Slashdot Mirror
President Trump Can't Block People On Twitter, Court Rules (knightcolumbia.org)
Reader drunken_boxer777 writes: US District Judge Buchwald issued a 75-page ruling today clearly articulating why Donald Trump cannot block Twitter users, as it violates their First Amendment rights.
"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 public forum is proscribed by the First Amendment and cannot be justified by the President's personal First Amendment interests." Further reading: Bloomberg.
"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 public forum is proscribed by the First Amendment and cannot be justified by the President's personal First Amendment interests." Further reading: Bloomberg.
against my state politicians for blocking my tweets
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
However the court ruled, they do not give a single shit about your privacy..
All h needs is a twitter client that blocks at the display level. This is like ignoring a letter
Seems to assume all Twitter users are U.S. citizens. That not allowing someone to talk to you is a violation of their right to free speech. And that digital forums are 'public', despite plenty of homeless and impoverished citizens lacking access to them.
So if I send a million letters to US District Judge Buchwald and she doesn't read them all then she is violating my first amendment rights?
...will he go on a twitter rant about this ruling about twitter rants about his twitter rants?
And will it acquire its own twitter rants?
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
So if you're the leader of the United States, you're not allowed to use privacy features on a privately-owned social media platform. But that social media platform can block, hellban, censor and terminate the accounts of anyone, including the President, over arbitrarily decided, biased terms of service.
America, give up. Just hand the government over to the multinationals. They've owned you for years, you can stop pretending now.
It's time to start constantly trolling that asshat with constant references to all of his most notable failures: Trump University, The 3 Chapter 11 filings of Trump Resorts, Trump Mortgage, Trump Steaks and Eric.
Now every politician, left, right, up, down, cannot block twitter trolls. Go get 'em, 4chan.
75 pages for this? Really? Must be fun working a job where all you do is pointless stuff and get paid.
Can Trump claim that everybody on Twitter has to read his tweets?
There's no tweeting in Federal Prison, so I guess Trump won't be bothered by this ruling for much longer.
Which Democrat representatives and Senators have blocked conservatives?
Twitter is still a private forum. Just because it's being used by a politician doesn't change that.
What's next, twitter can't ban people because it prevents people from tweeting the president? This ruling is clearly unworkable.
The derp is strong with this one.
Trump could be using the potus twitter for official work, and then he'd be free to block all he wants on his private.
But he's conducting potus business, including announcing policy and government action, on the account.
Blocking prevents users from seeing official policy changes.
Thus 1st amendment - right to petition the government- issue. You can't petition the government if you can't see the announcement.
Summer is coming.
Blocking doesn't prevent people from seeing what he posts. Just log out or use a different account.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
No one in history has been as attacked and insulted and unfairly treated as that great man.
Blocking prevents users from seeing official policy changes.
That is objectively false. All they have to do is log out, and the can view it all they want.
It doesn't assume anything. It notices that the plaintiffs are in fact US citizens, who have been blocked based in the viewpoints they posted. The ruling is that the President's office can't block based on viewpoint. They could perhaps set it to US-only, which would send the Democrats into a tizzy.
Even judges have Trump Derangement...to point of designating Twitter user-admin shit as a 'public forum' just to stick it to Big Orange. Hope judge likes that petty little win; jurisprudence and the 1st amendment will be paying the bill for it for years.
Critical part:
It's not about viewing his posts - it's the ability to reply, and join in the cesspool that follows each of his tweets, that's emphasized in the judgement.
To me the first amendment gives individuals the right to say things in public. This ruling seems to require that the recipient listen/read (deal with) what is being said. ;)
;)
So now if you are walking through the park and a government bueacrat/politician/loon is speaking you are required to stop and diligently listen?
But then maybe this is one of those, just because it involves Trump, Federal Court Judgements
But so be it. We'll see how this comes out.
Just my 2 cents
If that were true, Trump's twitter account would already be shut down. He has violated the terms of service many times (such as linking to hate groups), but he has an exemption.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Email is a private forum. Twitter is a public forum.
"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."
Donald Trump has maintained that his Twitter account is an official outlet, so to block accounts would violate the right to petition. He can't have it both ways: it's either unofficial, or it's subject to Constitutional requirements.
