Trump Asks Supreme Court To Let Him Block Critics on Twitter (thehill.com) 245
The Trump administration on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to reverse a lower court ruling that found President Trump violated the First Amendment by blocking his critics on Twitter. From a report: The lawsuit arose in 2017 after Trump's social media account blocked seven people who had tweeted criticism of the president in comment threads linked to his @realDonaldTrump Twitter handle. Lower federal courts found that Trump's twitter account, where he often weighs in on official matters, constitutes a public forum and that blocking his detractors violated their constitutional free speech protections. In its Thursday petition to the Supreme Court, attorneys for the Justice Department (DOJ) urged the justices to overturn a unanimous ruling from a three-judge panel of the New York-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit against Trump.
This'll be quick (Score:5, Funny)
"You want the short answer or the long answer?" ... what's the long answer then?"
"The short one."
"No."
"Ok
"Um, no."
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, no. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Yeah, no. (Score:5, Insightful)
Are the little kids hurting your feelings? Deal with it. I thought you were a big strong tough man.
Trump really doesn't like it when people disagree with, or disparage, him. Rather than thinking about others' commentary and accepting that (a) he doesn't actually know everything, (b) isn't always right/correct and (c) not everyone likes him, he'd rather pretend they don't exist, like a spoiled child would do.
Re: Yeah, no. (Score:3)
My 8th grade health teacher (1984) once told me:
1/3 of the people you meet will like you no matter what You do or say
1/3 of the people you meet will likely dislike/hate you no matter what you do or say
And then there is the 1/3 that what you do and say matter. They are the only ones worth worrying about.
Apparently Trump never learned, or had forgotten, that lesson. When people kiss your ass all the time, eventually it goes to your head.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a serious vulnerability. It makes him easy to manipulate.
Re:Yeah, no. (Score:5, Insightful)
When it comes to freakouts from the far-left, it's not just simple, traditional disagreement. These people go absolutely ape shit and attempt to destroy to get their way. They shitpost like crazy, doxx, and otherwise abuse their target and the platform, if they deem necessary. They lack any sense of morals, decency, civility, and in many cases, even sanity. They have no place in our society.
Ya, good thing Trump isn't like that - at all. /extreme-sarcasm
It's not about hurt feelings (Score:5)
Trump has always wanted to be able to use the threat of lawsuits to control what is said about him in public. You can't do that on the Internet because there's too many people saying bad things about him. So he needs to cut it off at the source. Take control over it. Stop general public discourse.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not true if by "Trump Organization" you include the POTUS. The US government literally does this for all presidential communications, it's just the current president decided he didn't need to comply with the constitution in this regard, or any other for that matter.
Re: (Score:2)
In which case, if the President of the United States Of America used the Trump Organization to provide official government communications, then they still cannot legally block some users and allow other users. They could however provide a read-only interface where no one is allowed to comment directly (ala, the congressional record which does not come with a public comments section). Now Trump himself could have a personal account at Trump Organization where he can block some people who make fun of his go
Re: Yeah, no. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But look at what you're doing here. You putting POTUS, one of the most powerful persons on the planet that is elected by people, on the same level of what is mostly random internet nutjobs who wield almost no power for the sake of your whataboutism fallacy.
Re:Yeah, no. (Score:5, Insightful)
To be fair, Trump did that by deciding that Twitter was a source of official government communication. It's crazy, but there you go.
I'm assuming that the next president will be more rational, but given the random electorate nutjobs that's not yet clear.
Remember when the Onion was satire (Score:2)
If then else (Score:2, Interesting)
It is an iffy ruling at best. Since twitter allows it to be shut off, it may no longer be a public forum at that point, and more like a live feed of a cork board he pins things to.
Consider ads on the sides of city busses. The court ruled these were public fora in that government may not restrict speech content in them. They had cases like people wanting to bitch about Islam, and the government banned it, but allowed ads praising it. This is viewpoint discrimination and is disallowed on such a forum.
