A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that President Trump is not allowed to block people on Twitter over statements he does not like, affirming a lower court’s decision that declared the president’s account a “public forum.” Appeals court rules Trump violated First Amendment by blocking Twitter users --- Interesting twist on things, but I'd say it makes sense based on the basic premise that a platform like Twitter is basically a big ass town hall. Public officials are not allowed to block anyone's right to free speech using a "state run" account. The same rule would not apply to private accounts, so that ruling doesn't have any ramifications on other (personal) censorship. What's interesting is that trump thought it was OK for him to block others (i.e censor them), while maintaining that Twitter should no be allowed to censor anyone. The ruling further implies that private citizens or corporations do not have to adhere to such laws as their actions are not in violation of the first amendment.
You mean here on GC its OK for private members to block other privater members, but Not commercial sponsers...maybe @ ICGreen to clarify..? anyways GC is served from Canada ...No? it was Holland until the $7mil handover
So according to modern day "progressives" forcing someone to call a transgender by their "preferred pronouns" isn't restricting individuals first amendment rights but blocking someone on twitter is. Blocking someone is not censoring them. Your logic makes about as much sense as calling someone a harasser because they filed a restraining order on you. Deleting accounts, shadowbanning, deleting tweets, artificially demoting or hiding things all of the above simply for having opinions twitter disagrees with, is censorship. Blocking someone, a feature available to everyone is not censoring anyone's speech. You think you have a RIGHT to clog up his twitter feed with whining? LMAO. You can still whine about him all you want, he just won't see it. We're really dealing with adults who never matured mentally past the age of 10 at the most here to even be having this discussion. God help us.
Seems like reading comprehension is not a requirement to graduate high school anymore. The federal court ruling applies to public officials and "state run" accounts. Nothing to do with your private account. Even less to do with transgender people. You forgot to mention fake news, AOC, the wall, Clinton's pedophile ring, climate change hoax, Russiagate and how every libtard is brainwashed. Top it off with a a witty conclusion by a stable genius who can't read or doesn't bother to read and bask in the glory of the gold medals. Mission accomplished.
Stupid left wing judge decision that won't stand. The Dems do it all the time. If that's the case then twitter also can't ban people offhandedly. They're stifling free speech in the town hall.
It was an appellate court. There's nothing else to decide. Twitter is not a public official ... Is that really so hard to understand? Why do I even bother... I'd get more reasonable response by farting in a puddle.
It's his Twitter page. He can do what he wants just like anyone else with social media. If you complain about it don't be two faced and have anyone blocked on any of your social media.
Freedom He can do whatever Twitter and our constitution allow him to do. That’s what we’re all working for.
Apparently he can't, because as a state official his Twitter account does not follow the same rules. At least according to the Constitution and the federal court(s). Once he leaves the office he can block anyone for any reason as any other private citizen. The fact that our president conducts official business over freaking Twitter is already a joke. Oh yeah forgot about Hillary's emails, that's the worst crisis to happen to our country ... Ever. Trump using Twitter to announce policy decisions is apparently perfectly fine.
That's the dumbest shit I've heard in awhile. We're doomed if this is what the courts deemed worthy of their time. I would like to see where in the constitution it says the president can't excercise his freedoms just like the rest of us. I would also like to see what part of the constitution says the presidents Twitter account does not follow the same rules. I wonder how many followers Benjamin Franklin had. Don't like the presidents Twitter page, don't get on it. Personally I don't like social media in general so I don't get on any of it. I did have fb once, I was adult enough to stay off pages I didnt like. This is how petty our country has become. No wonder theres other countries that think we're a joke. Absolutely pathetic. America gets weaker and weaker with every generation. Go find your safe place and stay off Trump's Twitter account if your butt can't handle the pain. I like that fake raccoon eyed sob more and more everyday. Dudes living his dream and laughing at all his haters
I get the idea behind not allowing Trump's followers to be blocked, if it's a public meeting everyone should be able to take part. The part I don't get is now that Trump's Twitter account has been judged a public forum how does Twitter have the power to prohibit those it bans from taking part in the public forum? Get banned by Twitter and you lose your ability to engage in the public forum. Now Twitter should be sued and so on and so on.
Indeed. That's the paradox. I don't necessarily support the decision, but I can understand the Court's argument. To me a better ruling would be that Trump's Twitter account should not be treated as an official communication platform. I would think that there should be at least as much uproar from the conservatives as there was about Hillary's emails. No public official should conduct government business on social media. Otherwise we get this kinda clusterfuckery. Whatever Trump says on Twitter cannot be treated as an official policy statement. He certainly should not be trying to declare wars on Twitter or threaten Iran, North Korea, etc. The other option would be to disallow public officials to use Twitter or any social media altogether.
You are still missing the point. It's not about what someone may like or dislike. There are rules, laws and regulations that public officials have to follow. There are may restrictions and conflicts of interest that a president (and state representatives) have to avoid. Such laws were in place way before Twitter. Emolument clause is probably the most commonly used one.
I see the point. Doesn't mean I agree with it. Totally ignorant he can't do what he wants on his own page. He's still a free man even if he's the president . What's worse? Totally pathetic there's a bunch of weak ass' crying about it. The same weak ass' would throw a fir if they were told who they could delete or block
American policy is being decided and broadcasted via social media. Only 1 thing to do and that’s vote him out. I’m @grilled_cheese_with_bacon
It's an interesting case, with good arguments on either side. I oppose giving corporations the right to decide who gets to speak - because social medias are the new public forae in which politics are influenced. Following that same logic, in a democracy, one should be free to address the politicians in public forae. I support the decision. When one becomes President, or any politician who wields influence over the rest of the citizenry, one enters the realm of power. And the citizenry should not be isolated from the power class.
Nobody is crying about it. More people were crying about Hillary's emails and she's not even a president. The law is the law. As a "free man" our president still has to respect the Constitution. Although we're talking about trump... But he's the one blocking people, so technically speaking he's the "weak ass" who doesn't respect other's freedom of speech. At least based on what you wrote.
What’s the difference between social media and mainstream media? Other than the mainstream trying to tell everyone what trump really meant.