The "Congress" part was extended to the Executive Branch by the court decision California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited.
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
So can Twitter itself suspend accounts? Since that would be blocking them from reaching out to Trump?
It seems that if he can't block them, no one else could cause them to be blocked from Trump, so Twitter and others can no longer suspend accounts?
This ruling is going to have so many unforeseen consequences. Especially once 4chan etc realize that they are required by law to be allowed to tag government officials and public accounts when pictures of whatever they want, and government accounts can NOT block it.
Crazy.
I am 31337 or something.
is a public forum and cannot ban Trump.
Applies to TV networks when they broadcast Presidential speeches as well. Really, do you not get that the variable here is that he's an elected official and that it has nothing to do with Twitter as a company?
Sorry my 1st amendment rights are an inconvenience to the President. But he knew what the job was going in so I don't feel bad about it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I don't think The Donald actually pays attention to what other people say on Twitter, but for anyone in this situation I think they'd just learn to ignore the noise and tweet nonsense. There's no way that anyone at that celebrity scale handles their own Twitter noise anyway, so all notifications are turned off or handled by people paid to deal with it.
In this case, I'm not sure that I honestly agree that banning someone matters. It's not like a town hall where kicking them out means they may not hear what you say. There is no concept of a private tweet, so blocking harrassment seems like a reasonable cause.
Now, doing this on Facebook is the opposite of that: blocking someone from your page means that that person is truly blocked (assuming it's not completely public). So I'd get this ruling in that type of system.
So, next step: Trump hires someone to do nothing but go through the responses to his tweets and flag all the abusive ones that break the TOS. And then go back and check for the suspensions of those accounts.
When Twitter fails to enforce its own TOS and allows without repercussion the sort of abuse that will be heaped on the President, things will get really interesting.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If Twitter can suddenly be considered a Public Forum which is subject to First Amendment protections, then how soon until other arguments will be made against Twitter banning people?
Seems to me this has opened a door for further interpretations of the whole, "private organization" argument.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
So can Twitter itself suspend accounts? Since that would be blocking them from reaching out to Trump?
Well, if the account follows @readDonaldTrump, and gets banned, they might have a case (assuming this ruling holds up).
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
So can Twitter itself suspend accounts?
Yes. But not for reasons like "Donald Trump does not want to hear from these people" as that would violate this court ruling.
They could for other reasons.
We should clarify one thing. I said "US only", you said "citizens". Those are two very different things.
If you are saying I'm wrong, that the government can't keep out people from other countries, what page number do you see that on? I don't see it.
Under your theory, that the US government can't block people from other countries trying to come to a public place, all of our border security would be unconstitutional. The US would not have sovereignty.
You have it the wrong way around.
This states that he (Government official) cannot block someone from participating in the Twitter feed 'Forum', not that a private user can't block the incoming Tweets.
This is akin to a Government speaker holding a discussion in a public park and when someone disagrees with the speaker they kick that person out of the park behind a barricade that is blocks away from the park where they are unable to participate denying their 1st amendment rights to participate in the public forum. Even today those that protest a speaker, even if behind a barricade are done in a place they are still heard by others participating in the forum, even if not directly in the line of sight.
Now if that person disagrees with what the speaker says they have the right to leave on their own and not participate, i.e. the user blocking the speaker not the speaker blhttps://tech.slashdot.org/story/18/05/23/184237/president-trump-cant-block-people-on-twitter-court-rules#ocking the user.
This will be overturned on appeal if the government has a clue.
The ruling was that Trump can't block because he's a government official. Anyone else is free to block without raising First Amendment concerns. Trump could also block if he used his Twitter account for personal updates and the @POTUS account for official updates. When he uses his @realDonaldTrump for government-related updates, though, he (as a member of the government, and a powerful one at that) can't pick and choose who gets to "talk" to him based on political views. When the government stops people from talking to them based on opposing political views, that's the very definition of First Amendment violations.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Blocking selectively prevents people from replying to what he posts, which he permits so long as the replies are sufficiently approving. Blocking selectively prevents people from retweeting his posts, which he permits so long as he approves of those doing the retweeting.
It's not merely a matter of (easily) seeing what he posts. So long as he posts official business as the officeholder and permits public response to those posts, he does not get to block members of the public merely because they criticize or disagree with what was posted.
reality's coming haha
It took 75 pages to say that?
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
That's like saying that blocking citizens from entering a real world forum isn't an issue because people can dig a tunnel under the fence.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Accordingly, though we conclude that injunctive relief may be
awarded in this case -- at minimum, against Scavino -- we decline
to do so at this time because declaratory relief is likely to
achieve the same purpose. The Supreme Court has directed that we
should “assume it is substantially likely that the President and
other executive . . . officials would abide by an authoritative
interpretation of [a] . . . constitutional provision,” Franklin,
505 U.S. at 803 (plurality opinion); see Utah v. Evans, 536 U.S.
at 464 (citing Franklin, 505 U.S. at 803 (plurality opinion)); see
also Allco Fin. Ltd. v. Klee, 861 F.3d 82, 96 (2d Cir. 2017); Made
in the USA, 242 F.3d at 1310; Swan, 100 F.3d at 980; L.A. Cty. Bar
Ass’n v. Eu, 979 F.2d 697, 701 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Were this court
to issue the requested declaration, we must assume that it is
substantially likely that [government officials] . . . would abide
by our authoritative determination.”), and there is simply no
reason to depart from this assumption at this time. Declaratory
judgment is appropriate under the factors that the Second Circuit
directs us to consider, see Dow Jones & Co. v. Harrods Ltd., 346
F.3d 357, 359-60 (2d Cir. 2003), and a declaration will therefore
issue: the blocking of the individual plaintiffs from the
Case 1:17-cv-05205-NRB Document 72 Filed 05/23/18 Page 73 of 75
74
@realDonaldTrump account because of their expressed political
views violates the First Amendment.
The ruling would apply to all government officials, including judges...
And not only to their Twitter-accounts, but to their offices — and courtrooms too.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
"So unfair, the Supreme Court! I have to listen to citizens who do not agree with me, including those terrible Democrats! I know many of those people are murderers, rapists, and worse, and some, I assume, are good people.
Can I tell you about my Space Force?"
This is all kinda stupid. Why is this even a first amendment issue? Twitter is a private company. No one is making him read replies, and they're easily ignored. This sounds more like an issue for Twitter, which it appears how has to implement something to prevent politicians from blocking Tweets. The First Amendment is the right to free speech, not making other people listen to what you say. Finally, this may be great now, but it'll prevent future presidents from doing that too. I think this thing is going to be struck down.
At least now some of the trump-warriors (on both sides) will focus spreading their vitriol more on Twitter and less on here. I for one approve!
From the Washington Post:
"Noah Feldman, a Harvard law professor, said he thinks the case was wrongly decided and expects it to be reversed. For a public forum to exist, the government has to own or control it, he said, but in this case, Twitter also controls Trump's account.
Twitter has long been dogged by questions about how far its users’ right to speech may extend. In the past, its own executives have described the company as being “the free speech wing of the free speech party,” holding that Twitter takes no position on the messages posted by its users.
But the rise of online bullying, hate speech and harassment on Twitter’s platform has forced the company to confront its insistence on neutrality. Last year, the company unveiled new policies to address threats of violence or reports of abuse. And it has barred some controversial right-wing figures, such as the writer Milo Yiannopolous, from the platform for violating its policies.
Wednesday's ruling could complicate that debate, said Feldman, potentially giving people such as Yiannopolous grounds to sue Twitter and demand that they be permitted back on Twitter to view Trump's account and to participate in the public forum surrounding it.
"That is crazy," he said. "But it is a possible logical outcome of this decision."
> Just log out or use a different account.
You'd have to create another account; Logged out users can't view other user's replies, so you can't see all of his tweets without signing in.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
But it's also not relevant to the court's decision, both because such steps have been considered and because "seeing" the tweets is not the limit of the First Amendment issues in play.
These workarounds “require [the individual plaintiffs] to take more steps than non-blocked, signed-in users to view the President’s tweets.” Stip.
55. “All of the Individual Plaintiffs have found these various ‘workarounds’ to be burdensome and to delay their ability to respond to @realDonaldTrump tweets. As a result, four of the Individual Plaintiffs do not use them and the others use them infrequently.” Stip. 60.
