Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge Rules Trump Can’t Block People on Twitter

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 352 posts

Re: Judge Rules Trump Can’t Block People on Twitter

#261

Post by Marysville »

Andre_Wanglin wrote: post #173
rovek wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blocking on Twitter also prevents the blocked user from view the blocker's timeline, which means Trump would be preventing US citizens from viewing his "public statements" Edit: Is this being downvoted because of some inferred snark? None was intended.

You are being downvoted because you are wrong. Blocked users can log out and read to their hearts' content.

That would be akin to saying you can access your President by giving up your passport. I can't believe people are defending this.

Re: Judge Rules Trump Can’t Block People on Twitter

#262

Post by abritinthebay »

3pt14159 wrote: post #210
s73v3r_ wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Of course they can - and he can mute them and never see their responses. Practically the same as a block from Trumps point of view but without the legal problem.

Re: Judge Rules Trump Can’t Block People on Twitter

#263

Post by anigbrowl »

commandlinefan wrote: post #99
itg wrote: post #9

Will this apply to all government officials on twitter? Can twitter still ban a user if they deem the content to be harassment/etc?

Not just government officials - it seems like the same logic would apply to celebrities like Alyssa Milano who use their twitter almost exclusively as a political campaign forum.

Being a celebrity with loud political views is not the same thing as holding office.

Re: Judge Rules Trump Can’t Block People on Twitter

#264

Post by PurpleBoxDragon »

anigbrowl wrote: post #256
PurpleBoxDragon wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you are saying the judge's ruling is wrong then. Because you can't defend twitter banning someone making them unable to respond to Trump's tweets while saying that people have the right to respond to Trump's tweets.

No, your understanding of it is wrong. Trump is limited from blocking people because he's the President. If he were to resign tomorrow and go back to being a private citizen, he could block away to his heart-s content. Twitter, the company, can do what it likes because it is not an organ of the government, notwithstanding the choice of some government officials to make use of it.

But you are missing the part where Trump is allowed to pick the private company, and is thus able to pick one which enforces a ToS that the government would not be able to enforce themselves. This creates a loophole where by the government only has to pick private companies that ban anyone who is against the current government to get a defacto censor on the public square that wouldn't otherwise be allowed.

Re: Judge Rules Trump Can’t Block People on Twitter

#265

Post by [deleted] »

droopybuns wrote: post #177

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Hard to grasp the logic here.

[deleted]

Re: Judge Rules Trump Can’t Block People on Twitter

#266

Post by abritinthebay »

SilasX wrote: post #208
sp332 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

> The parent wasn't saying that it does.

Yes they were. The first amendment does not apply to Twitter. It applies to Trump. Absolutely nothing Twitter does is even capable of being a 1st Amendment issue.

Not true of Trump.

Re: Judge Rules Trump Can’t Block People on Twitter

#267

Post by dragonwriter »

ballenf wrote: post #127
Karishma1234 wrote: post #90

I am not legal expert but it makes perfect sense that any government official must not deny access to information to any citizen which is easily available to another. Blocking means other person can not see trump's tweets. I believe Trump can always mute other people. Let us consider the following scenarios : - Trump blocks only black people on Twitter. - Hawaii's missile alert systems issues a real missile alert on…

Doesn't it just mean you have to click one button, "logout", to read the tweets?

Reading isn't actually the main issue, response visibility is; the official account creates a virtual forum by the way Twitter operates, and blocking by viewpoint prevents certain viewpoints from being expressed within that government-created forum.

The government can't create a public forum and then control what views are expressed in that forum.

Re: Judge Rules Trump Can’t Block People on Twitter

#268

Post by SilasX »

abritinthebay wrote: post #266
SilasX wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

> The parent wasn't saying that it does. Yes they were. The first amendment does not apply to Twitter. It applies to Trump . Absolutely nothing Twitter does is even capable of being a 1st Amendment issue. Not true of Trump.

>> The parent wasn't saying that it does.

>Yes they were.

Where?

>Absolutely nothing Twitter does is even capable of being a 1st Amendment issue.

I agreed with that:

>>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.

Do you understand the difference between "A implies B" and "A is true"? I was saying the former. I agree with you that the latter is false (where A="The first amendment applies to Twitter).

Can you help me to find the part of my original comment that made the above unclear?

Re: Judge Rules Trump Can’t Block People on Twitter

#269

Post by URSpider94 »

alistairSH wrote: post #227
JasonFruit wrote: post #215

Wait, any public official? So the elected school board members in my town can't block me on Twitter if I go on crazy racist tirades, as long as they're political in nature? How about the dogcatcher? He can't block PETA animal rights screed accounts? And doesn't being forced to let cranks interact with prominent accounts increase those cranks' visibility? Is that forcing the prominent person to promote speech with whi…

IANAL... would this apply to government officials who maintain a private account and use a government account for work? In Trump's case (and Haley, and many others), he uses his personal account for business. And the President could be an edge case, and simply unable to separate private and business messages. The local dog catcher should be able to maintain that separation.

No, it would not apply to a private account not used for official government business.

I think there’s a separate argument as to whether the President can actually separate public and private statements, not that Trump has made any attempt to do so - he has been clear that his posts on his personal feed represent official statements from his office.

Post reply on HN