Now
Why is the DOJ involved? (Score:5, Insightful)
In its Thursday petition to the Supreme Court, attorneys for the Justice Department (DOJ) urged the justices to overturn a unanimous ruling ...
If this is just a personal Twitter that is purportedly not a public forum...
Then why are the US Government's attorneys and resources involved in a case related to this account in the first place?
As far as I know the DOJ cannot legally fight personal legal battles of government officials. The DOJ's authority is to represent the government itself – and only the interests of the public; the DOJ cannot legally represent the interests of individuals that disagree with the government... And how could it ever be in the interest of the public to overturn the finding that they have this protected public forum?
If Trump wants to argue that this account and the publicly-repliable threads do not exist for official purposes as a public forum, then its essentially an argument defending his personal actions as not representing the government; to the extent that Trump himself as an individual is the defendant...
That's fine, but it seems like that should be his own personal attorneys' time and billable hours.
Re:Why is the DOJ involved? (Score:4, Insightful)
If this is just a personal Twitter that is purportedly not a public forum...
The White House has designated Trump's personal Twitter as an official news source. So it now IS a public forum.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Have you been drinking your Libertardian Koolaid too much?
Is this some kind of projection? Libertardians are endemic in the US, where I do not reside, so, no. I'd have to import that crap first.
Re: (Score:2)
Arguably this is the goverment arguing that it is not responsible for the content of the twitter account and so it shoudl not be considred a public form.
Also, this has a lot of implications that involve civil liberties for many people , so the goverment has an intrest from that prespective.
Private company vs. Government (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
non-sense, you are assuming that it is impossible for him to have a private phone or e-mail account run by a priavte company.
I agree that 'The president of the united states as the head of the executive branch' can't try to silence people, but that isn't what this is , this is Mr. Trump on a mutlipy person phone conversation with his private phone , not wanting to allow just anybody to dial in.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, we are all protected by the constitution from being s
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know. The laws around official presidential outlets are pretty clear, and the court is enforcing them. Just because Trump cannot understand the effect of laws doesn't mean that we need to replace every one-page law with a thousand-page law to spell it out for him.
What does blocking on Twitter do? (Score:2)
Does blocking a person prevent them from being able to tweet, or does it just prevent the blocker from seeing the blockee's tweets?
Yawn. (Score:3, Funny)
I think this is about the s230 review (Score:2)
Why did they wait so long for this appeal?
I think this is about the S230 review. They want the Supreme Court to weigh in on whether or not Twitter is a public square.
Trump has serious mental issues (Score:2)
I'm sure I'm not the only one who sees the obvious. Actually he reminds me of my ex-wife. She was a narcissist who clearly suffered from the Dunning-Kruger effect too.
lets see... (Score:2)
2, there is such a thing as freedom of speech, so if trump cant handle the heat he needs to get out of the kitchen
Absolutely not (Score:4, Insightful)
Ban all politics (Score:2)
How about we require twitter to ban all political discussions, political ads, and everything related to politics, including reporters bitching. I think if we did that for not only twitter but also facebook and the other instagram, tiktok bullshit, life would be a little more tolerable.
Re:Twitter is a public forum... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Twitter is a public forum... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Which sets down the idea that politicians can just waltz into your site, say something official, and suddenly that part of your site is a "public forum". In addition to this, companies swear on their lives that you do not own your account and it remains their property at all times, so why does this suddenly change when the POTUS blocks them?
Besides the people he blocks are just there to hurl abuse and shitpost, things that will get you ejected from wherever a politician is making a speech.
Re:Twitter is a public forum... (Score:4, Informative)
Considering that Twitter has not only welcomed him on the site, but also changed their rules for him, and implemented special technological measures around his account, I think it's safe to say that h e's a different case.
Re: Twitter is a public forum... (Score:2)
Actually any government account at any level, city, state, county, etc. you dont even have to discuss policy. If its a facebook account for city government then they cannot ban you.