He doesn't have to read tweets either you retard! He can't censor the replies preventing anybody he doesn't like from being heard in a public accessible forum. twitter owns the space and they can do stuff but trump does not have the power to tell twitter what to do or the other users of twitter.
trump can not BAN you from calling or mailing either. he doesn't have to listen... hell he can't listen or read much anyway.
If Donald Tump's Twitter account is a forum that is subject to the First Amendment, that means I am allowed to go on there and post "deport all Jews now!" and Twitter can't kick me off.
Did you reply to the wrong post? Because the post you replied to has no language implying the president has to read what you write, whether on Twitter or in a mailed letter.
Considering the sitting president's literacy level, I certainly wouldn't expect him to read anything at all, let alone some unsolicited comment from a constituent.
What blocking on Twitter does is prevent a user from participating in the conversation. Even if you can still anonymously read the crap he shits out onto the Internet, you can't respond as yourself or retweet. That's restricting discourse, and is thus unconstitutional.
dom
So let me get this straight: so long as I don't issue threats to POTUS or his family, I can say whatever I want?
xD xD xD Let the trolLOLOLOLOLing begin! xD xD xD
In all seriousness: I'm not even on Twitter; how much does Pussy Grabber get trolled there? I'd think he'd be the lowest-hanging-fruit of all for trolling, he's so reactive.
Of course it would not. That suggestion is simplistic at best and idiotic at best.
I do love armchair lawyering.
So tell me, by what legal theory do you make your claim?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Does this mean that politicians can no longer use traditional one-way media? Are they forbidden from using TV or radio broadcasts where listeners aren't given an opportunity to reply on the same platform?
This seems like a ruling that depends on the specific technology being looked at, rather than any universal judicial principles.
...violates their freedom of expression.
Like all other forms of freedom of expression, people also have the right NOT to listen.
Goes also to "freedom of association".
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
The court has ruled Twitter a public forum, and used that basis to protect free speech even though it's owned and operated by a private entity.
This means that, just like businesses, parks, universities, etc. that are generally open to the public, Twitter, Facebook, etc. must not discriminate, must respect free speech rights, etc.
This is a win for the people trying to make that "Internet Bill of Rights" happen.
Trump isn't going to just unblock everyone he has blocked. How are they going to enforce this?
The right to petition doesn't specify a medium, though. If people can petition via snail mail, then that right has not been abridged en masse, even if it hasn't been enabled on a specific technology.
This is like defining legal abortion by viability, as technology keeps driving viability earlier and earlier in the pregnancy.
I've tried several times, but I can't find where in the First Amendment it specifies that a government official is required to "listen" to someone's speech. Can you point it out. Maybe it's just a precedent, in which case a citation would be appreciated.
Which Democrat representatives and Senators have blocked conservatives?
How is this parent off topic?
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Some nobody district judge in NY has a useless opinion. This would normally matter if one of the parties didn't have unlimited money to appeal. Let me know when the Supreme Court either rules on this or refuses to hear it. Until then it should say some nobody in NY ruled that Trump can spend more American money on appealing a case.
Because its the usual alt right whatabouttery bullshit.
Huh, the ruling explicitly says that it doesn't make a distinction between Trump and other government officials. Now, he cannot block people because he's using his account for official business, so anyone who correctly maintains two accounts will be fine.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
The claim is that the definition of 'The People' doesn't include people who aren't citizens of the United States, and thus 'The People' defined in the 1st Amendment and succeeding Amendments are only in fact valid citizens of the United States of America, and not all People as it has been treated in more enlightened periods of governance. The treatment of Native Americans, Japanese-Americans, and other groups over the past 250 years implies even the 'only citizens' definition may be stretching it thin given selective enforcement over the years.
Bhhgth
And all shall rise in the presence of MAGA.
*slow rolling "I told you so" tune*
The One who has rebuked the Democratic evils of our swamp. The One whose name will "trumpet" a firey return to the day of yor. No longer, will men of my people be subjected to the whims of democratized and communist believes; a sheer historic cacoffiny of blathering regurgitated liberalism,... silenced... by the sound of 1,000,000 votes in the face of 1. Believers will support, vote and decree the Oxford comma before another Billary Hussain has conceived the consequences of their ousted agendas.
