Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 23 of 23

Thread: Judge Orders Trump to Stop Blocking Twitter Users

  1. #21
    Site Supporter JodyH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    New Mexico
    Quote Originally Posted by Drang View Post
    I was just going to post:
    Just the President, or any elected official?
    Just Federal, or at all levels?
    Just elected, or appointed as well?
    How about hired?
    I anticipate a LOT of lawsuits being filed on behalf of blocked/banned users for access to their elected representatives.
    This has the potential to completely gut one of the lefts most powerful tools.
    Another interesting tidbit, by the Judge ruling that Twitter is a "public-forum" that means it opens them up to public scrutiny and regulation when it comes to free speech and arbitrarily banning users (especially conservatives).
    Boom!... headshot. Twitter (Facebook, YouTube, etc.) is dead as a propaganda arm of the progressives if this ruling stands.
    They can no longer operate as a "my house, my rules" entity if they're a public-forum. As a public-forum they will have to respect the 1st amendment much like a governmental entity.

    I find it hilarious that a Boomer Clinton appointed progressive liberal Federal Judge just shot the progressive movement in the head with a ruling on subject she was probably completely ignorant about.
    Talk about unintended consequences. She thought she could shut up Trump but this will pretty much destroy the lefts social media dominance.
    Last edited by JodyH; 05-25-2018 at 09:55 AM.
    "For a moment he felt good about this. A moment or two later he felt bad about feeling good about it. Then he felt good about feeling bad about feeling good about it and, satisfied, drove on into the night."
    -- Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy --

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by JodyH View Post
    I anticipate a LOT of lawsuits being filed on behalf of blocked/banned users for access to their elected representatives.
    This has the potential to completely gut one of the lefts most powerful tools.
    Another interesting tidbit, by the Judge ruling that Twitter is a "public-forum" that means it opens them up to public scrutiny and regulation when it comes to free speech and arbitrarily banning users (especially conservatives).
    Boom!... headshot. Twitter (Facebook, YouTube, etc.) is dead as a propaganda arm of the progressives if this ruling stands.
    They can no longer operate as a "my house, my rules" entity if they're a public-forum. As a public-forum they will have to respect the 1st amendment much like a governmental entity.

    I find it hilarious that a Boomer Clinton appointed progressive liberal Federal Judge just shot the progressive movement in the head with a ruling on subject she was probably completely ignorant about.
    Talk about unintended consequences. She thought she could shut up Trump but this will pretty much destroy the lefts social media dominance.
    As much as I agree with you in principle, reality will be quite different. Twitter, Facebook, Google will do as they please. Ban, shadow ban, double secret probation ban all the conservatives they want. Nobody is going to do squat. Trump will abide by the ruling as will other law biding folks. Liberal shitheads will do as they want, like they do today.

  3. #23
    The R in F.A.R.T RevolverRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Gotham Adjacent
    Regardless of if Twitter, Facebook, or Youtube are privately held corporations, the user material they host is publicly available (when public and not private). No one is arguing that private communications remain private. The issue at hand is what it takes for a private forum to become public. Given the ability to remain (relatively) anonymous on the internet, Trump could have a private account under the pseudonym "Rock Kickass" and tweet at whomever he wanted and the judge would likely not have ruled that Trump could not block people to his Rock Kickass account, as long as he 1) Intended to remain anonymous. 2) Did not discuss public policy.

    Once a forum, privately owned or publicly owned, becomes a place for public discussion of policy by a state-authorized actor - it falls into this realm where access to it cannot be denied. That's the argument of the judge here. Twitter could delete all of Trump's account and all of his tweets and nothing would happen, because Twitter is not a state-authorized actor, but when Trump does it, he denies the rights of citizens to a public forum and violates their civil rights. It's really quite simple, if, without Trump's intervention, all material he tweets is otherwise freely available? Then he cannot deny the right of citizens to read it using a block function.

    That is again, why I like this ruling. It's relatively clear and narrow in scope while citing historical precedent. Trump on Twitter is no different than Trump standing on a private driveway while talking public policy to a rally. No citizen can be blocked from viewing/reading/hearing that information just because he is standing on private ground.

    Now, what constitutes public vs. private discussion of policy? While that is a muddier issue, my general understanding is that it involves only a few people and is held "behind closed doors" and is one-on-one/one-on-few. Plus where POTUS is concerned, things can be designated secret without issue.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •