Trump Can't Block Critics From His Twitter Account, Appeals Court Rules (nytimes.com) 552
President Trump has been violating the Constitution by blocking people from following his Twitter account because they criticized or mocked him, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday. The ruling could have broader implications for how the First Amendment applies to the social-media era. From a report: Because Mr. Trump uses Twitter to conduct government business, he cannot exclude some Americans from reading his posts -- and engaging in conversations in the replies to them -- because he does not like their views, a three-judge panel on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled unanimously. Writing for the panel, Judge Barrington D. Parker noted that the conduct of the government and its officials are subject today to a "wide-open, robust debate" that "generates a level of passion and intensity the likes of which have rarely been seen." The First Amendment prohibits an official who uses a social media account for government purposes from excluding people from an "otherwise open online dialogue" because they say things the official disagrees with, he wrote.
Yeeehaaa (Score:2, Funny)
Yeeehaaa, freedom of speech Trump bitches!!! (deal with it)
Will Democrats live up to the same standard? (Score:3, Insightful)
Will Democrat politicians and other government officials live up to the same standard and not block anyone? Will they remove any and all existing blocks that might be in place?
Re: (Score:3)
Will Democrat politicians and other government officials live up to the same standard and not block anyone? Will they remove any and all existing blocks that might be in place?
That's what shadow banning is for. If you compare how Obama was treated with either Bush 2 or Trump you'll see double standards galore. This is why I chuckle at Biden. He pops off at the mouth all the time but as part of the Obama administration was given a pass. If he's ever given scrutiny people will be shocked at the gaffes he makes.
Re:Will Democrats live up to the same standard? (Score:4, Informative)
Well, Trump should learn from Obama. Obama just sent the IRS after conservative groups. I wonder if Trump will eventually return the favor and use the IRS instead of just trying to ban Tweets...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The Wikipedia article you reference points out that the IRS investigated both liberal and conservative nonprofit groups, primarily by keyword searches on their names. And it mentions that, after more than one investigation, no biased targeting of conservative groups was uncovered.
Re:Will Democrats live up to the same standard? (Score:5, Informative)
Yup. "We investigated ourselves and found that we did nothing wrong." Riiight.
It was the Treasury Department Inspector General under the Trump administration who did that investigation and made that conclusion. Again, it's in the article you linked.
But if you expect me to believe that report, then why can't people believe the report that didn't find any evidence of Russian Collusion? The guy that put out that report was strongly biased to try to prove guilt, and yet was unable to.
From a legal perspective, there is no such thing as "collusion." Mueller makes this clear in his report. What Mueller did investigate is whether there was a conspiracy. He did not conclude there was no evidence. He said the evidence did not warrant a conclusion of conspiracy. I for one am relieved that Mueller did not conclude there was a conspiracy.
Mueller also investigated whether obstruction of justice occurred. From the report: "[W]hile this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it does not exonerate him either. [...] If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts, that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state." Sounds to me like there might be more to talk about here.
Finally, your claim that Mueller was "strongly biased to try to prove guilt" sounds like an echoing of Trump's claim that Mueller was pissed at him because of some imagined issue with resigning a membership at one of Trump's golf courses. Mueller addressed that issue in his report also. He said he cancelled his membership and requested a pro-rated refund of dues in October 2011, because he and his family were too far away from the club to make effective use of it. He got a reply saying he was wait-listed for a refund. And that's it. That doesn't sound to me like an issue that would make Mueller "strongly biased to prove guilt."
Re:Will Democrats live up to the same standard? (Score:5, Informative)
And no, two agents talking to each other is not evidence of Mueller being biased. Mueller ran a tight ship with nearly no leaks so what do you base that on?
Evidence please.
As a point, he found tons of collusion evidence (hell there's tons of collusion evidence in the public arena) He did not find anything that rose to the level of Criminal Conspiracy. That is a very high bar, and rightfully so. Collusion is not a crime. One of the few truths Rudolph Giuliani ever uttered.