May we rise! May we RISE! I am the face of the hill billy, the white guy, the Kenya's and the housewives of true Red & Blue.
Fear these comments neighbor. We are everywhere. We do not care about illegals past their department dates. We do not care that you have a next step in your political party, we do not care how much you care.
It's already happened. He made it. He changed foreign policy no one human could touch prior and he managed to wipe out Obama's entire political disasters in 12 months. He has also boosted family earnings 3% "in the bank". He has tracked Noryh Korea (talks reconfirmed today). He has pout China on the track to balance tariffs. He has addressed the gang issues by bitch slapping the world with his (albeit, baby jesus) hands.
It's over dems.
You only have California to save you.
Good luck, MAGA speed. Bhhgth
If no law was passed than there is no constitutional issue here. 'Congress shall make no law...'. Unless Twitter's ban button is now in the legal code this is a bunch of hot air from an idiot activist judge.
Because its the usual alt right whatabouttery bullshit.
That is not a valid answer. We cannot have double standards. The alt-left are violent and attempt to shutdown the free speech of others. Reagan was right. Fascism arrived in America through liberalism.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Actually, yes and no.
Isnt the actual implic ations of that that NO US government representative can block users form their Twitter accounts?
This is actually rife amongst government agencies, blocking people who complain about their services from their official twitter feeds.
This decision would appear to make ALL of that 1st amendment violations, and it is VERY common practice, far more than the few Trump bannings.
So, I assume we are going to see a blanket reinstatement of ALL peoples rights to ALL twitters feeds that represent US Government people and agencies, right?
telling him that on this specific forum he _Must_ read your statements is idiocy at it's finest.
That is truly rich coming from you.
He is in no way required to read input from someone in a public form. He is constitutionally barred (quite fucking obviously, I might add) from preventing someone from speaking publicly, which a public Twitter account easily passes Public Forum Analysis as.
As a nicety, the Judge went out of time to mention to the fucktard that he was still allowed to mute those nasty plebian dissenters. He just can't stop them from speaking, because... Fuck it. I feel stupider for having to have explained this to you.
Um, the only idiot in this thread is you. You got the parts of your analogy wrong.
I CAN send a letter
I CAN call
I CANNOT reply to a tweet if I'm blocked.
You probably still don't see the difference. The ruling that you certainly didn't read doesn't force him to read your stupid tweet, it only makes him allow you to say it. He can mute your ass and he'll never see one word but you DID get a chance to say your piece. Just like I did mail them a letter they threw away, and I did leave a voicemail that was surely recorded right over.
Can sue the shit out of twitter now?
They are unable to reply to the presidents tweets too.
A clear violation of this new ruling.
.
Start your lawsuits guys! This should be fun!
I can't wait until this is taken to the natural conclusion: preventing any censorship of legal discussion on public forums (which include the internet.)
the judge can make whatever rulings he wants. who's going to actually enforce it?
No biggie, he'll do it anyway. Since when has the Gropenfurher given a shit about 'laws' and 'rules' and all that other pesky legal shit?
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
How did this world become so fucking weird in the last few years. Maybe is part of the Mayan prophecy, after 2012, things wen fucking Haywire.
[($)]
Well the left just shot itself in the foot. Good.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
How many use official tweet accounts for that job and block you from THAT? None? Welp, you gonna have nothing to sue over, then.
So, what i'm hearing is that you believe _EVERYONE_ is entitled to a seat and the ability to shout back? that access control to any forum the president uses is illegal.
How the hell did you get that from me?
It's illegal for the *government* to silence political speech, period, full stop.
he cannot under any circumstances deny someone their "right" to yell at him? constitutionally?
He cannot, under any circumstances, censor their public speech.
that means filtering news agencies from the white house news room is unconstitutional?
Nope. That's some twisted logic to arrive at that conclusion. Are news agencies attempting to engage in political speech in a public forum in the press briefing room?
blocking people from attending political rallies who are there to protest is unconstitutional?
