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
...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.
Now every politician, left, right, up, down, cannot block twitter trolls. Go get 'em, 4chan.
Can Trump claim that everybody on Twitter has to read his tweets?
Plenty of people do not have access to TV or radio or newspaper and lack the funds to travel to Washington DC as well.
I think the point made is that this Twitter account is an official government account (either established by law or by its use) and thus US citizens cannot be blocked from using it, if a particular person is not a US resident they could technically still be blocked from it.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
He could just stop using Twitter.
Who am I kidding... Trump could more easily chop off his shriveled up little cock before he stops using social media. But the rest of us sane people should log out of Facebook and Twitter and never go back.
No, but they cannot order the post office not to deliver your messages. Whether or not someone reads or listens to your message, you still have the right to your soap box.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
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.
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.
AC here,
The right to free speech does not guarantee your ability to project your voice into any forum you want unimpeded. It only guarantees that the Government will not do the impeding. Uncle Sam can't shut you down very easily, but Twitter, or your local news channel, or YouTube, is not required to give you a microphone to say whatever you 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.
Freedom of speech has nothing to do with citizenship, government sponsored things (e.g. DT's twitter) not allowing you to talk is one of the basic examples of violating free speech, the four seasons is a place of public accommodation despite requiring a certain income level, and you can access Twitter from a library.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
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.
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.
That's not remotely what the ruling says. Twitter can be considered a public forum and that public officials cannot block the public from a public forum regardless of their citizenship. If a mayor has a public town meeting, they can't block non US citizens from it who might be visiting or residing in the town.
And that digital forums are 'public', despite plenty of homeless and impoverished citizens lacking access to them
Have ever heard of a public library? Mine allows homeless and poor people in them to use the computers.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
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.
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.
No, it assumes that the onus of proving that they aren't US citizens is on the President, not the citizen.
By using Twitter, President Trump is effectively creating a forum where US citizens can interact directly with the him as president. He cannot legally choose to selectively block citizens from that.
If he doesn't like that, he is free to not use Twitter. Honestly, that might be better for everyone in this situation.
Email is a private forum. Twitter is a public forum.
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.
Not on your official public account. If Trump has a private account that is allowed; however, the judges specifically discounted the idea that it was Trump's private account.
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.
The court can only rule what the President as a public official can do; they were not deciding what private citizens and companies can do which has always been the case.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
"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
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
That's true, but one issue is that Trump has used his personal account as though it were an official forum, and it's the officials who take the action to block someone - not Twitter. The other issue in the judgement is that the downstream responses to Trump's comments are protected political discussion, and denying someone the ability to participate in that is harmful.
Put together, a government official is using his office to stop the free discussion of politics, and the court has determined that's not right. It's a very limited scope to the argument, and I congratulate the lawyers who made it.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
I wish I could believe that. I'm almost certain he repeats a lie long enough until he actually believes it himself. Maybe because dementia has set in or something, and he loses touch with reality.
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.
US citizens cannot be blocked from using it
The 1st Amendment says NOTHING about "citizenship".
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.
Where in the phrase "no law" does it say that laws abridging the freedom of speech of non-citizens are permitted?
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.
That's not remotely what the ruling says. Twitter can be considered a public forum and that public officials cannot block the public from a public forum regardless of their citizenship. If a mayor has a public town meeting, they can't block non US citizens from it who might be visiting or residing in the town.
But you can be ejected from the public forum for bad behavior
Which is a completely different matter. However in the case of the plaintiffs, they posted tweets critical of the President's policies.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
It took 75 pages to say that?
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
> Holy shit slashdot is full of idiots.
Your self awareness is remarkable.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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.
Which is a completely different matter. However in the case of the plaintiffs, they posted tweets critical of the President's policies.
There is a difference between "critical" and "offensive and harrassing".
The latter would get you ejected from any public forum. I wonder if the plaintiffs submitted to the court the tweets that got them blocked?
I don't think this ruling will stand on appeal.
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."
Since the White House claims that the President's tweets are his official statements, his twitter feed becomes a government-managed forum. As such, the comments cannot be restricted based on the content of the commenters. Think about this like going to your local town council meeting and being told you can't speak because you disagree with some members of the council.
Because Trump announces government positions on Twitter. It wouldn't be a first amendment issue if he just tweeted at the real housewives.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Seems to assume all Twitter users are U.S. citizens.
Citizens aren't the only people the Constitution applies to. Also, I'm willing to bet the 75-page ruling (which you probably didn't read, and neither did I) is more nuanced than that.
That not allowing someone to talk to you is a violation of their right to free speech.
Replies to tweets are viewable by anyone, and anyone can reply to your reply, so you aren't just 'talking' to Trump. If this was about PMs, then maybe, but it's not.
And that digital forums are 'public', despite plenty of homeless and impoverished citizens lacking access to them.
