Clarence Thomas Thinks Free Speech Should Be Regulated

[postman1782]

Sorry, rephrase that as a response to my post?

You claimed, like people like Twitter and Facebook are banning people, for being a certain ideology or twisting their rules to ban people based on their ideology. And I have yet to see it. If anything, Trump should have been banned long before he was actually banned, because he CLEARLY violated their rules several times in his 4 shitty years as the worst president in history.

[Tuor]

And what country is yours?

I've said were i am countless times by now, just read my posts. Its not Spain, lol, even some you damn ianques think it is.

[Machismo]

You literally quoted my post on Trump's ban, and restated it like what I said, repeated, would be hurtful. Ok, dude.


Sorry, rephrase that as a response to my post?


It's rather strange to hear the defense of unequal application and no appeal to be "Wait, you don't know about TEH RULES?" Yeah, dude, catch up.

I already stated they should be free to kick off whoever they wanted. And, since we already saw that on the Trumpster subreddit, the world didn't collapse. You tried to push the narrative that Twitter was stretching their own rules and bending over backwards to ban his ass.

[Slant]

How long are y'all gonna argue about who agrees more with Twitter? :P

[Machismo]

I've said were i am countless times by now, just read my posts. Its not Spain, lol, even some you damn ianques think it is.

My apologies, I thought this was about Spain.

[tehdang]

You claimed, like people like Twitter and Facebook are banning people, for being a certain ideology or twisting their rules to ban people based on their ideology. And I have yet to see it. If anything, Trump should have been banned long before he was actually banned, because he CLEARLY violated their rules several times in his 4 shitty years as the worst president in history.

Re-read my last five posts. I claimed first amendment protections are implicated whether Trump bans one user from interacting with his tweets, or whether Twitter bans several million users from interacting with his tweets. I was met with variations on rules, outright dismissal, and ignoring the point.

So, this is heading towards future legislation and court battles. One side wants it to be first amendment when they favor one result, and not first amendment when they favor another result. That’s not a lasting peace on social media. And it’s why Clarence Thomas was partially right to raise the question in principle. The hypotheticals to make people think harder is if they agree that Twitter may ban all candidates of one political party, citing ToS, or whether a building owner holding a public city council comment period can turn off the lights and expel members when they might not like what’s being discussed.

- - - Updated - - -

I already stated they should be free to kick off whoever they wanted. And, since we already saw that on the Trumpster subreddit, the world didn't collapse. You tried to push the narrative that Twitter was stretching their own rules and bending over backwards to ban his ass.

I don’t think the world collapsed when Trump banned a user. Did you? I mean, if that really is the operating principle here, I’m sure users can discover the most obvious workarounds to reading public tweets.

[Endus]

Re-read my last five posts. I claimed first amendment protections are implicated whether Trump bans one user from interacting with his tweets, or whether Twitter bans several million users from interacting with his tweets. I was met with variations on rules, outright dismissal, and ignoring the point.

Well, this particular point is just objectively false.

The point there is not whether you have access to respond to Trump's tweets, the issue is who is banning you from access to responding to Trump's tweets.

If I host a club where people regularly engage in anti-US comedy shows, and I ban a guy for being a racist dingwongle, that's not an infringement of his freedom of speech.

If the government tries to arrest a comic for entering my club to do their act because it's gonna make fun of the President, that is an infringement of free speech.

In either case, they're banned from the club. What makes the difference is what entity is doing the banning.

So, this is heading towards future legislation and court battles. One side wants it to be first amendment when they favor one result, and not first amendment when they favor another result.

No, one side believes in freedom of speech and freedom of association (the side that's fine with how things went down), and the other side is a bunch of feels-before-facts reactionary idiots who'll freely shit on civil rights and freedoms whenever they get used in a way that isn't to their benefit.

Only one of those sides actually has a case. The other is just a bunch of proto-fascists gearing up.

[Felya]

Re-read my last five posts. I claimed first amendment protections are implicated whether Trump bans one user from interacting with his tweets, or whether Twitter bans several million users from interacting with his tweets. I was met with variations on rules, outright dismissal, and ignoring the point.

This is off topic... you are arguing for universal Twitter accounts and universal access to Twitter.

Does government provide a subscription to Fox News, so you can interact with the president on his regular call ins?

- - - Updated - - -

In either case, they're banned from the club. What makes the difference is what entity is doing the banning.

Just a reminder, GOP congressman is now complaining that Biden doesn’t post juicy stuff on Twitter. He isn’t complaining that Twitter changed its policy concerning presidents. That means the issue isn’t the platform, but the individual using said platform in a way that no other president has... or even seems to have any intent in using.