As to Obstruction, lots of evidence there too, but he was not allowed to indite a sitting president.
A very stupid idea that is only a legal opinion and has never been tested in court. The time is certainly ripe for that test now.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think we will see Trump doing this. Trump appears to be playing by the rules and isn't doing anything illegal or dirty handed as this. Trump is holding the moral high ground here in his presidency. For example not murdering 150 innocent Iranians over a what is basically a supped up RC airplane. An that fact that he isn't just bombing entire populations into submission and is actually willing to listen to US's "enemies" and see if there is a peaceful way to work things out.
You know, basically
Re:Will Democrats live up to the same standard? (Score:5, Insightful)
Then explain otherwise. Real facts only, not fake news, unsubstantiated rumors, and false allegations. While you're at it explain why one human life is worth a unmaned drone or why talking to North Korea isn't in any ones interest.
Re:Will Democrats live up to the same standard? (Score:4, Interesting)
Facts: Trump has not divested himself of his businesses which have been patronized by industry and foreign government personnel, and were in negotiations to expand in Russia during the election. This looks like a straightforward violation of the emoluments clause that has been in progress since the day he was elected. Trump has taken actions that could certainly constitute obstruction of justice, [theatlantic.com] and has had multiple statements essentially admitting to why he fired James Comey made public, which he has tried to walk back. Then there's the fact that he's put multiple regulation-hostile lobbyists in charge of the regulatory agencies they were famously hostile to, what a rational person might call "a fox in the henhouse," but while that's dirty as fuck, it's not a crime. Anyway, those are the undeniably possible crimes based on hard facts, and we haven't even seen his tax returns or a reasonably unredacted Mueller report yet.
I do like that Trump has finally stumbled ass-backwards into a position on North Korea that any other president would be pilloried for taking: that maybe it's possible to reach a deal with North Korea that doesn't involve full denuclearization on their part. But then he also shredded the Iran deal for no fucking reason whatsoever, so...win one, lose one.
While Trump has so far been less likely to kill people over RC planes (although he sure has come close! And he's come close to invading Venezuela for the crimes of being poor and socialist), he's more likely to kill them over xenophobia. He's massively worsened the child prison camp problem that started under Obama, and problems at the border in general with his asinine stance on asylum-seekers, leading to a number of orphanings and deaths.
Re:Will Democrats live up to the same standard? (Score:4, Informative)
Only a judge or jury can state more definitively than I have whether these facts constitute a crime, and they haven't been tried before a court yet. If a man is caught on video threatening a teller with a gun for cash from the register, can we say it's a fact that he's committed armed robbery? He hasn't been arrested, convicted, sentenced etc. yet. That's the situation we're in with examining Trump and the emoluments clause and obstruction of justice issues.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
. Classified emails on a public/private server.
If you find the truth tiresome, you are free to go some place else for your "facts." I would suggest huffington post or vox. They will be more than happy to continue to deliver the "facts", made up, I mean in a manner that pleases you.
Re: (Score:3)
So no real facts. Only troll mods, wishful thinking and one extreme case of TDS from the never Trump group. meglon, you should seek medical attention for that.
I'm going to say we are done here and move on.
Re: (Score:3)
Is it or is it not a fact that President Trump hasn't divested from his businesses and that these businesses have been patronized by industry and foreign government personnel at the same time that there was a provision in the US constitution called the Emoluments Clause?
Do you think the events detailed in the Mueller report in which Trump apparently attempts to obstruct justice are fabrications?
The US legal system considers these to be facts, as such they could potentially constitute crimes. Just like the f
Re: (Score:3)
Explain.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Will Democrats live up to the same standard? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Will Democrats live up to the same standard? (Score:4, Informative)
Oh yes they are. AOC is probably the most prominent one who is going to get hit by this after the donald.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Creating an election platform isn't creating policy.
It's the feedback, stupid! (Score:3, Informative)
Creating an election platform isn't creating policy.
