Blocked Twitter Users Suing Trump

[Cebel]

If you just asked me if i understand what "hate" means, yes i know that. I just have to read a typical alt right filterbubble or a breitbart article. Those remind me every time.



Could you please elaborate?



Yes, that is exactly what i meant. Thanks for demonstrating.

Can you please stop saying hateful stereotypes please. My feelers are hurt and I might cry. I'm reporting you to the internet police.

[Deleted]

Can you please stop saying hateful stereotypes please.

Wait, did you ask me? Or did you talk to yourself?

Probably we should get back to the topic and to POTUS blocking people who critizice him.

So much for the 1st amandment.

[Cebel]

Wait, did you ask me? Or did you talk to yourself?

Probably we should get back to the topic and to POTUS blocking people who critizice him.

So much for the 1st amandment.

Twitter is a service not a right. End of discussion. Period. Think of it like a drivers licence. Your privilege can be taken at any time. Read the TOS.

I'd love to hear your explanation that you completely avoided on why anything I said was offensive btw. Cause it wasnt. Are you trolling or actually more sensitive than one realistically should be? Do you have any kind of mental regressions that cause you to think this way ( Not being an asshole, genuinely curious )?

[Deleted]

Twitter is a service, but POTUS is the government and not just some guy on twitter. Blocking opinions by the government is against the american constitution.

Do you have any kind of mental regressions that cause you to think this way ( Not being an asshole, genuinely curious )?

Yes. Thanks you discovered it. Now lets continue the topic itself and stop utilizing ad hominems.

[Cebel]

Twitter is a service, but POTUS is the government and not just some guy on twitter. Blocking opinions by the government is against the american constitution.



Yes. Thanks you discovered it. Now lets continue the topic itself and stop utilizing ad hominems.

He's not blocking opinions. If they wanna see what he says they still can. Sounds like they shouldn't be pricks and then they wouldnt get blocked. Breaking news, ive tweeted the president about things I dont agree with... Didnt get blocked. Shocker.

The problem is people ( kinda like yourself on this so far ), cant accept being told no. They cant accept opinions that arent the same as theirs. Anything that they dont 100% agree with they throw a fit about and spew shit on the keyboard. That gets them blocked. I dont give a fuck if you're the king of the world, god, jesus, allah, if you wanna act a fool, you get blocked. Period. Theres no law that says the president cant block them lmao.

This isnt even a fucking discussion other than to say anyone who actually thinks they have a case is deranged.

[Deleted]

He's not blocking opinions. If they wanna see what he says they still can.

It is about the fact people should be able to tell the government their opinions. Actually, twitter was made as a discussion medium and not for a autocratic leader to abuse it as one way propaganda platform.

Breaking news, ive tweeted the president about things I dont agree with...

Really? He must have been upset considering he doesnt like criticism.

This isnt even a fucking discussion other than to say anyone who actually thinks they have a case is deranged.

Sure there is no discussion. As Trump abuses twitter as a one way medium.

[Cebel]

It is about the fact people should be able to tell the government their opinions. Actually, twitter was made as a discussion medium and not for a autocratic leader to abuse it as one way propaganda platform.



Really? He must have been upset considering he doesnt like criticism.



Sure there is no discussion. As Trump abuses twitter as a one way medium.

Abuses. Lmao. It's twitter, he can reply if he wants, or not. Period.

Idk why you dont get this... you're just baiting at this point. Have a great discussion screaming in your echochamber as you deny all reality and refuse to listen to that little voice in your head most people call logic.

[Deleted]

Twitter isn't going to ban Trump. They're on shaky ground already with people not on the left on their platform. If they ban trump off their platform not only will it create a huge shitstorm, I reckon that it will probably make Twitter's already falling stock price go into a free fall.

But what if millions of people would "report" his account/tweets (e.g. hatespeech / fake news...)

[Frogguh]

If you show up at a town hall meeting where Trump was speaking and started calling him every foul-mouthed name you could think of at the top of your lungs, you would be escorted out and this would not be a violation of your rights.

Even if Trump's personal Twitter account was considered a public forum, showing up in the feed with every foul-mouthed name you can think of should result in getting escorted out in the form of a block.

No inconsistency here. No violation of rights by any rational stretch.

[PACOX]

And that's fine. They can call them "public domain/realm" all they want. That does not make them public forums. Again the "public" in "public forum" primarily refers to who owns or hosts the location which in turn, defines determines who makes the rules. Public property is owned by the people and as such, the first amendment applies. Social media on private web servers is owned by the proprietors and thus, they make the rules, not the Constitution. Courts cannot declare private property as a public forum as that violates the first amendment (and other) rights of the proprietor and the first amendment does not apply to property/servers.

I'm not saying that twitter is public.

Its like this. If the WH decides to rent out a private venue to host a public forum it must still abide by the Constitution when it comes to rights of people attending the forum.

Now if the WH (and Trump) are using their respective twitter accounts as virtual public forums (which they've declared that they are) then they must treat it as any other space ie you can't just ban people from accessing the accessing the public forum as per the 1st Amendment. It doesn't matter if Twitter is a private business, its matters how WH/Trump use their accounts as public figures holding federal office. They must abide by the Constitution no matter the venue if holding a public forum. When a federal government official goes on a TV station don't they still have to respect the Constitution?