Potentially. There we get into the gray area of "Free Speech Zones"
blocking people from white house tours, access control for meet and greets and photo ops.
Why the fuck do you keep diverting off topic to construct straw men? I'm beginning to think it's fucking pathological.
What you guys are saying is that no matter who wants to scream at him, they must be given a seat at the table.
Nope. What we, (and the Judge, and the first amendment of the constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court in more than one instance) are saying is that he cannot censor someone who is speaking negatively about him in public.
And that's just not right. Add to that, the fact that twitter is an international forum?
This is not relevant. The US constitution is absolutely empowered to restrict how our government acts extranationally, as well.
No, this just isn't right.
Yes... yes it fucking is.
He's a branch of the goddamn government. That protection is there for *your* sake. It restricts him, not you.
US District Judge Buchwald issued a 75-page ruling today clearly articulating why Donald Trump cannot block Twitter users, as it violates their First Amendment rights.
All things considered, shouldn't that have been a 140-character ruling? Here, lemme try:
LOL bro, you cant blok ppl on Twitter, evn if U R Potus, haha u suk #fail #45 #potus #scotus #ruling #zeitgeist #140characters...
Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If you don't use your private twitter account for business, it remains private. If the POTUS (I Just Threw Up In My Mouth A Little, henceforth to be known as IJTUIMMAL) used the OFFICAL POTUS ACCOUNT for his offical communication and NOT his personal one, he could have blocked everyone he wanted to on his PERSONAL twitter account. He didn't want to obey the rules, obey the laws, as usual, and so he is caught in a problem of his own making.
It became so when the President, the executive, a branch of our government used it as such.
That's one of the weird things about being President. A president cannot leak classified information- if he speaks of it publicly, he de facto declassifies it.
If he uses a privately owned public commenting service to communicate government policy, it then meets the public forum analysis definition of a designated public forum.
Your ignorance of the law doesn't make your opinion a fact. You don't get to put your fingers in your ears and decry shit you don't like because "reasons".
How is this any different than Code Pink or Tea Party folks getting kicked out of city council meetings or Senate hearings? Don't they have an unimpeded right to be heard without being blocked?
RRK
There are infact yes law and no laws obverse from eachother. A good example of no law are the 10 Commandments of Lord Moses; he didn'tbjust say, but as heir apparent to the temporal powers of Phaoroh, commanded the people and implied the obverse to be acceptable as yes law. The obverse of NOT KILL is to be fruitful and multiply, the obverse of NOT STEAL is everything has a value, the obverse of NOT COVET is obviously to resolve a your question of necessity and franchise to an appeal of property-corporate.
The are making no law just fine, regulations implemented as the improvement of the conductbof your activities, even on property for poor people financed to spurious private credit but resolving egregious violates of no law through banker remedies of forefeiture and surrender and default and what not.
Doesn't say shall not make no law in 1st amendment. Of'course, I quote my sources from SAVINGTOSUITORSCLUB dot NET, LAWFULMONEYTRUST dot ORG, etc.
Their official account will not be fine, and will now have to remain open to not only noisy activists, but bots and spam as well.
BTW, for all we know, Trump may have a private account (or several) already.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Did the court say Trump can't silence people on Twitter or that he can't ignore people on Twitter?
People in the comments don't seem to have a clear opinion on this.
They can still choose not to engage with Twitter. But yes, saying you cannot block activists often means you cannot block bots/spam. Because you don't want the government to make the call as to which is which. Same reason that, if the government could make the call and block "spam phone calls", the [party-out-of-power] might suddenly only make spam calls. Free speech is hard, but better than the alternatives.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
I just did when I was logged out. You can't go to "tweets and replies" but you can see replies below the original tweet.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
Which addresses exactly no part of what I said. Good job.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
I didn't say it wasn't an issue; I said AC was factually wrong.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
And yet you are the one that is factually wrong, since your solution doesn't solve the problem. Hint: it isn't about seeing what the king baby dipshit is spewing but about being able to respond to it. Herp derp.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
I agree that the president can't choose who can "talk" to him - although that very much is happening in person anyway - but this has nothing to do with it. These people are not talking "to" Trump, they are using the accounts' popularity as a platform to reach the audience with their own agenda and gain their own followers and fame (and ad revenue).