I can't decide if that short comment deserves an "insightful" mod. It's seeking the root of the in-the-eye-of-Trump "problem" that "justified" the expensive lawsuit (on the taxpayers' dime).
The reason I came back to this discussion is also related to Trump's motivation. In my earlier comment, I was focusing on his annoyance, but I think it should be considered more broadly under feedback (another missing keyword). As in Trump loves positive feedback. For example, remember the news about how Trump has staff
Re: (Score:3)
But hey, let's not let facts get in the way.
Re: Will Democrats live up to the same standard? (Score:3)
Except again, the court was not talking of simply policy, but a much broader use (which is directly applicable to plenty of other polticians), something I highlighted by quoting the ruling... perhaps you should read it instead of just relying on the editors here?
Unless you want to quote some part of the ruling you think I missed, I'm done with you on this.
Re: Will Democrats live up to the same standar (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course. I was on that same path, once upon a time. The terms and the tech were different back then, so I never quite got all the way down the path, but you'd have recognized me. And it wasn't any particular heroism or principles that held me back: I just hadn't been exposed to some particular forms of your bullshit yet. At the time, I'd have drunk it up eagerly.
So what happened? Not to get into too many details, but someone not-quite-literally knocked some sense into me, and I realized that I had it coming. The ostracism was indeed fair, I was the only one with the problem, and all I really needed was to grow the fuck up. And when I did, everything changed. The ostracism stopped within weeks, after years of fighting and outside interventions and even moving to multiple schools with strong antibullying programs had "failed" (the last in quotes because it didn't fail: I hadn't really been bullied in years, but refused to see that because I thought I was entitled to popularity). I had my first girlfriend within a year. I mean, there weren't any miracles or anything -I'm still the geek I always was, with all the social awkwardness that comes with that- but it turns out that just growing up and functioning has a lot of benefits, even when you have to drag your brain through it kicking and screaming some days.
And you're just like me, all those years ago. A little further gone, yes, and you've had more time in the muck; it'll hurt more when someone comes to knock sense into you. But I don't think you're beyond salvage. I have no illusions that I'm going to be the one to put some sense into your heads; my opinion would have to actually matter to you for that to happen, and I'm just some random guy on the Internet. But I seem to be hurting your feelings, and hey, that's something. An arrow to the knee, so to speak?
"You have no right to annoy me! I'm piqued!" (Score:5, Interesting)
Really? That's the first "insightful" comment visible in this "hot" topic? To clarify, I've already been searching the comments for a while, but I just gave up and went back to the top this time around...
The important keyword was obviously "annoy", and yet it is not visible in the long discussion. I'm not sure how deeply the "Abbreviated" comments are searched, but there are no hidden ones.
The obvious intention of this lawsuit was to assert the asymmetric claim that #PresidentTweety would prefer to publicly annoy other people without being annoyed by other people's propagation of his mistakes and lies. Essentially insane to imagine that he could limit his "secrets" to millions of his closest "friends", no matter how sycophantic they seem.
I'm guessing the real motivation of this lawsuit was that Trump is annoyed by the negative replies. He presumably ordered a couple of his sycophants to block ALL of the people who added negative replies that prevented him from seeing the positive replies he wanted. It's just his pique speaking. Trump is piqued by the hideous reality that he can't see many positive replies under the negative ones. Mountains of negativity hiding his favorite molehills, and he hates that.
(And "pique" is another keyword not yet used. The word "hate" does have over 20 matches, but any discussion related to Trump tends to be filled with "hate".)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"politicians used it for official government business." That's you problem right there.
Also there is a difference in using a social media account to publish information on voting and whats going on in general with the country or the world and spouting the large amount of sewer from Trump's mouth and other politicians. I expect our government officials to act and publish information in a dignified, respectful and professional manner and with as little bias as possible.
Re: Will Democrats live up to the same standard? (Score:3)
I expect our government officials to act and publish information in a dignified, respectful and professional manner and with as little bias as possible.