This is a unique problem for presidents, who treat their presidency, as a marketing opportunity. All other presidents are completley unaffected by this, without altering policy.

Edit: It’s like I keep pointing out... Why are all GOP events that include Trump, based in south Florida? Why isn’t Trump campaigning, as he did while president? The answer to those questions is why this whole issue isn’t about social media, but a unique attribute of a specific president.

[Machismo]

Re-read my last five posts. I claimed first amendment protections are implicated whether Trump bans one user from interacting with his tweets, or whether Twitter bans several million users from interacting with his tweets. I was met with variations on rules, outright dismissal, and ignoring the point.

So, this is heading towards future legislation and court battles. One side wants it to be first amendment when they favor one result, and not first amendment when they favor another result. That’s not a lasting peace on social media. And it’s why Clarence Thomas was partially right to raise the question in principle. The hypotheticals to make people think harder is if they agree that Twitter may ban all candidates of one political party, citing ToS, or whether a building owner holding a public city council comment period can turn off the lights and expel members when they might not like what’s being discussed.

- - - Updated - - -


I don’t think the world collapsed when Trump banned a user. Did you? I mean, if that really is the operating principle here, I’m sure users can discover the most obvious workarounds to reading public tweets.

The world didn't end when FDR put Japanese-Americans in concentration camps.

That doesn't make it acceptable

Trump chose to deem it official communications, so you are doing nothing more than supporting corrupt government.

Meanwhile, Twitter is free to ban violent racists, because the First Amendment is a thing.

[Noxx79]

Re-read my last five posts. I claimed first amendment protections are implicated whether Trump bans one user from interacting with his tweets, or whether Twitter bans several million users from interacting with his tweets. I was met with variations on rules, outright dismissal, and ignoring the point.

So, this is heading towards future legislation and court battles. One side wants it to be first amendment when they favor one result, and not first amendment when they favor another result. That’s not a lasting peace on social media. And it’s why Clarence Thomas was partially right to raise the question in principle. The hypotheticals to make people think harder is if they agree that Twitter may ban all candidates of one political party, citing ToS, or whether a building owner holding a public city council comment period can turn off the lights and expel members when they might not like what’s being discussed.

- - - Updated - - -


I don’t think the world collapsed when Trump banned a user. Did you? I mean, if that really is the operating principle here, I’m sure users can discover the most obvious workarounds to reading public tweets.

Do you it know the difference between Twitter as a platform and a Twitter account?

If not, then I suggest you go learn before you make more baseless points.

[tehdang]

Well, this particular point is just objectively false.

The point there is not whether you have access to respond to Trump's tweets, the issue is who is banning you from access to responding to Trump's tweets.

You should read the second circuit's decision on calling tweets/responses a public forum. They made clear that his tweets constituted one deserving of first amendment protection. But since the case wasn't about Twitter bans, it didn't cover all aspects that implicate first amendment protections.

This is off topic... you are arguing for universal Twitter accounts and universal access to Twitter.

Clarence Thomas went off-topic in his response, and this thread is about Clarence Thomas's response.

The world didn't end when FDR put Japanese-Americans in concentration camps.

That doesn't make it acceptable

Trump chose to deem it official communications, so you are doing nothing more than supporting corrupt government.

Meanwhile, Twitter is free to ban violent racists, because the First Amendment is a thing.

Then don't use the argument that "when X happened, the world didn't collapse."

- - - Updated - - -

Do you it know the difference between Twitter as a platform and a Twitter account?

If not, then I suggest you go learn before you make more baseless points.

Same question as previous, do you care in a public forum if you can't respond to a President's tweets because he blocked you, or because Twitter blocked him? When you address your city council, do you care if you get thrown out by a member, or by the building's owner that doesn't like what's discussed? You're acting like this isn't about the first amendment, so establish some relevance, perhaps by quoting Clarence Thomas or the Second Circuit's decision that was appealed then vacated.

[Edge-]

You should read the second circuit's decision on calling tweets/responses a public forum. They made clear that his tweets constituted one deserving of first amendment protection. But since the case wasn't about Twitter bans, it didn't cover all aspects that implicate first amendment protections.

It was actually pretty narrow, and didn't call "tweets/responses" a public forum, but specifically Trump's tweets, as he is POTUS so different rules apply to him when it comes to the First Amendment - https://knightcolumbia.org/content/s...ics-on-twitter

It's why they refused to review the case after their ruling. You keep trying to expand this narrow ruling beyond its scope. The only First Amendment protection was from being blocked by a sitting POTUS.

