Earlier quoted context omitted.
Twitter doesn't have to do anything.
And technically, since the court didn't order anything, neither does Trump.
A court doesn't have to order anything; the law does. The court just clarified what the law means.
Judge Rules Trump Can’t Block People on Twitter
331–340 of 352 posts
Re: Judge Rules Trump Can’t Block People on Twitter
#332Earlier 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…
Not arguing one way or the other with regards to the original topic, but you are jumping to conclusions with no basis. "Private citizens" as a set naturally do not have to work around anything, as being a private citizen does not imply that one has a Twitter account. Entities (private citizens, corporations, or whatever else) that own a Twitter account, have done something that Trump believes warrants blocking, and are logged in, are prevented from viewing his tweets while logged into that specific account.
The argument that anybody is prevented specifically from "reading" official communication is paper thin. The problem was that the government was effectively blocking private citizens' ability to reply and share under their preferred (potentially verified) identity.
Re: Judge Rules Trump Can’t Block People on Twitter
#333Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Anyone who isn't logged in can still see it. They can just open an incognito window. They aren't really blocked from viewing his tweets. If you read what you are arguing here out loud to yourself, it is immediately obvious why this "workaround" is a scary-bad precedent to set. In order to view official communications from an elected official (i.e. the president of the united states), some citizens must "just" open…
That's not what I'm saying. I agree that they should not be able to block people from seeing official communications, but I also argue that they should be able to ignore people who are harassing them. Separating the 2 would solve this conflict. At the same time though, if you think opening an incognito window is too much of a workaround for viewing public communications, what do you call just about every interaction…
> They should be able to ignore people who are harassing them.
They still can do that. This ruling does not say he can't mute people (prevent himself from seeing any of their posts). The ruling says that he can't block people (prevent the entire world from seeing their replies to his posts).
Re: Judge Rules Trump Can’t Block People on Twitter
#334Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Depends on how a judge rules. You could be required to find another venue or to admit women regardless. 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 requir…
The government official isn't the police, but even more so, I'm not talking about the government official, but the random public who attends. I can say they aren't allowed on my property at which point it is a crime for them to be there.
Re: Judge Rules Trump Can’t Block People on Twitter
#335Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you're saying if fox news set up a 'private' website to host trump's posts and only allowed pro-trump people to comment that wouldnt violate free speech because it is a private website and the government itself isn't banning people who criticize it.
Fox News wouldn't violate the first amendment. At most, the POTUS might be prevented from using that website. (Nitpick: "free speech" is a general philosophical concept; we're talking about the 1st Amendment, which is a particular application of one of many views on that concept)
So if Trump isn't banned from using that website, where is the difference from this case?
Re: Judge Rules Trump Can’t Block People on Twitter
#336Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I m not missing that part, because it hasn't happened yet. Imaginary injuries don't have evidentiary value, regardless of their potential possibility; thus it would be improper for a court to pronounce upon them - that's what legislators are for. You're overlooking the fact that requiring Twitter to retroactively alter its own terms of service once it provided services to the government would be a violation of the ta…
>I m not missing that part, because it hasn't happened yet.
I'm glad I don't live in a world where people refuse to prepare for court cases until the actual injury has happened. Many legal groups have built plans and arguments for potential injuries, either to test if their clients can do some behavior, or to have a proactive case against the government if the government takes some action. For example, many times when the ACLU challenges a law in court, they were planning for it long before the law actually passed. They can't engage in the actual challenge until there are injuries, but they sure can discuss it and plan for it.
In this particular instance, I'm not trying to launch an actual court case, so the court rules of when you have standing for a court case don't apply.
Re: Judge Rules Trump Can’t Block People on Twitter
#337Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends on how a judge rules. You could be required to find another venue or to admit women regardless. 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 requir…
The government official isn't the police, but even more so, I'm not talking about the government official, but the random public who attends. I can say they aren't allowed on my property at which point it is a crime for them to be there.
A crime but not a felony nor even a misdemeanor. Trespass is a tort, and I think a 'civil tort'. So unless they're doing damage I don't think they owe anything for this 'crime'.
Re: Judge Rules Trump Can’t Block People on Twitter
#338Earlier quoted context omitted.
But if I want to use the public forum that has been created, I'm forced to agree to those ToS. Imagine for a second if those ToS included something like banning all people from the state of New York or it banned all socialist. The government, by picking a service with a ToS to host a public forum, is there by enforcing the ToS as a requirement to participate in the public forum. So why can the government enforce a To…
If the President (doesn't matter who) showed up at your house, in your living room, would you still claim the right to deny entry to anyone you chose? The judgement governs the President's use of Twitter, not the interaction between Twitter and other people. Twitter does not magically become a Public Forum, just because the President uses it. Now, I'm not sure that is Right and Just, but I'm also not going to worry a…
>If the President (doesn't matter who) showed up at your house, in your living room, would you still claim the right to deny entry to anyone you chose?
Yes, including the ability to deny entry to anyone that Trump doesn't want there. But now a judge has ruled they have a right to be there if Trump was the one asking to ban them, but in doing so has created a loophole where as long as I want to deny them entry because Trump doesn't want them to be there (note that this isn't done on behalf of Trump, but because it is my own desire) they can be banned. It makes the judge's ruling extremely easy to work around, which indicates some fundamental problem with the ruling.
Re: Judge Rules Trump Can’t Block People on Twitter
#339Earlier quoted context omitted.
The government official isn't the police, but even more so, I'm not talking about the government official, but the random public who attends. I can say they aren't allowed on my property at which point it is a crime for them to be there.
A crime but not a felony nor even a misdemeanor. Trespass is a tort, and I think a 'civil tort'. So unless they're doing damage I don't think they owe anything for this 'crime'.
Misdemeanor here:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(2d5ss4y1dr2wfo0uz3r0a3zk))/...
I wouldn't bet against there being some jurisdiction where it is a felony.
Re: Judge Rules Trump Can’t Block People on Twitter
#340Earlier 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.
We have the right to petition our government to redress grievances. As a public official, the bar for harassment is higher - for the President, I don't believe anything sent over twitter could be harassment.
so next democrat president I can write a harassment, err I mean opinion, bot to post useless opinions to everything they say blocking people with real discussion from having their floor time? OK, noted.