I don't know why this would matter. By that definition pretty much nothing would be a public forum... e.g. any official written statement of any politician wouldn't count as 'public' because the literacy rate is less than 100%. Not restricting access to a forum != guaranteeing everyone has access to the forum.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
There is a difference between "critical" and "offensive and harrassing". The latter would get you ejected from any public forum. I wonder if the plaintiffs submitted to the court the tweets that got them blocked?
If you read the ruling, the President's legal team did not even attempt to argue that the posts were harassing. Rather they tried to frame his account as private and therefore not subject to any jurisdiction.
This case requires us to consider whether a public official may, consistent with the First Amendment, “block” a person from his Twitter account in response to the political views that person has expressed, and whether the analysis differs because that public official is the President of the United States. The answer to both questions is no.
I don't think this ruling will stand on appeal.
Please explain why you would think this would be overturned on appeal. This case was decided in Summary Judgement which means the court did not feel that a trial was even necessary.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Seems to assume all Twitter users are U.S. citizens.
Well first, this case was brought by citizens (as far as I know). The way court cases work is they usually don't decide on a completely broad and all-encompassing question. I haven't read the whole decision yet, but it probably doesn't universally bar Trump from blocking anyone under any circumstances. It probably specifies that Trump can't block Twitter users from his feed in the particular way that he blocked those people.
However, it's worth noting that the Bill of Rights does not guarantee rights to US citizens. That may surprise people, but go back and read them. The First Amendment does not grant the freedom of speech to citizens, but rather prohibits the government from infringing on people's freedom of speech. It actually doesn't say anything about citizens or non-citizens, just people. So yes, people who are US citizens are also protected by the First Amendment.
That not allowing someone to talk to you is a violation of their right to free speech.
There's an important distinction here in that, I'm pretty sure Trump can block people from sending him private messages on a platform like Twitter, or even "block" them in the sense of making it so he doesn't see another user's public posts. However, blocking users from reading his feed is a different thing. Because he uses his Twitter account for official purposes, blocking people means limiting their access to public governmental communications. Worse, if he blocks them from replying to his tweets, then he's denying them access to the public platform that is "responses to Trump's twitter feed".
And though the First Amendment does not in any way guarantee people access to a public platform, it does prohibit the government from barring people access to a public platform. Trump is a governmental official, and therefore cannot infringe on free speech.
And that digital forums are 'public', despite plenty of homeless and impoverished citizens lacking access to them.
For the purposes of First Amendment protection, yes, public digital forums are generally going to be considered "public". However, as I pointed out, the First Amendment only protects you from the government. The government is generally going to be prohibited from preventing you from accessing online digital forums. So I think it raises the question, is the government preventing homeless people from accessing these digital forums?
Looking at it simply and directly, the answer is "no". Economic factors are creating roadblocks to them gaining access.
However, I think you could make a more complex argument that the government has some obligation (moral if not legal) to enable people to access the Internet, on First Amendment grounds. The Internet is becoming the dominant form of telecommunications infrastructure. If you don't have Internet access, then you can't engage in the public political debate, at least not on equal footing with anyone who has the Internet. You can't post your own thoughts, but you also don't have access to what other people are saying. And though the government isn't actively prohibiting access to the Internet, the Internet did grow out of a government program, which makes them partially responsible for its effects, and the government is also partially responsible for the economic factors that prevent people from having access.
His only defense was to consider it his personal account. If he stated it was an official presidential one, he loses that.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
https://xkcd.com/898/
#DeleteFacebook
The other issue in the judgement is that the downstream responses to Trump's comments are protected political discussion, and denying someone the ability to participate in that is harmful.
Twitter, Facebook, et al regularly block users, label outgoing links "dangerous", etc. for their own political purposes.
Apparently only anti-Trump discussion is "protected" ...
There is a difference between "critical" and "offensive and harrassing". The latter would get you ejected from any public forum. I wonder if the plaintiffs submitted to the court the tweets that got them blocked?
If you read the ruling, the President's legal team did not even attempt to argue that the posts were harassing. Rather they tried to frame his account as private and therefore not subject to any jurisdiction.
This case requires us to consider whether a public official
may, consistent with the First Amendment, “block” a person from
his Twitter account in response to the political views that person
has expressed, and whether the analysis differs because that public
official is the President of the United States. The answer to
both questions is no.
I don't think this ruling will stand on appeal.
Please explain why you would think this would be overturned on appeal. This case was decided in Summary Judgement which means the court did not feel that a trial was even necessary.
She's one judge and she has been overturned plenty of times. Judges aren't infallible even if they think they are speaking Ex Cathedra.
I posted the rational separately. Twitter is not government owned or operated. If this ruling stands Twitter as a private company would be unable to enforce it's own policies on blocking users because such blocking would prevent the user from participating in the public forum.
I can't afford to fly to NYC's Central Park, so is that no longer a public space because I cannot get there? Get out of here.
I can't afford to get out of here, you insensitive clod!
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
That's the thing with appeals, you don't get a chance to provide new arguments that you forgot to bring up during the original trial. In this case they didn't even have good enough arguments to make it to the first trial.
