The government is demanding to know who this Trump critic is. Twitter is suing

[Machismo]

I really would not be surprised if they came up with a bullshit excuse to get that info.
Its not Like Trump gives a shit about any values that do not benefit him. Its a mystery why 36% of the Americans still approve of them.

- - - Updated - - -



Get away from what?

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised at all. Trump hates freedom.

[Jagscorpion]

Not that I'm for the government having the authority to get that person's information, but freedom of speech does not guarantee anonymity. Now there may be other aspects of the law that speak to this, but I just wanted to point that out.

Specifically the core concept of freedom of speech is that even if the government DOES know who you are, they are prohibited from taking action against you solely based on the opinions you have stated.

[Spiffums]

Like the NSA doesn't already know who it is........

[Machismo]

Not that I'm for the government having the authority to get that person's information, but freedom of speech does not guarantee anonymity. Now there may be other aspects of the law that speak to this, but I just wanted to point that out.

Specifically the core concept of freedom of speech is that even if the government DOES know who you are, they are prohibited from taking action against you solely based on the opinions you have stated.

That's where freedom of privacy comes into play.

[JohnBrown1917]

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised at all. Trump hates freedom.

And his worldwide fanbase will lap it up.
Freedoms for them are a right, but for those 'evul sjws'? They deserve nothing!

[Jagscorpion]

That's where freedom of privacy comes into play.

Possibly, but freedom of privacy is a much more nebulous freedom than freedom of speech, and is a distinct amendment. Even so, it's still not freedom of speech, which is what people seem to be glomming onto.

Also, we violate privacy all the time with warrants. So in this case it seems they would need to give justification, but would not necessarily be prohibited from obtaining the identity.

[Masark]

Not that I'm for the government having the authority to get that person's information, but freedom of speech does not guarantee anonymity.

Might want to double check that.

[Jagscorpion]

interesting: didn't know there was a ruling, I see the rationale behind it.

[Themius]

Like the rules against Violence and such, but refusal to ban people with hashtags like #killallwhites or #killallmen? Those Rules? I mean lets not pretend the Twitter moderators aren't hypocritical pieces of shit most of the time.

Those people get banned though... eventually... like your argument makes little sense. You act as if you should never ever see anything against the rules.

[jdbond592]

Unless Homeland security can build a criminal case and bring subpoena, they better keep their ball shriveled. This is nothing more than abuse of power and an attack on first amendment.

[Machismo]

Possibly, but freedom of privacy is a much more nebulous freedom than freedom of speech, and is a distinct amendment. Even so, it's still not freedom of speech, which is what people seem to be glomming onto.

Also, we violate privacy all the time with warrants. So in this case it seems they would need to give justification, but would not necessarily be prohibited from obtaining the identity.

Well, it is linked to freedom of speech, albeit in a secondary fashion. The individual s have freedom of speech, and Twitter and those individuals have freedom of privacy. The government wishes to restrict the privacy of both in order to restrict the freedom of speech of the individuals. When/If it goes in front of the court, I am sure that both will be focal points for Twitter's case.

[zenkai]

The government is demanding to know who this Trump critic is. Twitter is suing to keep it a secret.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.33d3beac6cf9

This is where Obama was smarter, they just recorded everything and already knew, damn Snowden.

But yeah they shouldn't have to let go any names if that person had not committed a crime.