think we all know at least one.

[rhorle]

This is the point you're missing. A "public forum" is not a "publicly accessible forum", it's a publicly funded/hosted forum. In other words, if it's not public property, it is by definition not a "public forum". The First Amendment does not apply to private property, including servers.

The public forum law has been applied to Facebook posts. As I pointed out earlier in this thread. http://www.hawaiidefensefoundation.o...dment-lawsuit/ is a case where the Facebook page was deemed to violate the first amendment.

"Rosenberger v University of Virginia demonstrates that a limited public forum need not be a physical place. In Rosenberger, the Court found that Virginia had created a limited public forum when it established a fund that would cover the cost of publications by eligible student groups. Once having created such a forum (which, of course, it was under no obligation to do), Virginia could not refuse funding to a student organization because of the overtly religious nature of its publication." http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/project...natedforum.htm

And for the matter of the first amendment a traditional public forum is required to be a publicly accessible forum. A limited public forum can restrict attendance but is still bound by how they restrict. Using public property or not is not the definition for being a public forum.

- - - Updated - - -

Can you stop talking about the law for a second? Because you have clearly no idea about how the law actually works.
That lawsuit has ZERO ground and everyone with a bit of honesty can see it, now strop trying to pretend that's not the case and move on.

And you do? http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/mar...217-story.html is a similar case and using the same principles.

[callipygoustp]

All public forums are to be treated equally under the law. That is the whole basis of the lawsuit against trump and others who use social media and censor through blocking or just block. This isn't the first time these laws have been challenged it is just the highest person being challenged. And yes the president, or any other government official, needs to follow the law. A public forum has specific laws on who can attend/comment and how the government can censor or block attendance/comment.

You are completely ignoring the legal argument here and in doing so showing your ignorance.

Cure my ignorance: show me the law.

I expect you're just talking out your ass, but, we'll see.

[Mormolyce]

It's so rich from the left, a side well known to be ban happy with ANYONE that isn't thinking like them and posing as professional victim cry over harassing from "haters" (ie people disagreeing with them), to whine about a guy that chose to ban REAL insane haters (real one, hateful and insane one) that are harassing him.

I could flip left and right in this sentence and apply it right back.

[TheFirstOnes]

Me


The Twitter Cucks that got banned!


Trumps Tweets!


America


Trump!


Liberals/Democrats!


My Careness!


Why comment then? Well, why not?

[rhorle]

Cure my ignorance: show me the law. I expect you're just talking out your ass, but, we'll see.

The various links I have posted in this thread have shown where the law can apply and how similar situations were found to violate the law. Also the case I alluded to earlier was found to be a violation of the first amendment. http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/Artic...-Comments.aspx

Your ignorance can not be cured however because you've already made up your mind by prejudging anything I will say. You don't care about the facts in the slightest and haven't from the beginning of this thread.

[Adam Jensen]

I think its a laughable idea that the President is constitutionally required to give full access to anyone that wants full access. What's next: The president will be required to answer every phone call he receives? Ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous.

Every phone call he receives isn't in public. Twitter is.

[Gemini Soul]

They can only view his tweets if they log out of the service.

That right there is the perfect defense, the case wont go anywhere thou. Because they can still see his tweets via logging out and other 3rd party's, good for him for blocking people thou.

[Frenegade42]

I'm willing to see Trump (who I support) to take a hit on this one, if only to give precedent and cement the fact that twitter is a public form subject to 1st amendment rights and not to be policed and censored by a privately held company. The moderate right and conservatives will need this much more in the future to be able to survive against the regressive authoritarian left than a single term president.

[Mistame]

The public forum law has been applied to Facebook posts. As I pointed out earlier in this thread. http://www.hawaiidefensefoundation.o...dment-lawsuit/ is a case where the Facebook page was deemed to violate the first amendment.

That link is just an article about a lawsuit being filed. Again, the First Amendment does not apply to private web sites on private servers. Period. Sure, the actions of the officials in that case are certainly sketchy, but you don't have a right to post on, or even access, a privately owned website, regardless of who else posts on it.

"Rosenberger v University of Virginia demonstrates that a limited public forum need not be a physical place. In Rosenberger, the Court found that Virginia had created a limited public forum when it established a fund that would cover the cost of publications by eligible student groups. Once having created such a forum (which, of course, it was under no obligation to do), Virginia could not refuse funding to a student organization because of the overtly religious nature of its publication." http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/project...natedforum.htm

This case isn't even relevant as it's about the exclusion of certain groups. The Facebook post was merely a point of contention.

And for the matter of the first amendment a traditional public forum is required to be a publicly accessible forum. A limited public forum can restrict attendance but is still bound by how they restrict. Using public property or not is not the definition for being a public forum.

A traditional public forum must be public property as it being private property inherently makes it a private forum. The First Amendment would apply in the former if, for example, authorities tried to disperse an otherwise peaceful protest. It would not apply in the latter, as the owners of said property dictate the rules. "Limited" public forums also typically require public property and/or and pre-designation for the event, in which the First would only apply if it's public property.

To be clear, I'm not saying that we should let officials get away with using these sites in this way but rather pointing out that people screaming about their "freedom of speech" being violated on a privately-owned website is retarded. If it's not government-run, you have no "right" to "free speech".

[callipygoustp]

The various links I have posted in this thread have shown where the law can apply and how similar situations were found to violate the law. Also the case I alluded to earlier was found to be a violation of the first amendment. http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/Artic...-Comments.aspx

Hmmm, a relevant case: can't argue against that.

Your ignorance can not be cured however because you've already made up your mind by prejudging anything I will say. You don't care about the facts in the slightest and haven't from the beginning of this thread.

See above comment.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

The only thing that could come out of this case is a ruling that Trump's Personal Twitter account is not an official source of communicating with the public

- - - Updated - - -

Hmmm, a relevant case: can't argue against that.

The argument against that would be that it was the official HPD account that was deleting comments. It would be a different story if it were one of the officers private facebook account