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!!!
She's one judge and she has been overturned plenty of times. Judges aren't infallible even if they think they are speaking Ex Cathedra.
That's a false equivalence isn't it? Judges get overturned on appeal; however, do you know how often a judge is overturned on Summary Judgement much less this particular judge? Because of the nature and rules of Summary Judgement, I would argue that they are less often overturned because they are often
Twitter is not government owned or operated. If this ruling stands Twitter as a private company would be unable to enforce it's own policies on blocking users because such blocking would prevent the user from participating in the public forum.
The part you are not understanding is this is not a ruling against Twitter. This is a ruling against the President who is a public official. Twitter did not block the users; the President did. The rules of public officials operating in an official capacity are different than a private citizen.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
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.
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.
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.
Twitter, Facebook, et al regularly block users, label outgoing links "dangerous", etc. for their own political purposes.
...and that's fine. They aren't public officials, aren't acting in a government capacity, and aren't actually restricted by the First Amendment.
If Trump (or any other official) isn't satisfied with the commercial service that the private enterprises are providing, there's a whole .gov TLD available from which they can host their own platform supporting full and open discussions without any warnings or political bans.
Apparently only anti-Trump discussion is "protected" ...
That's not actually true. If, say, a Democrat office had blocked someone pro-Trump, this ruling would make a lawsuit against that official much easier, as well.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
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!
You forgot SAD.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
But can you direct the Post Office to deliver them to an office down the street who's job is to simply drop them into the physical analog of /dev/null? Wouldn't that be just fine? The post office delivers them, the receiver just deletes them. Or in this case, it's UPS doing the delivery, so no postal regulations apply.
The issue is not what it seems and I'm not sure the judge was correct, but I've not yet tried reading his judgment to determine his thought process. It does seem though that if it takes 75 pages, your logic might be a bit convoluted.
Wouldn't that be more analogous to muting than blocking? Blocking would be like telling the post office to filter your mail so any mail from Cowboy Neal gets rejected and RTS'd while muting would be filing it in the circular file, wouldn't it? I don't use Twitter, but my understanding is both options are available, but only one should be used by an elected official like Trump.
"Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
She's one judge and she has been overturned plenty of times. Judges aren't infallible even if they think they are speaking Ex Cathedra.
That's a false equivalence isn't it? Judges get overturned on appeal; however, do you know how often a judge is overturned on Summary Judgement much less this particular judge? Because of the nature and rules of Summary Judgement, I would argue that they are less often overturned because they are often
I made no false equivalence. I stated that this is the opinion of one judge, and judges aren't infallible.
Twitter is not government owned or operated. If this ruling stands Twitter as a private company would be unable to enforce it's own policies on blocking users because such blocking would prevent the user from participating in the public forum.
The part you are not understanding is this is not a ruling against Twitter. This is a ruling against the President who is a public official. Twitter did not block the users; the President did. The rules of public officials operating in an official capacity are different than a private citizen.
The ruling was not against Twitter but it will affect them nonetheless. Anyone blocked by Twitter can now sue claiming they are being denied access to read and respond in the public forum for interacting with the President of the United States.
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.
If a government claims that their laws apply to all peoples, they are infringing on the rights of the government where that citizen has a home, and on the rights of the citizen to choose his governing body (either by democratic practice, or more likely by moving).
Cute, but the 1st amendment applies solely to the US government*. It RESTRICTS what the government is allowed to do. It states that the US government cannot restrict other's free speech.
No the 1st amendment does not infringe upon French citizens.
*Free speech, as an ideal, is older than US government. It's an ideal that came out of the age of Enlightenment, and it's one I like to support, but don't try to float that bullshit about the constitution here.
I made no false equivalence. I stated that this is the opinion of one judge, and judges aren't infallible.
No your false equivalence is that because some judges get overturned, this judge will be overturned. You haven't addressed the part where I specifically mentioned that this is a Summary Judgement and what is the likelihood of an appeals court overturning a Summary Judgement. You didn't address this judge's record of appeals either.
The ruling was not against Twitter but it will affect them nonetheless. Anyone blocked by Twitter can now sue claiming they are being denied access to read and respond in the public forum for interacting with the President of the United States.
First of all that was your second false equivalence in that this ruling was not against Twitter.
Second, what part of the fact that Twitter admins are not blocking these users is so hard for you to understand. The President and his staff have blocked these users on his account. They admitted doing so there is no material issue of fact. The ruling does not say Twitter must unblock these users. It says the President and his staff must do so as they were the ones to do so. Twitter is specifically excluded from this ruling. If you read the ruling, the judge also dismisses the case against Hope Hicks as she no longer works for the administration as well as Sarah Huckabee Sanders as it seems she was not involved. The ruling specifically instructs Daniel Scavino and Donald Trump to unblock the users.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Its implied that it only applies to US citizens.
Good luck trying to prove you're a US citizen while you await your indefinite trial date in a secret prison without access to a lawyer or phone. Things you don't have because apparently non-citizens don't have rights.