Re:Twitter is a public forum... (Score:5, Informative)
Yes it does. Public officials must always be accessible to the public.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
maybe, but that doesn't mean every type of communication they choose to engage in needs to be accessible to the public.
Do you have a direct phone to any govenment offical? no , only thier office at best.
Same here. If ther were an official POTUS account it might be a public account, but this is an account Mr. Trump owned before he was elected and will reatain control of after he is elected. He cannot or at least should not use it for public business. That being said, simply because many people are inter
Re:Twitter is a public forum... (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed that Trump should not use his private Twitter account for public business, but that doesn't stop him. Given that he does issue policy announcements on it, it does get official status.
If he wanted to have his social network private, he should not have put official business on it.
Re:Twitter is a public forum... (Score:5, Interesting)
Precisely. Most politicians maintain separate accounts so that they don't run into this problem in the first place. Trump decided against using the existing @POTUS account—which would have avoided this whole situation—and instead continued using his (previously) personal account.
It's also worth noting specifically which part of blocking was the problem, because blocking actually does a few things on Twitter:
1) It stops what you say from reaching the person who blocked you.
2) It stops you from being able to follow the person who blocked you.
The courts found that #1, which is basically just muting someone, is perfectly fine, suggesting it was no different than a politician willfully ignoring a particular constituent. There is no right guaranteeing people access to their politicians. You can't just walk into their office without an appointment and demand to speak with them. On the other hand, the courts found that #2 limits one's ability to access public statements from the President, which is a right enjoyed by all citizens of the US. If we are to operate as a free society, we require equal access to the public statements that affect us. Preventing someone from following you curtails their ability to access what you are saying, and while that is fine if you are a private citizen and nothing more, it's a violation of their rights if you are a government official engaging in government speech.
Because blocking someone does both #1 and #2, it's unacceptable. If Trump could find a way to merely mute those people, however, he'd be fine in doing so, apparently.
Also notable, it's been suggested that the people who were blocked by Trump prior to him becoming President lack standing to sue to be unblocked because the action was undertaken by a then-private citizen. I'm not sure how that works, given that they seem to be saying that the current harm those people are suffering doesn't matter, but it is what it is.
Re: (Score:3)
Man, you were so taken up to pound home the full argument that you strolled right past the obvious joke, which is that if Trump wanted full control over his private communications, he should have put them on a private server.
Actually, that's not a joke, come to think of it.
If he'd invented "Trumper", same as Twitter, except runs on a private server with one poster and 60 million followers, but let's him re-"Trump" stuff from Twitter to them by copying them from Twitter to Trumper, then I think that in Trum
Re: Twitter is a public forum... (Score:5, Interesting)
He definitely should not be using it for official business. There are archival requirements of the office of the president that I am sure twitter is unaware and fails to comply with. Maybe we can use that bit of info to hurt Twitter? If trump deletes a tweet this is a violation. Start filing FOIA requests and cite the archival law and the district courts decision.
Re: (Score:3)
He definitely should not be using it for official business. There are archival requirements of the office of the president that I am sure twitter is unaware and fails to comply with. Maybe we can use that bit of info to hurt Twitter? If trump deletes a tweet this is a violation. Start filing FOIA requests and cite the archival law and the district courts decision.
Perhaps I need to explain myself better as this is completely false. Twitter is a private platform and is in no more required to keep archives than Ikea, should a government official create a public forum by standing on a chair. If Trump deletes a tweet that's no more a violation when Pelosi tore the State of the Union adress (neither her copy or the copy twitter has is the archival document). The government is compelled by law to keep archives and you can certainly file a FOIA request there and if they can
Re:Twitter is a public forum... (Score:5, Insightful)
Any reasonable public official would use TWO accounts for this person. @washingtonCountyRegistrarOfVoters versus @realJohnQDoe.
Re:Twitter is a public forum... (Score:5, Informative)
"President Donald Trump considers his tweets to be official White House statements" -- Sean Spicer, at an official press briefing.
