Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If he's using it to give information that impacts the nation? He uses it to announce policy, so how can he prevent citizens from it bc he gets butt hurt?
Please don't say that the information will be told via news outlets soon enough. The guy uses Twitter like a bulletin board so he shouldn't be allowed to restrict access and make people wait for the news outlets to report it.
Took a while, but here we are:
“A federal appeals court in Manhattan says President Trump cannot block critics from his Twitter account, calling it "unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination."
In a 29-page ruling on Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld a lower court's decision that found that Trump violated the First Amendment when he blocked certain Twitter users, because he uses his Twitter account "to conduct official business and to interact with the public."”
Then Twitter should not be allowed to ban people. How is Milo Yianopolous supposed to read Trump's tweets, they banned him for life. It goes both ways
Although i think this is a silly argument since you can still read his Twits(was going to correct this spelling error but it almost makes more sense this way, lol)if you are logged out. Freedom of speech only applies to the Government, Twitter as a private entity can ban whoever they want whenever they want. So its not a proper analogy.
Per thread title question - because his Twitter account is his personal account and not the property of the Executive Branch of the US Government. As such, he can do with his personal use of free speech and voluntary association as he pleases, per the ToS ad EULA of Twitter.
It's not real difficult to comprehend, how this whole "private property" and "individual freedom" thing works, even after you ascend to an elected office. I get that you hate the guy, but he is still an individual with natural rights that are a condition of his existence.
People should know by now, Trump likes to block information or access to it. Thats his control, his winning. He has so much to hide from his corruption, he has to block whatever he can. Thats how the mob worked, and if caught, DENY.
He's still a little rich boy child thats never grown up.
People should know by now, Trump likes to block information or access to it. Thats his control, his winning. He has so much to hide from his corruption, he has to block whatever he can. Thats how the mob worked, and if caught, DENY.
He's still a little rich boy child thats never grown up.
But he sure trolled Obama for eight years for his birther certificate.
Per thread title question - because his Twitter account is his personal account and not the property of the Executive Branch of the US Government. As such, he can do with his personal use of free speech and voluntary association as he pleases, per the ToS ad EULA of Twitter.
It's not real difficult to comprehend, how this whole "private property" and "individual freedom" thing works, even after you ascend to an elected office. I get that you hate the guy, but he is still an individual with natural rights that are a condition of his existence.
If he had not intermingled official statements with his own tweets on his own personal account and had done them solely on the @potus account, this would have been true. But since he did, his feed became a limited public forum and the First Amendment comes into play.
Interesting issue. I think Congress people, governors, and other public officials elected by direct vote through individuals should not be permitted to block critics. But Trump who was elected through the electoral college process can block individuals on his private Twitter account because he was not directly placed into power by individuals.
“A federal appeals court in Manhattan says President Trump cannot block critics from his Twitter account, calling it "unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination."
In a 29-page ruling on Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld a lower court's decision that found that Trump violated the First Amendment when he blocked certain Twitter users, because he uses his Twitter account "to conduct official business and to interact with the public."”
In the same ruling, Social Media cannot block or censor a candidate for any office, account.
It is a two way street.
Quote where it makes it two way. It's a limited public forum. From the ruling:
"Nor do we consider or decide whether private social media companies are bound by the First Amendment when policing their platforms."
And this:
"The dispute in this case exclusively concerns the President’s use of this blocking function."
They specifically said they were not ruling on what the social media companies have to do. Because of the way he is using his Twitter account, it falls under 1st Amendment, but they do not have to keep him on there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