This is how intelligence agencies can collect foreign "private documents" without warrants.
You mean those clandestine operations we'll disavow any knowledge of? The illegal ones?
Using your interpretation the same rigt of "the people" applying to non citizenry would also grant non citizens to form armed militias within the US under the 2nd amendment. Go ahead and get a bunch of your Muslim friends from Syria to form armed militias inside the US and tell us how your argument works out.
If they're here with valid visas, they're free to go drink beer and shoot a bunch of guns out in the boonies all they want. Just like anyone else. And if they're well regulated, they'd even be keeping with the spirit of 2nd amendment and aiding with national defense. Laws on murder and city noise ordinances still apply.
"When Twitter fails to enforce its own TOS"
It does this every single day. Not much has changed.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
I made no false equivalence. I stated that this is the opinion of one judge, and judges aren't infallible.
No your false equivalence is that because some judges get overturned, this judge will be overturned. You haven't addressed the part where I specifically mentioned that this is a Summary Judgement and what is the likelihood of an appeals court overturning a Summary Judgement. You didn't address this judge's record of appeals either.
The ruling was not against Twitter but it will affect them nonetheless. Anyone blocked by Twitter can now sue claiming they are being denied access to read and respond in the public forum for interacting with the President of the United States.
First of all that was your second false equivalence in that this ruling was not against Twitter.
Second, what part of the fact that Twitter admins are not blocking these users is so hard for you to understand. The President and his staff have blocked these users on his account. They admitted doing so there is no material issue of fact. The ruling does not say Twitter must unblock these users. It says the President and his staff must do so as they were the ones to do so. Twitter is specifically excluded from this ruling. If you read the ruling, the judge also dismisses the case against Hope Hicks as she no longer works for the administration as well as Sarah Huckabee Sanders as it seems she was not involved. The ruling specifically instructs Daniel Scavino and Donald Trump to unblock the users.
Apparently you have no idea what false equivalence is. Find a better argument.
The 1st Amendment says NOTHING about "citizenship". [...] Where in the phrase "no law" does it say that laws abridging the freedom of speech of non-citizens are permitted?
As with most contracts, it comes back to how you define your terms. The Constitution starts with "We the People of the United States", which some have argued implicitly defines "people" as "citizens of the United States". Following that train of thought, all succeeding clauses and amendments would then be interpreted through that same lens, suggesting that the First Amendment's protections may not apply to non-citizens.
Mind you, I don't agree with that line of reasoning, but you asked, so there it is.
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?
Let me see if I understand you correctly. Now you're not arguing that you don't seem to understand (or read) any part of the ruling or that everything you said was essentially false about the implications to Twitter. Now you're trying to say I have to find a "better argument" when it seems every one of your arguments was either untrue or unsupported.
So let's review: First you argued that people could be blocked from Twitter if they were harassing. However you yourself didn't know whether the tweets were as such. When pointed out that the President's legal team did not make that argument then you to frame this as against Twitter. Again pointing to the ruling, Twitter was not instructed to do anything but Donald Trump and his staff were.
It seems every single step of the way, you either don't know something but asserted it and then tried to find another irrelevant arugment. The ruling is online for everyone to read. I suggest you read it.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
This is completely false. A public forum is not a forum owned by the public, it is a forum in which the public congregates.
Restricting the Government's ability to limit discourse in a public forum does not limit the public forum, if privately owned, from exercising its rights.
You are completely off the wall, chief.
No, they cannot, as they have no right to speak in a public forum. The government simply has no right to restrict their speech there.
Please stop spouting your misinformed bullshit with such confidence.
The constitution is generally used to apply only to US citizens and states. Its implied that it only applies to US citizens.
So resident aliens no longer have to pay income tax, and can own slaves?
This is backed by numerous SCOTUS rulings.
Bullcrap. Please cite one.
This is how intelligence agencies can collect foreign "private documents" without warrants.
More bullcrap. They cannot collect intelligence inside America's borders whether the target is a citizen or not.
non citizenry would also grant non citizens to form armed militias within the US under the 2nd amendment.
My bunkmate in Marine bootcamp was a citizen of the Philippines. Citizenship has never been a precondition to serving in the armed forces, nor to own a gun.
Even private clubs are public forums in first amendment law, and there is absolutely *no* restriction preventing the owner of said public forum from restricting speech within it.
It can't be stated enough- the First Amendment is a restriction on the government, no one else. It is incapable of turning twitter into a government entity because it operates a public forum, and thus cannot be used as argument for restricting Twitter's censorship, should it exist.
I honestly believe that the inability to access a space on the basis of financial inequality necessarily privatizes it.
A "public forum" in first amendment case law is not publicly owned (though absolutely could be), and is therefor *not* bound by the restrictions of the first amendment. The *government* is restricted from imposing restrictions on speech within a public forum.
Except that the 1st Amendment doesn't use the phrase "the people" except in reference to the right of peaceful assembly.