@RealDonaldTrump is his personal account which he uses to express his own opinions.
That would be great if it were true, but its not. Was he expressing an opinion when he announced Mike Pompeo would become the new Secretary of State, and effectively publicly fired Rex Tillerson? Was the tweet from the @POTUS account?
Nope. He was using his so-called "personal" twitter account to announce appointment changes to senior government officials.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/... [theverge.com]
Just one example of MANY MANY MANY others.
Re:Twitter is a public forum... (Score:5, Informative)
I don't have a direct line, but I have a means of contact.
Also if you're blocked you can't see his tweets either. That was the main issue. Not your ability to reply. It might change if Twitter let's Donny block individuals or groups from replying (right now it's kind of all or nothing) but as it stands if Trump wants to block people those people lose access to viewing his statements, and his statements are treated as Government statements.
Re: (Score:3)
"maybe, but that doesn't mean every type of communication they choose to engage in needs to be accessible to the public."
Yeah but the type of communication where they announce laws, policies and executive orders to the public needs to be.
Re:Twitter is a public forum... (Score:5, Insightful)
He has chosen to become a public servant
If he thought for an instant that the president was a public servant, he would never have entered the race.
Re:Twitter is a public forum... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's fine, he can create a personal account and post there about how terrible a competing golf course is, and then block people who criticize his viewpoints there. A private citizen can censor and refuse to listen to someone, but a government official cannot do this in their public capacity. The first amendment applies to the government, not private citizens. The snag is that Donald Trump has turned @realDonaldTrump into a governmental account by his inability to keep the public and the personal separate.
The solution is simple, just have two accounts, and keep things separate. When he blathers on his account that "Merkel is a poopy head!", he can't claim that this is just his personal opinion and not the official stance of the White House. Especially when the tweet before and after that are indeed official White House positions or announcements.
Re: (Score:2)
The question here is what a public forum is, and public means open to the public, e.g. to everyone. So banning someone just for criticism is a violation of First Amendment Rights. It might be different if the people in question uttered violent threats or verbal injuries which were overstepping the boundaries of Free Speech.
Re:Twitter is a public forum... (Score:4)
It becomes public when it's a public officer using that forum for official announcements. Of course, it's stupid to get into that position in the first place, as most public officers are smart enough to know how to separate the public persona from the personal persona.
Re: (Score:3)
The WH has declared that Trumps twitter is an official outlet of WH information.
Re: Twitter is a public forum... (Score:2)
Thats not what the lower court ruled. Its an interesting precedent.
Re:Twitter is a public forum... (Score:5, Informative)
It is not. It is a limited purpose public forum [umkc.edu].
You're confusing ownership with use. It is privately owned, but Twitter allows Trump - as a public official -- to use it. If a public official chooses to use it as a limited purpose public form -- i.e., accepts comments from the public concerning the announcements that they make -- then they must do without discriminating against content (with the exception of viewpoint-neutral criteria such as no obscenity, criminal material, etc).
Trump adores the fawning replies that he gets. Therefore he has to take the bitter criticism that he gets along with it. That's the deal, whether he uses the South Lawn, the Staples Center, or Twitter.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be super helpful for every post to not use "It". Different posters aren't agreeing on what "it" refers to.
Also, the very first sentence of the linked page says "A limited (or designated) public forum, according to the Supreme Court, is a forum set aside by government for expressive activities." Not that this disagrees with what you posted, but understanding how that is not in conflict actually helps.
It is Trump's actions that "sets aside" Trump's account as a public forum. His tweets do not "set
Re:Twitter is a public forum... (Score:4, Funny)
I don't require agreement as to what "it" refers to. "It" is the @realdonaldtrump twitter account as it has been used since January 20th, 2017. "It" is well defined by the litigation and the appeal to the Supreme Court. Any other definition of "it" can fuck off.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it's private how is a court able to order Twitter to disallow Trump from blocking based on his tweets being a public forum?
