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

241–250 of 352 posts

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

#241

Post by drivingmenuts »

PurpleBoxDragon wrote: post #174
acdha wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can still communicate with the government using official channels and you can still view his tweets. His account is basically write-only so you’re only losing your ability to send messages which won’t be read.

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.

Twitter is not the only means of response.

And the ruling only applies to the President's (currently Trump) use of Twitter and says nothing about your interaction with that service.

As a private entity, they're free to make a ToS and you're free to agree or reject it, which governs your usage.

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

#242

Post by kstrauser »

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…

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.

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

#243

Post by mikeash »

bcheung wrote: post #124
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…

Block also makes it so people can't harass you. I think this is an important distinction. By saying you can't block someone the judge is also saying you can't ignore someone who is harassing you. 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. It's unfortunate that the 2 are tied together into the same function. This would be a m…

I don’t think it should matter, legally, that Twitter ties the two into the same function. You can’t break the law just because some third party requires you to do it as part of something else that you want. If the law means that Twitter’s stupid design makes you unable to block harassment, then you should convince Twitter to change it, put up with it, or stop using Twitter.

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

#244

Post by dragonwriter »

PurpleBoxDragon wrote: post #181
dragonwriter wrote: post #65

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?

> 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?

Even if it were a public forum (which not all public events involving a government official are), I'm not sure that public forum law prohibits sex discrimination as well as viewpoint censorship. I can see an argument that it should (and that it shouldn't), but I don't recall. seeing any case law either way.

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

#245

Post by akatechis »

RIMR wrote: post #141
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…

More importantly, blocking someone on Twitter prevents them from evoking your Twitter handle or retweeting you. So, in the President's case, if someone is retweeting him and criticizing his words, or calling him out by his Twitter handle in a way that he doesn't like, he can block them and literally prevent them from posting certain content about him. This is mindbogglingly unethical.

That's false. You can still post whatever you want about Trump on twitter. You just cant post it as a reply to his tweets.

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

#246

Post by PurpleBoxDragon »

drivingmenuts wrote: post #241
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.

Twitter is not the only means of response. And the ruling only applies to the President's (currently Trump) use of Twitter and says nothing about your interaction with that service. As a private entity, they're free to make a ToS and you're free to agree or reject it, which governs your usage.

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 ToS that wouldn't be allowed without the 'private company' loophole?

Now, twitter banning someone from all other parts of its service wouldn't be impacted. But banning someone from participating in the public forum should no longer be allowed unless done for a reason that the government would be allowed to use as well.

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

#247

Post by sp332 »

xienze wrote: post #216
sp332 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is covered in the quote in the 4th paragraph. It applies to all government officials, but it only covers reactions to political statements. Harassment is still a valid reason to block someone. If they like a sports team the official doesn't, that's probably valid too.

> It applies to all government officials, but it only covers reactions to political statements. Harassment is still a valid reason to block someone. And if the reaction to every single Trump tweet is “you’re scum I hope you die REEEEEE!”, does that person get a ban? Probably if the official’s anyone other than Trump, I’d guess. Seriously, you folks should look at the people banned, it’s a bunch of losers that would a…

does that person get a ban?

Sure, they could be blocked for that. The case lists seven individual people who were blocked because they "posted tweets that criticized the President or his policies". It doesn't mean that every individual person the account has blocked was illegal.

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

#248

Post by enraged_camel »

zaroth wrote: post #225
daveguy wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before Twitter came along the president didn't have the legal ability to prevent you from criticizing him in any other venue either.

Trump removed plenty of hecklers from his campaign events.

He had not been elected yet. The moment he did, things changed.

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

#249

Post by dragonwriter »

zaroth wrote: post #225
daveguy wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before Twitter came along the president didn't have the legal ability to prevent you from criticizing him in any other venue either.

Trump removed plenty of hecklers from his campaign events.

Campaign events are generally not public forums, even if the candidate happens to also be an incumbent public official. For a federal official (and similar laws exist for state government), if the nexus with official government affairs required to make a public forum existed with a campaign event, that’d probably violate the Hatch Act separately from whether any violation of public forum law occurred.

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

#250

Post by jsgo »

PurpleBoxDragon wrote: post #174
acdha wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can still communicate with the government using official channels and you can still view his tweets. His account is basically write-only so you’re only losing your ability to send messages which won’t be read.

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.

there are requirements government officials must honor in the Constitution due to their role, a judge can force them to honor it.

a judge doesn't have the capability, however, to force a private entity unrelated to the government to honor those same requirements.

Yes, it does create a situation where the company can impact a person's capability to see the material, but it doesn't run afoul of anything legal. If anything, it gives a reason why public officials should not use in this capacity platforms they don't control.

Post reply on HN