So foreigners can speak freely, but can't join groups?
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?
Never, because the first amendment protects Twitter and its users from the Government, not vice versa. The first amendment does *not* imply any restriction against the owner or operator of that forum (unless of course the operator or owner is the Government)
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.
non citizenry would also grant non citizens to form armed militias within the US under the 2nd amendment.
My bunkmate in Marine bootcamp was a citizen of the Philippines. Citizenship has never been a precondition to serving in the armed forces, nor to own a gun.
My GFs father joined the US Army while he was a citizen of the Philippines and only many years later became a US citizen.
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
The 1st Amendment says NOTHING about "citizenship". [...] Where in the phrase "no law" does it say that laws abridging the freedom of speech of non-citizens are permitted?
As with most contracts, it comes back to how you define your terms. The Constitution starts with "We the People of the United States", which some have argued implicitly defines "people" as "citizens of the United States". Following that train of thought, all succeeding clauses and amendments would then be interpreted through that same lens, suggesting that the First Amendment's protections may not apply to non-citizens.
Mind you, I don't agree with that line of reasoning, but you asked, so there it is.
The courts would say that the constitution protects non-citizens in many cases and there is quite a bit of precedent going back 130 years that this is the case. Tends to be much more hit and miss than for citizens but still not a principle of US law. For example: https://www.oyez.org/cases/185...
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
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.)
But can you direct the Post Office to deliver them to an office down the street who's job is to simply drop them into the physical analog of /dev/null? Wouldn't that be just fine? The post office delivers them, the receiver just deletes them. Or in this case, it's UPS doing the delivery, so no postal regulations apply.
Technically, UPS and FedEx are not allowed to deliver personal letters. Only the US Postal Service, or companies contracted by them, have the authority to deliver personal letters in the United States.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
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...
Let me see if I understand you correctly. Now you're not arguing that you don't seem to understand (or read) any part of the ruling or that everything you said was essentially false about the implications to Twitter. Now you're trying to say I have to find a "better argument" when it seems every one of your arguments was either untrue or unsupported.
So let's review: First you argued that people could be blocked from Twitter if they were harassing. However you yourself didn't know whether the tweets were as such. When pointed out that the President's legal team did not make that argument then you to frame this as against Twitter. Again pointing to the ruling, Twitter was not instructed to do anything but Donald Trump and his staff were.
It seems every single step of the way, you either don't know something but asserted it and then tried to find another irrelevant arugment. The ruling is online for everyone to read. I suggest you read it.
OK, This was my original comment, broken down for the slow
"She's one judge and she has been overturned plenty of times. "
one judge - nothing to argue about there
overturned plenty of times - she has been overturned. "Plenty" is subjective
"Judges aren't infallible even if they think they are speaking Ex Cathedra."
Judges aren't infallible - nothing to argue about there
Speaking Ex Cathedra - it's a reference to the infallibility of the Pope when speaking Ex Cathedra i.e. "from the chair"
"Twitter is not government owned or operated."
Nothing to argue there
"If this ruling stands Twitter as a private company would be unable to enforce it's own policies on blocking users because such blocking would prevent the user from participating in the public forum."
Matter of opinion, you can argue this if you like. I think they will get sued by people who get blocked.
I read the ruling. The judge declared that muting was o.k., blocking wasn't. This was consistent with what she said months ago.
I think she's wrong but time will tell.
The judge also declined to order them to unblock at this time, for good reason.
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.
[($)]
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
If a private corporation violates rights, the government is precluded from permitting that;
That's not quite the case, though you're correct in a way-
The courts interpret this as two conflicting rights, the private corporation's right to kick you the fuck off of their land because they don't like you, and your right to free speech.
Generally speaking, the private entities right to kick you off their land supersedes your right to speak your mind. When the government is the controller, then they are barred from acting, due to the specific restriction in the Constitution.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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".
Cute, but the 1st amendment applies solely to the US government*. It RESTRICTS what the government is allowed to do. It states that the US government cannot restrict other's free speech.
I think you missed the point. Does it mean they can't restrict other American citizen's free speech or they can't restrict anyone's?
Why this is important is that on the Internet, not everyone is American (crazy I know)
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 didn't miss anything. The coward was trying to argue on the side of "non-citizens aren't protected by the 1st admendment, because that would infringe on other government's authority and their people's right to choose their government". Which is bullshit, as the 1st admendment doesn't govern other people, it governs the US government. Non-citizens most certainly enjoy full protection from the US government in regards to free speech, because the US government is barred from restricting anyone's free speech. Within reason.
And it's WAY more important than people whining on the Internet. If the constitution doesn't apply when it comes to non-citizens, then ANYONE can be black-bagged in the dead of night, locked in a cell without a lawyer or phone call as long as the cops make the claim that they're "suspected non-citizens". They can search through whatever they want and they can employ cruel and unusual punishment. That list keeps going after the 1st amendment. I don't even particularly give a shit about all those illegal immigrants here or foreigners abroad, I'm just looking out for myself and trying to avoid the rampant abuse that would come with unlimited power in a police state. The US government is restricted by the bill of rights, no exceptions. Even if some people really don't like the guys. Even if they really are scumbags.
