Blocked Twitter Users Suing Trump

[PACOX]

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?

Thats why there needs to a be a court case. You can be kicked out of a public forum for being disruptive but the definition ofdisruptive can mean different things. For instance, yelling at your representative, booing, groaning, etc is sometimes considered disruptive, sometimes its not.

So there must rules put in place that define when one of these public accounts can and cannont ban someone and for how long. If they can even allowed to ban people. "Muting" someone in a conversation is probably the equivalent of getting kicked out of a venue for being disruptive.

What about bot spam? What about DMing these accounts? A real judical and Congressional review is necessary.

[ohiostate124]

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.

People aren't being block because they have different viewpoints. The people being blocked are trolls spamming him for visibility. There have been articles about it. People complaining that they are missing out on followers and opportunities because they can't reply to him. This lawsuit isn't going anywhere because it is completely absurd.

[rhorle]

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.

Of course it is different from enacting a law against free speech. But for someone who claims to understand the law you don't seem to get that the law applies to the big issues (enacting a law agaisnt free speech) and the little issues (blocking/censoring people on social media). That is why the law and the rights it afford works so well. Because people don't get to pick and choose when they want to follow them and when they do not.

[A dot Ham]

Of course it is different from enacting a law against free speech. But for someone who claims to understand the law you don't seem to get that the law applies to the big issues (enacting a law agaisnt free speech) and the little issues (blocking/censoring people on social media). That is why the law and the rights it afford works so well. Because people don't get to pick and choose when they want to follow them and when they do not.

The real issue here, is that you and all your liberal buddies are so blind with hatred that you'd look for anything to crucify him, regardless of its implications and the rights you THINK you're fighting for.

Anyone with a shred of reason should be able to apply logic and concede that it is POSSIBLE the law does not apply here.

The fact that you are so trigger happy right now and waving your impeachment flag (again ) is proof enough.

Show me one case that establishes your precedence and I will gladly concede defeat on the issue.

[rhorle]

People aren't being block because they have different viewpoints. The people being blocked are trolls spamming him for visibility. There have been articles about it. People complaining that they are missing out on followers and opportunities because they can't reply to him. This lawsuit isn't going anywhere because it is completely absurd.

And the lawsuit also is not about every single person being blocked. The courts have ruled that people can be blocked on social media if they are disruptive. This is why most state and federal agencies post usage guidelines for their websites. If you actually read the news story linked to in the original post it talks about how the lawsuit is about a group who feels they were blocked just for criticism.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/11/tech...uit/index.html The lawsuit argues this applies to Twitter, too. The plaintiffs claim they were blocked by Trump after tweeting criticism.

Whether or not what they tweeted crosses the line is another matter. If this lawsuit is successful Trump, or any other government official or agency, will not have to unblock everyone they ever blocked. They will just have to unblock those that were blocked just for having a different viewpoint. Disruptive, vulgaraity, and hate can still lead to being blocked.

The law has been clear on this issues regarding free speech.

- - - Updated - - -

Anyone with a shred of reason should be able to apply logic and concede that it is POSSIBLE the law does not apply here. The fact that you are so trigger happy right now and waving your impeachment flag (again ) is proof enough. Show me one case that establishes your precedence and I will gladly concede defeat on the issue.

http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/Artic...-Comments.aspx

You are not the first to come in here and think they are right just because. I have not waved an impeachment flag. Next time perhaps focus on the issue instead of inventing arguments to props yours up when you have no facts and actual reasons. You seem to think that just because someone is supporting something they are you political enemy. What you can't see because your political impotence is that it doesn't really matter who the president is. This issue should be raised no matter what government official is doing it. Just as it is not about Twitter it is also not about Trump. Its about a government official potentially (since the courts have not weighed in yet) on the first amendment.

[Dextroden]

And the lawsuit also is not about every single person being blocked. The courts have ruled that people can be blocked on social media if they are disruptive. This is why most state and federal agencies post usage guidelines for their websites. If you actually read the news story linked to in the original post it talks about how the lawsuit is about a group who feels they were blocked just for criticism.



Whether or not what they tweeted crosses the line is another matter. If this lawsuit is successful Trump, or any other government official or agency, will not have to unblock everyone they ever blocked. They will just have to unblock those that were blocked just for having a different viewpoint. Disruptive, vulgaraity, and hate can still lead to being blocked.