I think if anything, Trumps election win has shown that folks like us are very much in the minority. The public simply doesn't care. And it's been extremely shocking for me and many others.
Re: Will Democrats live up to the same standard? (Score:4, Insightful)
As President he setup the first President twitter account and posted official government business.
Err no. Nothing Obama ever posted on Twitter caught his own government or foreign governments by surprise. Learn the difference between doing "official government business" and just advertising the official business which was done elsewhere.
Re: Will Democrats live up to the same standard? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Not true (Score:3)
Yes it's called false equivalence, is a common debate tactic used by the right.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think you should limit it to the right. It's a sophistry and diversion that appeals to any debater in a weak position. It's just that the rightwingers have to use it a lot precisely because so many of their positions are indefensible.
Re: Not true (Score:4, Informative)
I didn't limit it to the right. I simply said they commonly use it.
I made no statement about any other group.
Re:Will Democrats live up to the same standard? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, there's a precedent now and it should apply to any member of government that uses the same social media account for both unofficial and official communications. Having two accounts would get around this.
To be clear, the problem is not about blocking people on twitter, the problem is doing this as part of official government business and communications. For instance, if the account was used for campaigning then presumably it would be ok to block people, just as long as the account is not used for official business. But once the account has become the official mouthpiece of a government office you can't block free speech anymore.
Re: Will Democrats live up to the same standard? (Score:5, Informative)
https://twitter.com/i/moments/872167606802718721
Re: (Score:3)
It's funny that Trump's supporters parody his critics as automatons, when they themselves are the ones that have been shown statistically to blindly follow Trump when he flip-flops on policy, and who parrot fictional talking points he serves out to them unthinkingly. They were even collectively hacked via the QAnon conspiracy theory, the most epic act of conservatrolling in history.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the first amendment didn't apply on private business's websites
The ruling is not about the actions of a private business. It is about the actions of a government official (Donald Trump).
and Twitter can't ban the account as well? (Score:3)
and Twitter can't ban the account as well?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They won't ban him because there is money to made and there is no valid argument for doing so.
Re: (Score:2)
"Nope. You just made up that second "fact.""
You are welcome to attempt to come up with one. Not being politically correct enough is not inciting violence so that one fails, it is just the oppositions propaganda.
"Trump supporter status confirmed."
I'm not a Trump supporter nor Trump opposition. I really don't give that many fucks about Trump and certainly didn't vote for him. I am opposed to the extreme Trump opposition though, using statistically insignificant number of incidents blown ridiculously out of p
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah there would. There has been talks to regulating Twitter, Google, and Facebook for the last two years. They could pull their common carrier status and open them up to civil lawsuits. They could also simply rule that because so much speech is using these services that regulating them is in the public good.
There is precedence for this when the government required newspapers, radio, and television to give airtime to opposing opinions.
Re: (Score:2)
Is Twitter the government? No? Then they can ban the account if they want.
But if they did, and later sued an alternative social medium provider for patent infringement, I'd love to see the defenadnts argue in court that the government can't enforce their patents because doing so would now violate the First Amendment. B-)
Re: (Score:2)
You are misrepresenting what happened. POLICE were forbidden to remove protesters from the private park WITHOUT park owners/officials explicitly asking them to do so, which is not what happened. Police cannot go on private property to enforce private business rules without an explict request to trespass individuals.
that is completely different than twitter...
"otherwise open online dialogue" (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not an open dialogue if Twitter is banning and censoring people from participating.
Did they really think this through (Score:2, Interesting)
So if Trump cannot block anyone, that means that all high level government officials must not block anyone either, right?
In fact the same rationale would seem to apply all the way down to city level.
I would love to see a huge class action suit against even politician having them un-block every single Twitter user they have ever blocked, or maybe it should be a lawsuit directed at Twitter, where anyone who was identified as a public figure would not be allowed to block accounts.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, and no. Federal officals yes, state and lower it is unclear.
Re: (Score:2)
If she uses it for official business then yes, if not then no.