I see no reason why this should be allowed. It is very much like every person watching the president's press conference on TV gets to call in and be given equal broadcast time to espouse their ideas, with the same audience as the press conference. You want to discuss some tweet with the world, do share it with your own audience and comment to your heart's content.
Frankly, maybe this is what should happen if this ruling stands: every Trump tweet should be followed with a flurry of advertisements "buy our beer", "buy McScot's briefs", "Windows 10 is the best OS" with proper links. I bet those will get a lot more traffic and the best part is you cannot stop them.
Since what you literally said addressed only one part of what the parent posted, it addresses exactly that part that you subtextually said via omission.
+3 insightful versus -1 troll, so I'll be taking that literally rather than subtextually. Happy to see that you've acknowledged it.
The judge did not issue any injunction to force Trump or his assistants to comply. It is a toothless ruling at this point. Her ruling stated that "we must assume that the President and [Daniel] Scavino will remedy the blocking we have held to be unconstitutional."
This judge took senior status (keeps her office and staff but is semi-retired) back in 2012. So she's a mostly-retired old bat who came out of semi-retirement long enough to behave like a partisan hack.
The judge also got into a big brouhaha over making cheap shots about Trig Palin during a court conference back in 2009.
Manhattan Federal Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald blasted the Alaska governor and former vice presidential candidate for bringing her Down syndrome child on stage after a debate.
"That kid was used as a prop," Buchwald told lawyers during a hearing on Wednesday. "And that to me as a parent blew my mind."
Buchwald, a 62-year-old Democrat appointed by former President Bill Clinton, said Palin should have put her child to bed. Such conferences are often held behind closed doors, but Buchwald held yesterday's session in open court. "Tell me who told the reporter," Buchwald demanded after realizing her words were on the record."
AC said "Blocking prevents users from seeing official policy changes." which is factually wrong. I provided a solution for that, and made no attempt to solve any other problem.
What I said was not factually wrong; it didn't solve the problem you wanted it to, but that's not the same thing. Herp derp.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
I only attempted to address the factually incorrect part of what the AC said. AC made other valid points, which I did not contest. I don't have to explicitly address every single point in the comment in order to reply, and the fact that you think this "omission" (sarcasm quotes, FYI) indicates subtext speaks poorly of your ability to interpret what people are saying.
You know as well as I do (or you should, at least) that moderation here is chaotic. However, since you seem to need these things spelled out for you, the original "Good job" was sarcastic, and your appeal to authority via moderation is just silly.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
Your ability to identify a work-around to viewing a Twitter post when an account has been blocked is awe inspiring, yet jumping through such hoops cannot be required when the posting account is the POTUS.
*mic drop*
Ah, then you admit that it stops them from being able to see his posts and that the OP was correct, since he clearly meant "unless the dig a hole under the fence" as I said. It's OK. I get that you are a moronic fucktard now; no need to keep posting.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
What you assume the OP meant is up to you, but without that qualifier there, AC was wrong. Troll harder, dude.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
Goal-post shifting because you realized you're mad about something I didn't write, but are too chickenshit to admit it
I didn't try to justify requiring jumping through the very lowest and widest of hoops to view tweets from @realDonaldTrump (not @POTUS). So whatever "gotcha" you think you did here was just strawmanning me.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
You are a fucking idiot
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
And I didn't write @POTUS. I wrote POTUS, who issues official tweets through @realDonalTrump.
As to the rest, I'm sure that everyone who replied to you or engaged in any moderation in connection those posts either misunderstood you or was wrong. Your communication was surely flawless.
Your trolling, much like your arguments, is just getting worse over time. Take the L and move on, man.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
You earned the L so you should keep it
Nah. ZK consistently misconstrued what I said and invented a whole lot of stuff that wasn't there, while throwing a shitfit.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
And I didn't say you wrote @POTUS. Christ, it's like you have to read into things.
No, I could have been clearer that I was only objecting to one specific part of the post. But man, y'all read way too much into it (like how you're implying I thought my communication was flawless - I don't and I never said that either) and were also kind of huge dicks. I should have been clearer and you should have maybe stopped to clarify what I meant before trying to jump down my throat.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.