Because he's a high-profile, public figure, using a private forum (Twitter) for his public messages. Now, if he would be disciplined enough to limit his public/Presidential commentary to the official @potus account *and* limit his personal comments to his @realDonaldTrump account, then he might have different options, but Trump isn't (that) disciplined and, to be fair, sometimes it's difficult to separate them. As usual, Trump wants things both/all ways while often complaining that others have it too many
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Trump seems to make formal/official-sounding announcements on this "private" forum -- those official statements being a matter of public record, and so his account can't ban people from seeing/participating in the public record.
Re: (Score:2)
what about if I 'put something on the web' but you have to have a login to get to it and I have the ability to deny you viewing various material?
Is it still public? This is one of those things the courts need to put a lot more consideration into.
Re: (Score:2)
You're allowed to do that, and no it's not public, as long as you're you.
However, should you become an elected public official, and you start putting public policy announcements in your private locked away forum, it IS public and you've removed your ability to block
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No surprise that you misrepresent the issue as a shill for Trump err, open-minded independent libertarian that both parties desire to court.
The court ruled that TRUMP was in violation of the 1st amendment for blocking users on Twitter because TRUMP uses Twitter as a public forum. The court ordered TRUMP to unblock users, which he did. The court did not order Twitter to disallow anything because Twitter was a public forum, it was TRUMP's use of Twitter that made the TRUMP Twitter vomitorium a public forum.
P
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Most people don't. Sadly even elected officials fail to understand big sections of the Constitution.
I'm regretting the consequences of not requiring some civics education [ed.gov] in our public schools. STEM is stupid to prioritize if those future scientists and engineers can't participate in a functioning democracy.
If what we have seems OK, then we might as well move to a totalitarian state or work in China if all you care about is your employability. It's typical in the PRC for the average person to not understan
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Twitter is a public forum... (Score:2)
It wasn't covered in my school during the 1990's. We learned out to pull the levers on a voting machine and got to color maps in for the electoral college. It was a children class given to 17 & 18 year old students.
Nobody explained federalism, term limits, just duty, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
So your position is that Trump's usage alters the definition of the entire Twitter service?
Let's be clear, if Trump holds a rally on private property, then that private property is choosing to be a "public common" and Trump cannot remove protesters. If Trump conducts official business at Mar-e-lago then Mar-e-lago is a "public common" and Trump cannot deny any member of the public access, even when Trump is not there. That's your position, that no private property can remain private if it conducts any bus
Re:Twitter is a public forum... (Score:5, Insightful)
A private company is incapable of limiting your free speech.
Let me put it this way, when your favorite TV show is cancelled, no one calls it "censorship." Literally no one. Because it is a financial decision made by a private company.
Put another way: the owners of Twitter have free speech rights too. One incredibly important free speech right we all have is to not be forced into repeating things you don't want to say. What you and others seem to want is to force others to bow to your whims, despite how it removes their own rights, and hurts them financially.
Consider a third scenario: a mall, open to the public. You can go in and talk with the patrons about anything you like. But, the owners of the mall can remove you for any reason. If you go in and start screaming about lynching all Portuguese, you will almost certainly be kicked out. And no one will call it censorship.
Your free speech rights DO NOT trump others' rights to free speech, or to control their own property. It is a mark of authoritarianism to want laws applied to others, but not one's self. It is a feature of the conservative mind set to think rights belong only to one's self and one's in group, while not protecting those labelled as "others." Don't be like that.
Re: (Score:2)
I was with you until "It is a feature of the conservative mind set" ... I would have said facist and call at least some liberals and conservatives on both sides the former. Of coarse twitter should be able to limit what Trump says, he should be able to stop using thier platform if he wants too.