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
And it's WAY more important than people whining on the Internet. If the constitution doesn't apply when it comes to non-citizens, then ANYONE can be black-bagged in the dead of night, locked in a cell without a lawyer or phone call as long as the cops make the claim that they're "suspected non-citizens". They can search through whatever they want and they can employ cruel and unusual punishment.
I get what you are saying and agree, but things like gitmo would imply that this is already happening...
They've admitted it. There's enough to indict Comey right now a former Federal prosecutor said yesterday with a very good conviction rate. I expect him to turn himself in anytime, hopefully bringing his own book with him as evidence.
You don't understand how it works. It doesn't mean you can say whatever you want wherever you want and get away with it. It just means the government can't put you in jail over it. The President has press conferences all the time and they restrict who they will take questions from for example. There are all kinds of examples like that. The decision will almost certainly be overturned.
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.
OK, This was my original comment, broken down for the slow
No your original comment was this: "But you can be ejected from the public forum for bad behavior". Your second comment was this: "The latter would get you ejected from any public forum. I wonder if the plaintiffs submitted to the court the tweets that got them blocked?" You know we can scroll up right? Why are you lying about what your original comment was? Your original comments was that trying for frame the plaintiffs might have been blocked for harassing the President. When pointed out that the President's legal team did not make that argument then you tried to shift the argument.
Matter of opinion, you can argue this if you like. I think they will get sued by people who get blocked.
Why is it so hard for you to understand or admit that zero part of the ruling ordered Twitter to do anything? ZERO. The ruling specifically named two people to unblock the users: The President and Scavino. That is not an opinion of what the ruling says. It's not an interpretation. The ruling literally says "The President" must do something. No part of the ruling says "Twitter must" do something. Again read the ruling.
I think they will get sued by people who get blocked.
You do understand the function of courts is also to determine who has standing and who is party to a suit. You can file a lawsuit against Twitter for any reason but the court has to agree that Twitter is a party to the suit. In this particular suit, the court dismissed the lawsuit against Hope Hicks and Sarah Huckabee Sanders because they were not part of the suit. Had the plaintiffs sued Twitter the court would have dismissed them from the suit because they are not part of the suit.
I read the ruling. The judge declared that muting was o.k., blocking wasn't. This was consistent with what she said months ago.
You claim you read the ruling but you keep saying things that are not part of the ruling. I would say that's you are not being consistent.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
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
OK, This was my original comment, broken down for the slow
No your original comment was this: "But you can be ejected from the public forum for bad behavior". Your second comment was this: "The latter would get you ejected from any public forum. I wonder if the plaintiffs submitted to the court the tweets that got them blocked?" You know we can scroll up right? Why are you lying about what your original comment was? Your original comments was that trying for frame the plaintiffs might have been blocked for harassing the President. When pointed out that the President's legal team did not make that argument then you tried to shift the argument.
Matter of opinion, you can argue this if you like. I think they will get sued by people who get blocked.
Why is it so hard for you to understand or admit that zero part of the ruling ordered Twitter to do anything? ZERO. The ruling specifically named two people to unblock the users: The President and Scavino. That is not an opinion of what the ruling says. It's not an interpretation. The ruling literally says "The President" must do something. No part of the ruling says "Twitter must" do something. Again read the ruling.
I think they will get sued by people who get blocked.
You do understand the function of courts is also to determine who has standing and who is party to a suit. You can file a lawsuit against Twitter for any reason but the court has to agree that Twitter is a party to the suit. In this particular suit, the court dismissed the lawsuit against Hope Hicks and Sarah Huckabee Sanders because they were not part of the suit. Had the plaintiffs sued Twitter the court would have dismissed them from the suit because they are not part of the suit.
I read the ruling. The judge declared that muting was o.k., blocking wasn't. This was consistent with what she said months ago.
You claim you read the ruling but you keep saying things that are not part of the ruling. I would say that's you are not being consistent.
You really need to read the thing
https://knightcolumbia.org/sit...
For example, you wrote: "The ruling literally says "The President" must do something."
I am unable to find any such thing in the ruling. Where do you see it? The ruling says: "Finally, we consider what form of relief should be awarded, as plaintiffs seek both declaratory relief and injunctive relief. While we reject defendants’ categorical assertion that injunctive relief cannot ever be awarded against the President, we nonetheless conclude that it is unnecessary to enter that legal thicket at this time."
You really need to read the thing https://knightcolumbia.org/sit... [knightcolumbia.org]
Bahahahahaha. That's rich. Okay, let's play. On the very first page of all the ruling is "Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, Rebecca Buckwalter, Phillip Cohen, Holly Figueora, Eugene Gu, Brandon Neely, Jospeh Papp, and Nicholas Pappas [Plaintiffs] against Dondal J. Trump, Hope Hicks, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and Daniel Scavino [Defendants]."
