So, can Twitter block people?
Sure. Twitter isn't POTUS.
Judge Rules Trump Can’t Block People on Twitter
201–210 of 352 posts
Re: Judge Rules Trump Can’t Block People on Twitter
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because Twitter is not a government owned entity, the government should have no right to force the use or means of use of a private tool. Now if the tool was a government utility, it would be a different story.
Nobody is forcing Trump to use Twitter. They are saying that if he uses Twitter, he must leave his tweets open to all the public and not a subset. President Trump could always choose to close his account if he finds this requirement to be too onerous.
> They are saying that if he uses Twitter, he must leave his tweets open to all the public and not a subset.
But they are. Click logout if you’re one of the few professional Twitter trolls that actually managed to get his attention.
Re: Judge Rules Trump Can’t Block People on Twitter
#203Re: Judge Rules Trump Can’t Block People on Twitter
#204Re: Judge Rules Trump Can’t Block People on Twitter
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not the same thing. Celebrities are not elected officials representing constituents. Perhaps if someone is actually running for office it makes a difference, but I'm not sure when these sorts of laws kick in.
Ok, then does it apply to the aides to a congressman who are actually handling their twitter feeds who are not themselves writing the laws? Any way you sum it up, either Trump should be able to block people, or nobody should be able to block people.
> Ok, then does it apply to the aides to a congressman who are actually handling their twitter feeds who are not themselves writing the laws?
If they are making posts with Trump's account or are making posts on their own account while acting in an official capacity then yes they are almost guaranteed to be subject to this ruling.
Government and government officials have to play to a higher standard than a private citizen. Their actions and statements need to be public so they can be held accountable by the citizens who elected them. That is part of the bedrock that makes democracy work.
Re: Judge Rules Trump Can’t Block People on Twitter
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a Mute button. It's like Block but much simpler, in that it doesn't prevent other people from following him or reading his tweets. He just won't see what they say back.
> There's a Mute button. It's like Block but much simpler, in that it doesn't prevent other people from following him or reading his tweets. He just won't see what they say back. The First Amendment concerns speech, not listening. It protects citizen's right to speak to government, not to hear what government says (not a highly sought-after civil right!). I wonder if Mute is legal.
There's nothing saying that a government has to listen to you.
Re: Judge Rules Trump Can’t Block People on Twitter
#207"The judge declined to issue an order forcing Trump to unblock the users, saying her ruling should be sufficient to force a change in behavior." Because Trump is the master of sub-text and will pick up that he should unblock them.
Can you imagine a court appointed official sitting next to Trump watching him unblock everyone, one by one? What a stupid situation. Hopefully Twitter will throw him a bone and offer to mute everyone that was blocked on the back-end.
Or better, make it public which accounts he blocked... (assuming this list hasn't already entered public record by way of this judgement)
Re: Judge Rules Trump Can’t Block People on Twitter
#208Surely that must mean that Twitter banning people is also a violation of the first amendment, since that prevents them from accessing the same "public square" this ruling is protecting their access to.
The first amendment doesn't apply to Twitter (the company). It applies to governments.
The parent wasn't saying that it does.
The parent was pointing out why the logic is dubious, using a reductio: if you consider Twitter[1] a public square (as the court does), and thus you can't stop people from "petitioning the government" through it, then it's a double-edged sword: they must also protect the same speech that would be protected in a public square.
It seems a more sane resolution is to treat Twitter like a private venue where an official addresses some members of the public, like the room for the Correspondents Dinner: they have no obligation to let any specific person in (esp. after they're deemed abusive). It's just that Twitter is a private venue with a much higher capacity.
The right to petition the government is not the right to petition it in every possible venue. US Citizenship or personhood does not mean you can e.g. ask questions at a press room briefing; there are filters they can apply.
[1] technically, the subset of it involving interaction with government officials
Re: Judge Rules Trump Can’t Block People on Twitter
#209Has the judge read some of the comments being made? Absolute craziness in there. Some accounts should absolutely be blocked, they are repeatedly spamming and saying things you would never say in a meeting face to face. -EDIT- Funny that my comment is being down-voted. Seen everyone wants to moderate comments. If someone says something you don't like on your personal page, you should be able to stop that. You've just…
It's not Trump's personal account, though. It's become an official account of the Office of the President.
And anyone who's upset at the content of replies to Trump should probably go and look at the content of replies to Obama.
Re: Judge Rules Trump Can’t Block People on Twitter
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh common. Spam and a harassment is a problem. Let the people he blocks make a new account to follow him or open an incognito window.
No. He can mute them. But they should not be any more inconvenienced than anyone else who follows him.
Then they can still respond. I'm no fan of Trump, but I understand wanting to reduce the noise in my Twitter feed.