The law has been clear on this issues regarding free speech.

- - - Updated - - -



http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/Artic...-Comments.aspx

You are not the first to come in here and think they are right just because. I have not waved an impeachment flag. Next time perhaps focus on the issue instead of inventing arguments to props yours up when you have no facts and actual reasons. You seem to think that just because someone is supporting something they are you political enemy. What you can't see because your political impotence is that it doesn't really matter who the president is. This issue should be raised no matter what government official is doing it. Just as it is not about Twitter it is also not about Trump. Its about a government official potentially (since the courts have not weighed in yet) on the first amendment.

Until the precedent is set that the President can no longer block you. (And that will be the natural evolution.) And then I can't wait till this has to be defended against a Democrat President getting shitposts.

[Osmeric]

Until the precedent is set that the President can no longer block you. (And that will be the natural evolution.)

Well, yes. Posting of opinion, even inflammatory opinion, to such venues would be doubly protected by the 1st amendment.

The president can deal with such responses by retreating from using social media.

[Post]

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.

If it was FB he would still be allowed to block people. He can block whoever he wants on Twitter, that's why they have the feature.

[Osmeric]

If it was FB he would still be allowed to block people. He can block whoever he wants on Twitter, that's why they have the feature.

No, this would violate the last part of the first amendment.

[Dextroden]

Well, yes. Posting of opinion, even inflammatory opinion, to such venues would be doubly protected by the 1st amendment.

The president can deal with such responses by retreating from using social media.

Just as long as that opinion is consistent.

[Post]

No, this would violate the last part of the first amendment.

No, you can still petition your government all you want.

[Osmeric]

No, you can still petition your government all you want.

That's not how the logic of constitutional law works, for reasons that have already been explained in this thread.

[Post]

That's not how the logic of constitutional law works, for reasons that have already been explained in this thread.

But you will not explain it will you?

[Nlfyskiod]

There is no confidential file above, should everyone can access ........

[weedburst]

the president of the united states of america is trump... yes, that trump... and he(THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) is caught up in twitter beef.

fuck it, im done with this country.

[Osmeric]

But you will not explain it will you?

One cannot, for example, say it's ok to prohibit free speech on mondays, arguing that people can still speak on tuesdays. Constitutional rights are inviolable in all circumstances. If some people can read and/or respond to Trump's tweets then all must be allowed read and/or respond.

The logic is not difficult to understand, unless you're determined to not understand it.

[Post]

One cannot, for example, say it's ok to prohibit free speech on mondays, arguing that people can still speak on tuesdays. Constitutional rights are inviolable in all circumstances. If some people can read and/or respond to Trump's tweets then all must be allowed read and/or respond.

The logic is not difficult to understand, unless you're determined to not understand it.

That is the worst comparison I've ever seen of anything ever. Twitter is a private social media platform, and they can still use it. That's like saying it's a breech of freedom of speech if you saw Trump at Walmart and started yelling shit at him and Walmart security kicked you out.

[Osmeric]

That is the worst comparison I've ever seen of anything ever.

Not at all. It is an illustration that the kind of excuse you gave, that other forms of the first amendment protect behavior still exist, is not justification for violation of the first amendment.

Twitter is a private social media platform, and they can still use it. That's like saying it's a breech of freedom of speech if you saw Trump at Walmart and started yelling shit at him and Walmart security kicked you out.

If Trump were using Walmart to receive feedback on his official pronouncements then excluding people from Walmart would be unconstitutional. If Walmart objected, Trump would have to conduct his business elsewhere.

[Post]

Not at all. It is an illustration that the kind of excuse you gave, that other forms of the first amendment protect behavior still exist, is not justification for violation of the first amendment.

It's a private social media platform, you can't get around that. People keep trying to defend this like Twitter is a public service.

If Trump were using Walmart to receive feedback on his official pronouncements then excluding people from Walmart would be unconstitutional. If Walmart objected, Trump would have to conduct his business elsewhere.

He's making a post on social media, not trying to get feedback on official pronouncements.

[Maruka]

I cant believe this thread got so far. It is hilarious and stupid. People have the right to talk shit on social media in some countries, and others have the right to block them.