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

311–320 of 352 posts

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

#311

Post by bcheung »

spookthesunset wrote: post #230
bcheung wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 with the government that is much more painful.

I wish every interaction with the government was as painless as opening an incognito window.

Especially the convoluted system we are required to use to file taxes. It's 1000x more convoluted and time consuming, and that is a requirement just to not be illegal.

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

#312

Post by ubernostrum »

paulddraper wrote: post #310
ubernostrum wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. Is that an opinion of fairness? Or an opinion of law? Or the opinion of a single judge? Or just your open musings?

The judge in this case stated that one of the crucial questions was, and I quote:

to consider whether a public official may, consistent with the First Amendment, ‘block’ a person from his Twitter account in response to the political views that person has expressed

The judge reached an answer of "no" to that question.

You appear to be arguing either that the judge did not reach such an answer, or that the judge was answering a different question. Since I see no way for such an argument to be based on the available facts, I'm not sure what to do with you.

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

#313

Post by bcheung »

Karishma1234 wrote: post #231
bcheung wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You need to define harassment. For example what kind of harassment is avoided by blocking instead of just muting a person ? > They can just open an incognito window. They aren't really blocked from viewing his tweets. What if your local DMV tells a black citizen to go to some other DMV and get a driving manual ? Secondly, if you are an ordinary person and I retweet your every tweet calling you a moron you might consi…

You bring up valid points. I wasn't aware there was block and mute as separate functions.

> What if your local DMV tells a black citizen to go to some other DMV and get a driving manual ?

Not sure the relevance to this discussion. What you are describing is racism, not denying access to problematic individuals.

I think the point here is there is no black and white answer, it falls on a spectrum. The "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is fine if you are a small mom and pop shop but not as you get bigger. Especially if you provide critical infrastructure or government function. Not sure it can be codified in an absolute law though.

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

#314

Post by echotango »

anigbrowl wrote: post #291
PurpleBoxDragon wrote: post #264

Earlier 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…

Do you think federal courts would ban President Hillary from twitter because twitter has a policy of banning right-wing speech Hillary wouldnt be allowed to ban herself?

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

#315

Post by echotango »

drivingmenuts wrote: post #297
PurpleBoxDragon wrote: post #246

Earlier 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…

>Twitter does not magically become a Public Forum, just because the President uses it.

If twitter isnt a public forum, then trump should be able to block whoever he wants.

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

#316

Post by echotango »

anigbrowl wrote: post #260
PurpleBoxDragon wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Not unless the government is the entity doing the banning (or collaborating with Twitter to ban accounts at its request). But twitter is working with the government in hosting the tweets and thus assumes responsibility to provide a public square, in which case it cannot ban people. Otherwise government should be banned from using twitter because by picking a private company to put government messages on, the governm…

But twitter is working with the government in hosting the tweets and thus assumes responsibility to provide a public square No. No it doesn't. Allowing the government to use your service does not thereby make it part of the government.

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.

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

#317

Post by paulddraper »

ubernostrum wrote: post #312
paulddraper wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Is that an opinion of fairness? Or an opinion of law? Or the opinion of a single judge? Or just your open musings?

The judge in this case stated that one of the crucial questions was, and I quote: to consider whether a public official may, consistent with the First Amendment, ‘block’ a person from his Twitter account in response to the political views that person has expressed The judge reached an answer of "no" to that question. You appear to be arguing either that the judge did not reach such an answer, or that the judge was an…

I am arguing that the judge's conclusion was not soundly based on law.

I am open to being shown to be incorrect.

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

#319

Post by gbear605 »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #300
dragonwriter wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If he is basically immune to most lawsuits He's not (barring reversal on appeal) immune, or this case would never have reached a judgement. > On the other hand, if the judge wanted to see this change, requiring Twitter to both remove (his) block button and unblock all existing users (from his account only) would more likely happen. Judges don't have unlimited freedom to arbitrarily issue orders directing labor of n…

> There are, in any case, processes for addressing failure of a party to respect a judgement, which Trump is no more immune to regarding this judgement than he is to the case resulting in the judgement. And what are those? For regular people, the judge can have a person jailed for contempt of court. I doubt that the POTUS is worried about that.

Theoretically impeachment, and then following that, jail.

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

#320

Post by icebraining »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #300
dragonwriter wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If he is basically immune to most lawsuits He's not (barring reversal on appeal) immune, or this case would never have reached a judgement. > On the other hand, if the judge wanted to see this change, requiring Twitter to both remove (his) block button and unblock all existing users (from his account only) would more likely happen. Judges don't have unlimited freedom to arbitrarily issue orders directing labor of n…

> There are, in any case, processes for addressing failure of a party to respect a judgement, which Trump is no more immune to regarding this judgement than he is to the case resulting in the judgement. And what are those? For regular people, the judge can have a person jailed for contempt of court. I doubt that the POTUS is worried about that.

You can be fined for contempt of court too.
Post reply on HN