Re:Did they really think this through (Score:5, Insightful)
You did see the part where they mentioned that this was due to a large portion of his tweets were considered official government business right? Some politician who airs personal talk on Twitter won't be held to the same account.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So if that politician ever tweets anything related to any political event - then it's a feed with official Government business.
Well in that specific case you wouldn't be able to block anyone. But their entire feed doesn't magically become official. You should really go through Trump's twitter feed one day to see why your "slippery slope" argument is just silly in comparison to a distinct ruling about Trumps particular case.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then it matters what is or is not government communication. I would think campaigning is not official government business, as long as that same account is not also used for more official purposes. For instance, if a member of congress announces a twitter account as a means of communicating with the representative then that account can't block comments. This implies that the account one uses during the mudslinging campaign season should not be the same account that gets used as the official communication
Re: (Score:3)
So if that politician ever tweets anything related to any political event - then it's a feed with official Government business. And thus they cannot block at all. ANY tweet related to any political or Governmental action would mean you cannot block.
Conflating "political event" and "official government business"?
Re: (Score:2)
So if that politician ever tweets anything related to any political event - then it's a feed with official Government business. And thus they cannot block at all. ANY tweet related to any political or Governmental action would mean you cannot block.
That is absolutely not what the ruling says. The case law referred to for this particular point is Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 547524 (1975).
Re:Did they really think this through (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes this is what the case hinges on. If his personal account were simply his musings on the weather, sports, etc., the plaintiffs wouldn't have had a case. It's specifically because his personal account is considered to be official government business.
I follow the President's official account on Twitter and it doesn't do much of anything other than retweet Mr. Trump's personal account.
Re: (Score:3)
You did see the part where they mentioned that this was due to a large portion of his tweets were considered official government business right? Some politician who airs personal talk on Twitter won't be held to the same account.
Furthermore, it's not so much that the court or ordinary citizens consider the tweets to be official government communication, it's that Trump's own press secretary declared Trump's tweets to be official, saying [cnn.com] during an official briefing, "The President is the President of the United States, so they're considered official statements by the President of the United States."
Re: (Score:3)
I would love to see every politician at every level of government simply not use such an idiotic platform as Twitter at all.
Re: (Score:2)
So if Trump cannot block anyone, that means that all high level government officials must not block anyone either, right?
In fact the same rationale would seem to apply all the way down to city level.
Correct. I fail to see why this is a problem however.
or maybe it should be a lawsuit directed at Twitter, where anyone who was identified as a public figure would not be allowed to block accounts.
No, "anyone" is not the criteria, a Twitter account used to conduct government business is the criteria.
Now that said, sure Twitter could do whatever so accounts flagged as such can't block people, but then they would need to maintain the list of official use accounts vs any other account for the same person that isn't official.
Just my opinion here but that sounds like an undue burden to make twitter build and maintain such a list. Enforcing one, sure,
Re: (Score:3)
Not necessarily. If the politician uses his Twitter account for official announcements, like Trump does, then, no, they can't. If it's an account for private use, they can.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact the same rationale would seem to apply all the way down to city level.
And apply to all Americans [twitter.com], even those differently-speciated.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. For accounts used for government business and communication. Personal accounts, even if used by politicians, can still block people. The snag here is that Trump has turned his personal account into being effectively an official line of communication. It is a bit trickier as president because personal and public life are so intertwined. Just tweeting that you're going to visit a foreign country is publicly relevant if you're a president, but not so much if you're just a congress member going ton va
Re: (Score:2)
This only applies because the platform is used to conduct official business.
Any federal employees, appointees, and elected officials who don't conduct official business will have no such requirements.
If Trump used social media like most other politicians, this wouldn't be an issue. But there is a line, and he stepped right across it.
You could say he's a habitual line-stepper.