As a private party, Twitter can come in and say that it doesn't want the government using its "venue" for public statements. The feds will probably take it to court but I think thats what has you confused.

What needs to happen is for the issue to go to SCOTUS because there are no real precedents for public accounts on private platforms, something that will be a norm in the future unless the fed makes its own "twitter".

[Post]

It is about the fact people should be able to tell the government their opinions. Actually, twitter was made as a discussion medium and not for a autocratic leader to abuse it as one way propaganda platform.

I didn't know Twitter was the only way you can communicate with your government.

[rhorle]

I didn't know Twitter was the only way you can communicate with your government.

That is the difference between having rights and not. Your rights apply in all situations regardless if there is another way. Using your logic discrimination based on race would be legal in the United States. Because there is always another X a person of Y race can make use of. They could use that other drinking fountain. That other bus. And their rights are not being infringed.

[Seranthor]

I'm not saying that twitter is public.

Its like this. If the WH decides to rent out a private venue to host a public forum it must still abide by the Constitution when it comes to rights of people attending the forum.

Now if the WH (and Trump) are using their respective twitter accounts as virtual public forums (which they've declared that they are) then they must treat it as any other space ie you can't just ban people from accessing the accessing the public forum as per the 1st Amendment. It doesn't matter if Twitter is a private business, its matters how WH/Trump use their accounts as public figures holding federal office. They must abide by the Constitution no matter the venue if holding a public forum. When a federal government official goes on a TV station don't they still have to respect the Constitution?

As a private party, Twitter can come in and say that it doesn't want the government using its "venue" for public statements. The feds will probably take it to court but I think thats what has you confused.

What needs to happen is for the issue to go to SCOTUS because there are no real precedents for public accounts on private platforms, something that will be a norm in the future unless the fed makes its own "twitter".

Lets use your analogy and take it a bit further, what type of conduct is acceptable in this venue? Can you stand up and shout whatever you want? or is there some level of minimum acceptable behavior?

[Post]

That is the difference between having rights and not. Your rights apply in all situations regardless if there is another way. Using your logic discrimination based on race would be legal in the United States. Because there is always another X a person of Y race can make use of. They could use that other drinking fountain. That other bus. And their rights are not being infringed.

That's a horrible analogy, you can still use Twitter, and it isn't a public service.

[A dot Ham]

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?

It will be interesting to see, my instincts say that regardless of whether or not he is POTUS or acting in official capacity while "tweeting" that Twitter is not some official forum or medium by which government business is conducted.

On the flip side if blocking someone on twitter is unconstitutional... then I feel like this would only open the flood gates for the many conservative public figures who were blacklisted by Twitter during the 2016 presidential campaigns.

Its okay when Twitter censors people, its not okay when Donald Trump chooses to ignore certain individuals? Color me confused.

Furthermore, Twitter like many places on the internet is compromised of fictional and public figures. Using a feature designed by the creators is hardly criminal... especially when if your goal was to Preach truth, or your version of it... one could simply create another account.

[melodramocracy]

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?

It absolutely has merit, it's already documented that his shitposting is official, hopefully they win.

[rhorle]

That's a horrible analogy, you can still use Twitter, and it isn't a public service.

The issue isn't over Twitter. Why do people keep thinking that. The issue is over a public official blocking people over their viewpoints. We know twitter is irrelevant to the issue because if you take the same actions and switch Twitter out for something else then the issue would still exist.

- - - Updated - - -

But in typical liberal fashion logic and short term memory seem to be a real problem. Its okay when Twitter censors people, its not okay when Donald Trump chooses to ignore certain individuals.

And that is where you don't understand the issue and the law. Twitter is a private company. The President is an elected official of the government. The government can not ignore the law and constitution just because they use a private service.

[Post]

The issue isn't over Twitter. Why do people keep thinking that. The issue is over a public official blocking people over their viewpoints. We know twitter is irrelevant to the issue because if you take the same actions and switch Twitter out for something else then the issue would still exist.

You're desperately trying to make it not about Twitter when it is. You're doing this because you know that because it is Twitter, he isn't in the wrong.

[rhorle]

You're desperately trying to make it not about Twitter when it is. You're doing this because you know that because it is Twitter, he isn't in the wrong.

It is because it is not about twitter. If he was using Facebook and doing the same thing it would still be an issue. If it was at the National Mall it would still be an issue. It doesn't matter if it is a private service. A government official is bound by the law when using private services. The official can not block people just because they have a different point of view.

[A dot Ham]

The issue isn't over Twitter. Why do people keep thinking that. The issue is over a public official blocking people over their viewpoints. We know twitter is irrelevant to the issue because if you take the same actions and switch Twitter out for something else then the issue would still exist.

- - - Updated - - -



And that is where you don't understand the issue and the law. Twitter is a private company. The President is an elected official of the government. The government can not ignore the law and constitution just because they use a private service.

So you think that the supreme court is going to force President Trump to "unblock" these said individuals? LOL.

Blocking a user account on twitter (which again can easily be circumvented) is a far cry from enacting a law that prohibits free speech, even if you loosely and misguidedly apply the First Amendment in such a fashion.

I understand the law just fine.