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

61–70 of 352 posts

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

#61

Post by [deleted] »

jdoliner wrote: post #57
sp332 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first amendment doesn't apply to Twitter (the company). It applies to governments.

Case law would disagree. Here's a case where the Supreme court ruled that Facebook banning someone was a violation of their first amendment rights. [0] Salient quote: "Foreclosing access to social media altogether thus prevents users from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights" Edit: as pointed out, this ruling doesn't actually disagree with what the previous comment said. It does seem similar…

[deleted]

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

#62

Post by jimmyhmiller »

jdoliner wrote: post #57
sp332 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first amendment doesn't apply to Twitter (the company). It applies to governments.

Case law would disagree. Here's a case where the Supreme court ruled that Facebook banning someone was a violation of their first amendment rights. [0] Salient quote: "Foreclosing access to social media altogether thus prevents users from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights" Edit: as pointed out, this ruling doesn't actually disagree with what the previous comment said. It does seem similar…

Isn't this case about North Carolina (the government) banning sex offenders from social media?

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

#64

Post by aksss »

This seems wrong on the face of it. The judge asks the rhetorical question of whether the logic changes based on whether he's president or not, and he answers his question with a "No". So this is saying that no public official can block others on Twitter. That seems like it's in the "suicide pact" column of rights defense, but then I'm not one that cares about Twitter personally. Just seems that plenty of other forums and even avenues on Twitter for expression remain after blockage from one person's feed. And given that blocking is part and parcel to the app, it would seem like everyone is buying into the terms of the environment when they start using it. Curious how this shakes out to other mediums.

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

#65

Post by dragonwriter »

zerostar07 wrote: post #32
icebraining wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, Twitter is not a governmental organization, therefore they're not subject to the same restrictions as Trump, who is a public official.

the conditions of the ruling still apply though:"is a public forum and that blocking users on the basis of political speech is a violation of their free-speech rights under the First Amendment". Any american user should have access to that forum without obstruction, no? It's funny how this would elevate his twitter account to unprecedented status, which means twitter will have to implement some bizarre measures.

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 accounts; while the Trump case at issue here is the highest profile one to have reached a decision, it is not the first to find a government agency’s or official’s social media account to constitute a public forum in which viewpoint censorship by government of other users is prohibited.

Also, the decision constrains Trump's behavior on Twitter, it does not mandate any change to Twitter features.

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

#67

Post by buyx »

jdoliner wrote: post #58
icebraining wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, Twitter is not a governmental organization, therefore they're not subject to the same restrictions as Trump, who is a public official.

Commented above as well: Case law would disagree. Here's a case where the Supreme court ruled that Facebook banning someone was a violation of their first amendment rights. [0] Salient quote: "Foreclosing access to social media altogether thus prevents users from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights" Edit: as pointed out, this ruling doesn't actually disagree with what the previous comment sa…

That’s a ruling about a state law, not a Facebook policy.

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

#68

Post by danhon »

jdoliner wrote: post #57
sp332 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first amendment doesn't apply to Twitter (the company). It applies to governments.

Case law would disagree. Here's a case where the Supreme court ruled that Facebook banning someone was a violation of their first amendment rights. [0] Salient quote: "Foreclosing access to social media altogether thus prevents users from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights" Edit: as pointed out, this ruling doesn't actually disagree with what the previous comment said. It does seem similar…

I Am A Former Lawyer: cursory reading of that judgment shows it as a case of the State of North Carolina passing a law asking it illegal for someone to use a commercial social network service. Presumably Facebook are banning a user in response to a state’s law enforcement request under State law. The Suorene Court is most likely ruling that the state law was in violation of the first amendment.

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

#69

Post by dionidium »

striking wrote: post #38
ChuckMcM wrote: post #34

An interesting ruling, here is my prediction on the effect of the ruling: This will enable the twitterati to get Trump off Twitter. Without the ability to block users, he will be hounded with notifications from adversaries using trigger phrases designed to irritate and harass him.

There's a Mute button. It's like Block but much simpler, in that it doesn't prevent other people from following him or reading his tweets. He just won't see what they say back.

It's not only much simpler, it's the only action that actually makes any sense. Obviously, people should be given the ability to hide and ignore things they don't want to see, but what's the point of a mode in which I simply have to log out to view your content?

There's an enormous difference between, "I am offended by X, so I don't want to see it" and "I am offended by X, so I don't want them to see me (unless they simply log out)."

That feature has never made any sense.

Post reply on HN