[Machismo]

You should read the second circuit's decision on calling tweets/responses a public forum. They made clear that his tweets constituted one deserving of first amendment protection. But since the case wasn't about Twitter bans, it didn't cover all aspects that implicate first amendment protections.


Clarence Thomas went off-topic in his response, and this thread is about Clarence Thomas's response.


Then don't use the argument that "when X happened, the world didn't collapse."

That's because Twitter is free to boot Trump's racist ass, no matter how much it outrages you. They are free to boot all the liberals, good for them.

The simple fact of the matter is that Clarence Thomas is a fucking dirtbag who hates the First Amendment. Fuck him, and fuck everyone else who wants to take it away.

[Felya]

Clarence Thomas went off-topic in his response, and this thread is about Clarence Thomas's response.

No, he didn’t... he didn’t have issue calling it a common carrier... he didn’t pretend it was about freedom of speech... pick a lane.

- - - Updated - - -

Same question as previous, do you care in a public forum if you can't respond to a President's tweets because he blocked you, or because Twitter blocked him?

Yes, because a president blocking me, is different than the platform blocking me. It’s why I don’t believe a president should block people, while believing that Fox News shouldn’t become a utility, just because it’s Trump’s favorite call in channel.

You are only targeting social media, not media in general... why is that?

[Endus]

You should read the second circuit's decision on calling tweets/responses a public forum. They made clear that his tweets constituted one deserving of first amendment protection. But since the case wasn't about Twitter bans, it didn't cover all aspects that implicate first amendment protections.

That decision completely confirms my position, and contradicts yours. So I really don't know where you think you're going, here.

Same question as previous, do you care in a public forum if you can't respond to a President's tweets because he blocked you, or because Twitter blocked him?

Only the former. Because the difference matters.

When you address your city council, do you care if you get thrown out by a member, or by the building's owner that doesn't like what's discussed?

You realize it would be stupid for the city council to hold important meetings in some private establishment, right? Which is why they don't?

Trump's an idiot, and that's what led to the issues.

You're acting like this isn't about the first amendment, so establish some relevance, perhaps by quoting Clarence Thomas or the Second Circuit's decision that was appealed then vacated.

Use of social media is only going to involve the 1st Amendment when it's government actions taken to restrict communications on that platform. Which it was, when Trump wanted to ban people for ideological reasons from his Twitter. And wouldn't be, if it were Twitter banning them for TOS violations.

Here's the text of the 1st Amendment, since people seem to constantly forget what it says;

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Note the first word, there. Congress shall make no laws that do such things. It says nothing about rules private citizens can implement on their own property.

The 1st Amendment only restricts government action. It has no relevance to any other actor. Twitter literally cannot violate the 1st Amendment, not unless the government is the entity forcing them to take that action in the first place.

[tehdang]

It was actually pretty narrow, and didn't call "tweets/responses" a public forum, but specifically Trump's tweets, as he is POTUS so different rules apply to him when it comes to the First Amendment - https://knightcolumbia.org/content/s...ics-on-twitter

It's why they refused to review the case after their ruling. You keep trying to expand this narrow ruling beyond its scope. The only First Amendment protection was from being blocked by a sitting POTUS.

Have you ever thought that maybe Twitter must keep these "specifically Trump's tweets" active even as a banned user? Try searching, viewing, and responding to a banned user's tweets. He (was at the time) POTUS and different rules apply to him and his tweets.

As you partially-correctly note.

That's because Twitter is free to boot Trump's racist ass, no matter how much it outrages you. They are free to boot all the liberals, good for them.

The simple fact of the matter is that Clarence Thomas is a fucking dirtbag who hates the First Amendment. Fuck him, and fuck everyone else who wants to take it away.

Your emotions on the matter are registered by me.

No, he didn’t... he didn’t have issue calling it a common carrier...
he didn’t pretend it was about freedom of speech... pick a lane.

Respondents have a point, for example, that some aspects of Mr. Trump’s account resemble a constitutionally protected public forum. But it seems rather odd to say that something is a government forum when a private company has unrestricted authority to do away with it. The disparity between Twitter’s control and Mr. Trump’s control is stark, to say the least. Mr. Trump blocked several people from interacting with his messages. Twitter barred Mr. Trump not only from interacting with a few users, but removed him from the entire platform, thus barring all Twitter users from interacting with his messages.

The argument comparing the "public forum" (1st A arg) to Trump's actions vs Twitter's actions is right there, page two. He couldn't have made it more explicit. So you're standing on nothing at all with your "no, he didn't" Go re-read the decision and come back; it's clear you skimmed it too quickly, never at all, or have since forgotten.