Multiple politicians have blocked people (Score:2)
https://www.stripes.com/news/us/can-politicians-ban-people-from-their-social-media-accounts-1.556061/ [stripes.com]
Like I said, this link list's off politicans from both parties that have tried to block people on their "Personal" social media page. This ruling will not just affect
Re: Multiple politicians have blocked people (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Multiple politicians have blocked people (Score:4, Informative)
It was in use before he became president. He was making tweets during the campaign. So, did it change from being a personal account to a government platform when he became president? Just so you know, I agree with this ruling.
Page 16-19 in the ruling explains it: https://knightcolumbia.org/sit... [knightcolumbia.org]
What about Twitter? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What about Twitter? (Score:5, Insightful)
So Donald can't block you because this is a 'public interest forum' yet Twitter is free to hit you with blocks, account terminations, suspensions, and silent bans that will hinder you from accessing and participating in said forum including Trump's own Twitter for breaking any one of their thousands of vague unwritten and inconsistently enforced rules?
Yes. Freedom of speech protects you and twitter from the government.
Great news - for conservatives (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Great news - for conservatives (Score:4, Informative)
Judge Barrington Parker found that Twitter is, in fact, a public forum. Meaning that bans of posters on Twitter for "offensive" speech just got infinitely harder, and easier to challenge in court. We now have a Federal Appeals Court on record as stating Twitter is a public forum - now they have to start acting/moderating like it.
Not twitter as a whole. The reasoning about what constitutes a public forum in this particular case can be found from page 12 in the ruling.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt that what you're saying is correct. There are no "public forum" laws written into the Constitution as far as I'm aware. I think that's a trope crazy right wingers made up because they get their feelings hurt that they can't spew their bile anywhere they please.
There's no 'right to an abortion' in the Constitution either but I suspect that you still think it's a legal right.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trolls are "robust debate"? (Score:3)
There's no question that the back-and-forth between Trump and his opposition "generates a level of passion and intensity the likes of which have rarely been seen.".
But classifying gang-trolling as "robust debate" seems like a stretch, while prohibiting Trump from selectively blocking those he chooses from his twitter feed seems guaranteed to bury any actual, substantial, debate.
This decision looks like a contrivance to destroy Trump's use of social media to bypass the mainstream media stranglehold - or at least impair it by requiring him to ban all followups equally.
It will be interesting to see how the appeals work out.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no question that the back-and-forth between Trump and his opposition "generates a level of passion and intensity the likes of which have rarely been seen.".
But classifying gang-trolling as "robust debate" seems like a stretch, while prohibiting Trump from selectively blocking those he chooses from his twitter feed seems guaranteed to bury any actual, substantial, debate.
This decision looks like a contrivance to destroy Trump's use of social media to bypass the mainstream media stranglehold - or at least impair it by requiring him to ban all followups equally.
It will be interesting to see how the appeals work out.
From a cursory read of the ruling there is nothing new. All has been previously established.
Re: (Score:3)
Free speech is still free speech, even when it's low-quality speech.
Twitter needs to change its ToS... (Score:2)
Now that is truly ... (Score:2)
...deplorable.
everybody join twitter (Score:2)
"uses Twitter to conduct government business" (Score:2)
"JOBS JOBS JOBS!!!!!!" - Trump Twitter
"[Latest person to criticize Trump] is a lunatic!" - Trump Twitter
"This man is very smart! PROOF!
[someone retweeted by trump]
-Trump is a great leader and only the insane criticize him"
Government business indeed.
From what I saw when I would read through his Twitter, it was mostly him posing, bragging, or denouncing anyone that criticized him. Though there was that hilarious tweet where he claimed he loved Mexicans.... and it showed him eating a taco salad.
But he can mute you (Score:3)
Watch and learn, younglings
"Debate?" (Score:3)
I have not seen any vigorous debate regarding Trump's posts. Just bots and trash talk.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Well if those "conservative voices" did not incite violence against the TOS then they would not be silenced.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Calling on the left to be attacked is considered hate speech. also no liberals advocate for babies to get murdered. Fetuses are not babies, and abortion is not murder. They make dictionaries to help people understand English words.