The only thing that might be a mitigating factor is if you consider twitter to have gotten so big that it has major control over the means of free speech. Much like there is still and equal time doctrine in boadcast
Re: Twitter is a public forum... (Score:2)
This is interesting. Would this ruling mean that twitter has to make their platform available to the blind? What about the strenuous archival requirements on information distributed from the office of the president? Is Twitter complying? We should be capable of sending a FOIA request to Twitter on any and every tweet by all public officials. Death by 1000 cuts. Lets submit a few hundred of these a day.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm amazed a single person can be this misinformed. No, you can't kill twitter with nonsense FOIA requests. (Why would you want to anyway?)
You should also take a look at the ADA. You'll be very surprised.
Re: (Score:3)
A private company is incapable of limiting your free speech.
No, the Supreme Court says you're wrong. [wikipedia.org] Take it up with them.
However, laws may restrict the ability of private businesses and individuals from restricting the speech of others, such as employment laws that restrict employers' ability to prevent employees from disclosing their salary with coworkers or attempting to organize a labor union.[8 [bna.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That is saying that the government may limit the free speech of private companies, in certain circumstances. Kinda the opposite of what you are asserting. It means that, yes, if we wanted too, we could pass laws that limit the free speech of corporations. But that is a double edged sword, it is not protecting free speech, but limiting it.
Do you want to censor companies whose views you don't agree with? Are you okay with a future administration doing it to companies whose views you do agree with?
Re: (Score:2)
What? It says the government may restrict the ability of employers to censor their employees. How does that stop either party from exercising their own?
Are you seriously saying, "if I can't make you shut up, MY free speech is being violated!"
Re: (Score:3)
I wasn't speaking about free speech. Homosexuals have the legal right to have the same treatment as non-homosexuals in businesses. Now most businesses must follow that law, but christians are fragile snowflakes who are allowed to treat homosexuals differently, against the law, possibly since their brains cannot differentiate "wholeheartedly supporting the happiness of another couple" and "being paid to bake a cake". They're similar, I'll admit.
Giving money to newspapers for politicians is somehow conside
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. You're saying that a private company is incapable of limiting an individual's free speech, but an individual (such as the person you are responding to) is capable of limiting a private company's free speech.
I believe that makes you a corporatist, and the person you
Re: (Score:2)
Smothers Brothers (Score:2)
A private company is incapable of limiting your free speech.
Let me put it this way, when your favorite TV show is cancelled, no one calls it "censorship." Literally no one.
You're referring to The Smothers Brothers [wikipedia.org] TV show, right?
No one called censorship when that show was cancelled. Nope, no one. Not anybody.
No one studied it either, viz: You Can't Air That: Four Cases of Controversy and Censorship in American Television Programming, by David S. Silverman, Syracuse University Press, 2007.
Censorship of opposing viewpoints will be a *major* factor in the upcoming election.
As Jordan Peterson noted, free speech seems to be a conservative issue.
Re:Twitter is a public forum... (Score:5, Insightful)
As a private company they need to have policies and follow those policies if they are going to engage in any proactive stances. This is what has made the push for censorship so hard. Fundamentally we know more free speech is always better. That if we pick and choose that leads to bad things. On the other hand promoting content that tells kids to drink the clorox is clearly not a great thing, and might be a place where we limit free speech.
But most social media rightly have focused on policies to ban users that threaten profitability rather than public safety, so we are in this situation. Where we have to find solution in real time.
Now Trump as part time POTUS is in a different situation. In his full time position as person who is in charge of the profits of Trump Industries, he has every right to choose who follows him, and who is allowed to respond to his posts. This is the right of every private person.
. However, in his part time job, there are public service implications. He is not just a private citizens making statement such as Obama doesn't know anything because she said Trump killed 150,000 people when he really killed 180,000. He is the leader of the free world, employed by the people of the US, even though he may refuse payment, and by law and custom those who employ him have equal right to make comment.