NOWHERE I repeat NOWHERE is Twitter named a party to the suit. NOWHERE. The suit was not brought against Twitter therefore no court would order them to do anything. This is what is meant by a "party" to the lawsuit.
For example, you wrote: "The ruling literally says "The President" must do something." I am unable to find any such thing in the ruling. Where do you see it? The ruling says: "Finally, we consider what form of relief should be awarded, as plaintiffs seek both declaratory relief and injunctive relief. While we reject defendants’ categorical assertion that injunctive relief cannot ever be awarded against the President, we nonetheless conclude that it is unnecessary to enter that legal thicket at this time."
Bahahahahahaha. Man you really don't understand anything do you? Or you are cherry picking your statements:
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 @realDonaldTrump account because of their expressed political views violates the First Amendment. “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is,” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803), and we have held that the President’s blocking of the individual plaintiffs is unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Because no government official is above the law and because all government officials are presumed to follow the law once the judiciary has said what the law is, we must assume that the President and Scavino will remedy the blocking we have held to be unconstitutional.
NOWHERE in any of that statement involves Twitter. NOWHERE.
But you didn't answer my question: Why would you lie about what your comments are when we can scroll up and see them. Your first comments implied that the plaintiffs could be blocked if they were harassing despite that not appearing in the ruling.
Then we can talk about why you feel that appeal is likely in a Summary Judgement case. I doubt you have answers.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
You really need to read the thing
https://knightcolumbia.org/sit... [knightcolumbia.org]
Bahahahahaha. That's rich. Okay, let's play. On the very first page of all the ruling is "Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, Rebecca Buckwalter, Phillip Cohen, Holly Figueora, Eugene Gu, Brandon Neely, Jospeh Papp, and Nicholas Pappas [Plaintiffs]
against
Dondal J. Trump, Hope Hicks, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and Daniel Scavino [Defendants]."
NOWHERE I repeat NOWHERE is Twitter named a party to the suit. NOWHERE. The suit was not brought against Twitter therefore no court would order them to do anything. This is what is meant by a "party" to the lawsuit.
For example, you wrote: "The ruling literally says "The President" must do something."
I am unable to find any such thing in the ruling. Where do you see it? The ruling says: "Finally, we consider what form of relief should be awarded, as plaintiffs seek both declaratory relief and injunctive relief. While we reject defendants’ categorical assertion that injunctive relief cannot ever be awarded against the President, we nonetheless conclude that it is unnecessary to enter that legal thicket at this time."
Bahahahahahaha. Man you really don't understand anything do you? Or you are cherry picking your statements:
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
@realDonaldTrump account because of their expressed political
views violates the First Amendment. “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial
department to say what the law is,” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1
Cranch) 137, 177 (1803), and we have held that the President’s
blocking of the individual plaintiffs is unconstitutional under
the First Amendment. Because no government official is above the
law and because all government officials are presumed to follow
the law once the judiciary has said what the law is, we must assume
that the President and Scavino will remedy the blocking we have
held to be unconstitutional.
NOWHERE in any of that statement involves Twitter. NOWHERE.
But you didn't answer my question: Why would you lie about what your comments are when we can scroll up and see them. Your first comments implied that the plaintiffs could be blocked if they were harassing despite that not appearing in the ruling.
Then we can talk about why you feel that appeal is likely in a Summary Judgement case. I doubt you have answers.
You still haven't told me where the judge ordered them to do something. You can't, because she didn't. The judge "presumes" they will stop blocking but didn't order them to do it anywhere because she concluded it was "unnecessary to enter that legal thicket at this time." The legal thicket being that it is unclear she can order the President to do anything period. She can probably order Scavino to do something, but Trump can just change his password.
As for the Twitter lawsuit potential, here's another article from Noah Feldman saying the same thing: "if Trump Can’t Block Twitter Users, Twitter Can’t Either" https://www.bloomberg.com/view...
This is his bio: https://hls.harvard.edu/facult...
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.
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.
So let's review what you're saying now. You're still not admitting that the current ruling does not involve Twitter in any way but you want to bring up other potential and hypothetical lawsuits that haven't been filed yet against Twitter. Sometime in the future. Again, anyone can file a lawsuit in the future; how does that impact this ruling retroactively? The forward progress of our linear time puts a damper of courts going back into the past to change decisions. Second, you do understand that this ruling effectively lessens the impact of any future lawsuits as Twitter can reference this decision: Since this judge has ruled that public officials cannot block the public, Twitter has can file motions to dismiss in the future referencing this decision. That's something that the Feldman didn't even mention in that Twitter can contest being a party to a suit. A very effective way to conclude a lawsuit is not to be part of one.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
So let's review what you're saying now. You're still not admitting that the current ruling does not involve Twitter in any way but you want to bring up other potential and hypothetical lawsuits that haven't been filed yet against Twitter. Sometime in the future. Again, anyone can file a lawsuit in the future; how does that impact this ruling retroactively? The forward progress of our linear time puts a damper of courts going back into the past to change decisions. Second, you do understand that this ruling effectively lessens the impact of any future lawsuits as Twitter can reference this decision: Since this judge has ruled that public officials cannot block the public, Twitter has can file motions to dismiss in the future referencing this decision. That's something that the Feldman didn't even mention in that Twitter can contest being a party to a suit. A very effective way to conclude a lawsuit is not to be part of one.