Re: (Score:2)
A body part is still classified as fetus not a baby, as found in the dictionary definition until the mother has decided to consider it a baby. Your hateful thinking is limiting when an abortion can take place and the reason the carrier might want it to take place.
Bills such as HB 2491 remove your sick limitations and allow the removal of the unwanted
Re: (Score:2)
Your diatribe makes absolutely no sense. A fetus is a fetus, a baby is a baby, whether the the mother has decided to consider it one way or the other has no bearing on the definitions. I am not sure what makes me a sexist in this, or if this is some sort of troll attempt.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is Twitter blocking people. Trump doesn't hang out wreck it ralph style in the lines clubbing these messages away nor is he doing so via some kind of executive power. Twitter is the gatekeeper of these messages and twitter is either blocking or not blocking them. That is a disconnect a lot of people have, these online "tools" are not self serve tools, they are private services and any self-serve interface notwithstanding actually controlled by whoever owns and operates those services not the user. Anythi
Re: (Score:2)
I can only say that your view didn't prevail in court.
Re: (Score:2)
In this court.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump has certain legal requirements when he handles official business or speaks for the US government.
Those requirements exist regardless of the medium. If he is conducting business or speaking officially on a social media platform, he is bound to follow the rules there---including on Twitter.
This ruling simply forces Trump to follow the rules, which he should have been doing from the start.
PS - Your contention that Twitter is blocking people is laughable at best, if not downright disingenuous. The blockin
Re:Lawsuits incoming (Score:5, Informative)
Way to completely miss the whole stated point of the ruling. You're trying far too hard to be willfully ignorant.
Re: (Score:3)
If the president can't block people, neither can AOC.
Does AOC use her Twitter account to do government business, to communicate government information to her Congressional constituency? If so, then you're right. If she only uses it for personal and campaign purposes, then you're wrong. As for which it is... I don't know, though Congressmen typically don't have much official communication with their constituencies because they're legislators, not executives. Their official work is all in the form of votes and speeches given in the House chambers. The presi
Re: Make canada great again (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is what gave it away?
Not the fact he said he wanted Trump as his PM
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The fact that Trump and his administration tried blocking people proves that he doesn't believe in the Constitution, Freedom of Speech or in American Values. He hates America.
OMG. What a steaming pile of BS. Trump loves America. Why else would he put himself through all this mudslinging to try and put things right after several decades of presidents that have been undermining America?
And the fact that the Republican party has given up on its core values - like free trade - to support Trump no matter what, has shown the GOP has lost all values, ethics and has no morality.
Trump is fully in favor of free trade. China, however, is not. Why was it that all the money and jobs were flowing to China while American products were not being sold to Chinese people? If we had had free trade, there would not have been the huge trade imbalance that was occurring.
If China wants to
Re: (Score:2)
If China wants to block American goods and services from being sold to the Chinese population, Trump has every right and good reason to block China's goods and services from being sold in the US.
But that's not what he's doing. He's imposing tariffs. Any schoolchild knows it's the American people who will pay those government-imposed fees. In effect, it could be the equivalent of a bigger tax increase on Americans than any left-wing fever dream.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Several decades of presidents undermining the country? You sir have drunken too deeply of the kool aid. So, in your view, Obama, Bush Jr, Clinton, Bush Sr. and Reagan were all in the least effective cabal in history to do... what to the country exactly?
And the saviour of great wisdom and moral fortitude who rose up to fix this situation, in your mind, is Donald Friggin Trump?
Re: (Score:2)
What - you thought they would uh all those steel mills , ship them to China, and not use them?
Re:They seem to have made a mistake here (Score:4, Informative)
No mistake here, your argument was considered (see page 24-26) https://knightcolumbia.org/sit... [knightcolumbia.org]
(It places an undue burden).
Re: (Score:3)
No, the judge ruled that Trump did not have the right to block. Not that you have a right to respond.
There's an important nuance there, and it means Twitter can still ban people for any reason.