301–310 of 352 posts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Reice_Buchwald#Knight_Fi...
>Buchwald declined, however, to issue an injunction against the President, and instead issued a declaration with the statement that "we must assume that the President and [Daniel] Scavino will remedy the blocking we have held to be unconstitutional."
So for now, Trump really doesn't have to change anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are being downvoted because you are wrong. Blocked users can log out and read to their hearts' content.
> Blocked users can log out and read to their hearts' content. So private citizens now have to work around a block from President of the United States in order to read official communication? Is that the kind of country you want to live in? You know for sure as shit that homeboy was blocking more then Rolex watch spammers and markov chain bots. He was blocking the accounts of journalists, dissenters, and other privat…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> 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 squa…
> Where? Here: "that must mean that Twitter banning people is also a violation of the first amendment" That's... pretty darn clear. > Can you help me to find the part of my original comment that made the above unclear? The first two lines of your comment frame your response as counter to the position of the person you are replying to. That would be counter to you new claim that you agree it's not a 1st Amendment issu…
>That's... pretty darn clear.
Yes, it's clearly supporting exactly what I originally claimed: that the OP was saying this ruling implies that Twitter must do X and is therefore absurd, not that the OP thinks Twitter must do X. Again, the concept of a reductio ad absurdum, extremely common in internet forums like this one: "You claimed X, which implies Y, which is absurd. So X must be wrong."
"The first amendment doesn't apply to Twitter" doesn't engage with that at all.
>The first two lines of your comment frame your response as counter to the position of the person you are replying to. That would be counter to you new claim that you agree it's not a 1st Amendment issue.
Not when I'm objecting to the attribution and clarified specifically what I meant.
>Disagreement with a claim followed by an argument is generally taken by readers as an argument as to why the claim is wrong, not right. Just so you know for future writing.
What about when I disagree with the attribution of a claim and want to clarify someone's point? What other way could I have possibly clarified the parent's point so that you wouldn't misinterpret my comment? Just so I know for future writing.
If you just didn't read what I wrote or didn't follow the actual discussion, you should probably just own up to it and not make up some story about how there's an actual improvement possible over the original post. (FWIW, you still can't seem to think of such an improvement.)
If I may make a suggestion, the problem might be that you immediately think that any critical comment must be disagreeing with everything in that comment, even if the text of comment says otherwise, and you can therefore ignore the text. That's an error on your end to correct, and there's nothing in my writing that would fix it.
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 court emphatically did not find that, and, to address the footnote:
> [1] technically, the subset of it involving interaction with government officials
Nope, not even that.
The court found the virtual space created by the @realDonaldTrump account, specifically, to be, as a result of government action, a “public forum” under existing First Amendment case law, which holds that government actions with regard to participation in such a forum are restricted by the First Amendment such that government officials may not engage in, among other things, viewpoint-based censorship of public participation in such forums.
> It seems a more sane resolution is to treat Twitter like a private venue where an official addresses some members of the public
The court hear is applying exactly the existing law of privately owned spaces in which the government opens a public interactive forum of the same type; this isn't a new rule for social media.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Note that “public forum” is a term of art in First Amendment case law that refers to a venue owned or controlled by government , including a privately owned venue over which government exercises some control, made available for general or limited public discussion; the first amendment limits what government can do in such forums. And this status is not an unprecedented one for government-controlled social media accou…
If I was a government official and decided to host a public event at a private property which I paid for, where the private property said no women allowed (say it was a private club which allowed to do such), could I use that rules to prevent women from attending the event? Or would the rules of the private property either block me from utilizing them at all or be overridden in regards to my event?
Either way, the fact that it is a private rule means it is not a public law. The government doesn't have to abide by laws you just made up for yourself on a whim. If I say "no shoes allowed on my private property" the police aren't forced to comply with that, so why would a government official at an event be required to comply with some inane sexist rule?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We have a very broad "right to petition" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_petition ) our representatives and executives. Yes, the school board must listen to your crazy rants, because it's literally their job to represent you, or at least to be aware that your views exist.
Your school board doesn't have to listen. They can put headphones on and hum loudly through your speech if they like. They just can't prevent you from talking to them. Equivalently, the judge seems to have concluded that the President muting someone on Twitter is fine, but blocking them is not.
If it were a personal account, with personal views being posted, blocking would be fine. You could probably even make your account private and only allow approved followers. But, that's not the case here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1st isn't the right to hearing, it's the right to speech (but not specifically speaking on Twitter)
It’s actually the right for government not to ban speech. It doesn’t apply to private entities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is the content the crucial part? Free speech is about free speech, not discriminating on content. It is both illegal for the government to shut down leftist newspapers, and illegal for the government to shut down all newspapers. The idiocy of this is making shutting down a newspaper equivalent to twitter blocking, but if you draw the analogy, that's what you wind up with.
The government can publish official communications in video form, and say "please direct comments to " rather than using the particular publishing platform's commenting system. The thing the government cannot do is simultaneously use the publishing platform's comment system and block certain people, based on the content or viewpoint of their comments, from using that system. This is how Trump got in hot water: he all…
Is that an opinion of fairness? Or an opinion of law? Or the opinion of a single judge? Or just your open musings?