That decision completely confirms my position, and contradicts yours.

Well, this particular point is just objectively false.

The point there is not whether you have access to respond to Trump's tweets, the issue is who is banning you from access to responding to Trump's tweets.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York(Buchwald, J.) found that the “interactive space” in the account is a public forum and that the exclusion from that space was unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. We agree, and, accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court.

Hell of a lot of "the point is not access" when the literal summary of the 2nd cir opinion was all about exclusion from the space, and nothing about "who is banning you."

I mean, maybe you wish the second circuit said "Because it was Trump and not Twitter, the issue revolves around who is banning you ... by all means, seek to become a judge, but in the meantime don't lie about opinions.

[Edge-]

Have you ever thought that maybe Twitter must keep these "specifically Trump's tweets" active even as a banned user? Try searching, viewing, and responding to a banned user's tweets. He (was at the time) POTUS and different rules apply to him and his tweets.

As you partially-correctly note.

Twitter does not have that responsibility, the government does. All his tweets should be archives as part of the Presidential Records Act, and that process appears to be ongoing, though without an obligation for Twitter to continue hosting the tweets on their site - https://www.politico.com/news/2021/0...ldtrump-479743

[Machismo]

Have you ever thought that maybe Twitter must keep these "specifically Trump's tweets" active even as a banned user? Try searching, viewing, and responding to a banned user's tweets. He (was at the time) POTUS and different rules apply to him and his tweets.

As you partially-correctly note.


Your emotions on the matter are registered by me.


The argument comparing the "public forum" (1st A arg) to Trump's actions vs Twitter's actions is right there, page two. He couldn't have made it more explicit. So you're standing on nothing at all with your "no, he didn't" Go re-read the decision and come back; it's clear you skimmed it too quickly, never at all, or have since forgotten.




Hell of a lot of "the point is not access" when the literal summary of the 2nd cir opinion was all about exclusion from the space, and nothing about "who is banning you."

I mean, maybe you wish the second circuit said "Because it was Trump and not Twitter, the issue revolves around who is banning you ... by all means, seek to become a judge, but in the meantime don't lie about opinions.

You mean my utter consistency of saying Twitter should be free to ban whomever the fuck they want?

Or, do you just not like that Trump is a racist piece of shit, and you support him?

[Felya]

The argument comparing the "public forum" (1st A arg) to Trump's actions vs Twitter's actions is right there, page two. He couldn't have made it more explicit. So you're standing on nothing at all with your "no, he didn't" Go re-read the decision and come back; it's clear you skimmed it too quickly, never at all, or have since forgotten.

No, this just means you don’t know what a common carrier is... Why don’t you go and reread it, instead of just pasting shit someone else told you? The reason he brought up and specifically called out common carrier, is because if he made your assertion without it, it would mean Fox News is a utility.

[Endus]

Hell of a lot of "the point is not access" when the literal summary of the 2nd cir opinion was all about exclusion from the space, and nothing about "who is banning you."

I mean, maybe you wish the second circuit said "Because it was Trump and not Twitter, the issue revolves around who is banning you ... by all means, seek to become a judge, but in the meantime don't lie about opinions.

From the appeals court when they upheld the SDNY decision;

"The salient issues in this case arise from the decision of the President to use a relatively new type of social media platform to conduct official business and to interact with the public. We do not consider or decide whether an elected official violates the Constitution by excluding persons from a wholly private social media account. Nor do we consider or decide whether private social media companies are bound by the First Amendment when policing their platforms. We do conclude, however, that the First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise‐open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees."

https://knightcolumbia.org/documents/a07ecc2a26

And from the original SDNY decision;

"Turning to the merits of plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim, we hold that the speech in which they seek to engage is protected by the First Amendment and that the President and Scavino exert governmental control over certain aspects of the @realDonaldTrump account, including the interactive space of the tweets sent from the account. That interactive space is susceptible to analysis under the Supreme Court's forum doctrines, and is properly characterized as a designated public forum. The viewpoint-based exclusion of the individual plaintiffs from that designated publicforum is proscribed by the First Amendment and cannot be justified by the President's personal First Amendment interests."

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/...261.72.0_1.pdf

You're cherry-picking to avoid the facts, and you've got the facts of this case completely wrong. Which the appeals decision makes very clear, and that's why I linked it first.

The SCOTUS ruling doesn't even really speak to the issue; they voided the ruling because Trump was no longer in office and thus the ruling was no longer relevant; the merits of the case itself no longer mattered and thus weren't even considered.