This is what the court says. As a elected public official, there is the rule of law, and he must comply. Now, if he stoped using it as his official government communication tool [businessinsider.com], then the courts might have a different interpretation. But as has repeatedly said Twitter is the tool that he as POTUS uses to communicate with his employers, there are rules on that.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm confused, when did this account, which unless I'm mistaken , is the same account used by celeberty trump when he was a private citizen and candidate trump when he was that, and presumably that he will retain after he leaves office, become an offical chanel of communication? Just because trump has no interest in providing a more offical channel doesn't mean this one is defacto offical. In fact I'd say most of what he twitters is VERY unoffical.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Twitter is a public forum... (Score:2)
But cant the ruling go both ways? If his account is a public forum he cant be allowed to delete posts and twitter would habe to comply with FOIA requests as well as archive everything for an eternity.
Re: (Score:3)
There's a difference between the account used by a person, and the account used by a person for official government business. Unfortunately the stable genius, Donald Trump, uses the same account for both! In essence, @realDonaldTrump is an official mouthpiece of the US government.
What @realDonaldTrump needs to do is to have two separate acounts, one for his persona stuff and one for his official government announcements and discussions.
Re:Rules For THEE (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter deliberately makes it very frustrating to browse the site without an account. As such, the problem lies with them.
Re: (Score:2)
so you think that every public offical should have every e-mail and phone call they make recorded for posterity ? that's non-sense.
Re: (Score:3)
What lefties are blocking and banning access to official government forums? That's the issue - the court has ruled that by using his twitter account in an official way, that his twitter account actually is an official account of the US government, and as such it cannot restrict free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
At least progressives are open to new ideas
I... hope that's sarcasm. The far left wing is every bit as scary as the far right wing in this country.
Re: What a jerk (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Imaginary enemies are the best enemies for politicians and wannabe fascists. Actual enemies can be a) defeated or b) proven to not be a threat. Imaginary enemies, though, are always lurking out there threatening to do exactly what the politicians trying to exploit fear to gain power say they're going to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What a jerk (Score:5, Insightful)
There are. The difference is that the extreme left in the US ("somewhat left-of-center" to the rest of the world) has no useful power, while the extreme right (the "very very extreme right" to the rest of the world) has the presidency, the senate, and the supreme court. So we don't really care how scary they are; the world is full of individually scary people, but we only care when a bunch of them have power.
To be clear, AOC and Bernie are not the extreme left, even in the USA.
Re: (Score:3)
Far left for the USA, but not extreme left. And if you think they are extreme left, then you have never talked to an extreme left person.
For example, neither of them want to transfer all personal property to the state. Thus, not extreme left. Also, both are pro-democracy, as opposed to both the extreme left and extreme right in the USA.
Re: (Score:3)
In order to respond to people, you have to read what they said.
Sanders is very left for the USA. I'm glad you agree with me there. But he is not "extreme left" for the USA. He is somewhat right by the worlds standards. I'm guessing that you have never talked to a truly left-wing person. You should watch Beau call Mexie [youtube.com]. You probably don't agree with most of the people Mexie describes; neither do I. But please don't deny their existence, both here in the USA and elsewhere. And in the USA, as I said,
Re: (Score:2)
not really , they are only open to 'some ideas' mostly ones that fit their narrative, but that is the same for everyone.
I like this quote:
"The purpose of having an open mind, is like the purpose of having an open mouth. So one can close it on something firm and nutritious." -- G.K Chesterton.
Most 'progressives' are so open minded their brains fell out. The talk about 'rights' all day , but not a one of them can explain what they are, why we have them , or where they supposedly come from.
Re: What a jerk (Score:2)
If they were, they would get off the gun ban kick and swell their ranks by a lot. It does not sit well with a lot of people and is often a deal breaker for many. Only a fool tried to run on a gun ban ticket in the midwest. They dont usually have gun violence problems. Biden just picked someone who november of last year swore to use executive orders to ban all ownership of ALL semiautomatic weapons. What if I were to say I would use executive orders to put limits on the ban of slavery, or the right for women
Re: (Score:2)
you have the same, you just can't use HIS. Just because fewer people aren't listening to you , doesn't mean you aren't being given the same rights.