You aren't admitting that fact the judge didn't order Trump to do anything.
I never said Twitter was involved in the current lawsuit. I said they would be affected by it and it could lead to future lawsuits against them. Individuals and entities are very often affected by lawsuits they were not a party to. In this case any public office holder who has blocked people on a Twitter account on which public policy announcements have been made is affected by this ruling even though they were not a party to it. The judge declared the practice unconstitutional. She doesn't have to go further and name everyone past, present, and future who has or might engage in it. As for Twitter itself, I've given my opinion and presented references to the legal arguments that could be made. The outcome is yet to be determined.
You aren't admitting that fact the judge didn't order Trump to do anything.
I posted the exact part of the ruling. If you can't understand it, then that's on you.
I never said Twitter was involved in the current lawsuit. I said they would be affected by it and it could lead to future lawsuits against them.
You said exactly: "Twitter is not government owned or operated. If this ruling stands Twitter as a private company would be unable to enforce it's own policies on blocking users because such blocking would prevent the user from participating in the public forum." What you are saying makes no sense in that Twitter isn't part of the suit but would be affected by a suit. That's idiotic as saying that I'm not part of neighbors divorce but I am affected by their divorce. In some sense they would move but because I don't interact with them so it doesn't affect me.
Second you are aware that judges consider the rulings of other judges? In this case, it did not involve Twitter. If a similar suit is filed, Twitter can reference this decision and point to how they are not a party.
. Individuals and entities are very often affected by lawsuits they were not a party to.
By that logic, EVERY SINGLE lawsuit affects Twitter. My neighbor's divorce affects Twitter. Every single lawsuit affecting Twitter affects me whether I use them.
In this case any public office holder who has blocked people on a Twitter account on which public policy announcements have been made is affected by this ruling even though they were not a party to it. The judge declared the practice unconstitutional. She doesn't have to go further and name everyone past, present, and future who has or might engage in it.
What part of "party to a suit" is unclear to you? Or do not understand how lawsuits work. A lawsuit has to name who is party to it. A judge's job is not name everyone but to oversee it. As far as the future parties is concerned, again we live in linear time and we cannot move forwards in the future or backwards in the past so it would be impossible for a judge to do that unless she or he is a time-traveling judge.
As for Twitter itself, I've given my opinion and presented references to the legal arguments that could be made. The outcome is yet to be determined.
No you presented bogus arguments that were not founded on anything having to do with this suit. Instead of merely admitting it you've spun it as some sort of silly, hypothetical case that doesn't exist.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
>> I posted the exact part of the ruling. If you can't understand it, then that's on you.
It is you who do not understand what the court ordered. Judges use precise language in their rulings. This ruling did not order anything at all.
From NBC news: "The ruling answered the question in front of the court, but the judge did not issue an order immediately requiring Trump to unblock or to stop blocking accounts. The judge wrote that the ruling declaring the law should be enough."
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/t...
>> That's idiotic as saying that I'm not part of neighbors divorce but I am affected by their divorce.
O.K., believe that rulings on constitutional matters have narrow implications. Or instead believe the lawyers for the plaintiffs in this case.
From a Washington Post article: "To what extent does this decision affect other politicians and public officials?
The ruling itself doesn't mention other public officials. But it does set a precedent that other public officials will be under pressure to obey, said Katie Fallow, a senior staff attorney with the Knight First Amendment Institute who argued the case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York."
O.K., believe that rulings on constitutional matters have narrow implications. Or instead believe the lawyers for the plaintiffs in this case.
Rulings against a few people have narrow implications for the most part especially at a district court judge level. Or do you not understand the judiciary among the many other things you don't seem to understand?
Just admit you were wrong about many, many things on this ruling.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
O.K., believe that rulings on constitutional matters have narrow implications. Or instead believe the lawyers for the plaintiffs in this case.
Rulings against a few people have narrow implications for the most part especially at a district court judge level. Or do you not understand the judiciary among the many other things you don't seem to understand?
Just admit you were wrong about many, many things on this ruling.
It's clear that your Slashdot ID describes you perfectly.
It's clear that your Slashdot ID describes you perfectly.
So you are admitting that you don't understand anything about the case or the judiciary?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
It's clear that your Slashdot ID describes you perfectly.
So you are admitting that you don't understand anything about the case or the judiciary?
No. I am accepting that engaging with a self-described unknowing fool is a waste of time.
So you're unwilling to admit the many, many times you were wrong in this post and the numerous attempts to lie about what you posted?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.