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 is using his personal account, why not be allowed to block whoever he likes?
Or did Trump create an offical POTUS account?
I don't know, cuz I'm not into Twitter
From a Forbes article:
Quote:
And, because Trump so frequently uses the account - rather than the official @POTUS presidential account - to make policy pronouncements, Buchwald ruled that his account is indeed a public forum.
The decision has implications for other public officials too - and, indeed, the Knight First Amendment Institute is also representing a Virginia resident who was temporarily blocked from the Facebook page of a local public official.
There is an official @POTUS account which advisors urged Trump to move to after his inauguration. He was advised to conduct official business from the @POTUS account and he could keep his personal account for personal stuff. He has chosen to use his personal account as the official communications line rather than @POTUS.
You are just wrong. And it's not because he's on the "other" team. This is just how this stuff works. Donald Trump may have thought he was slick by not taking an official government sounding handle on Twitter, but it's about his actions.
And to agree with you: yes, if my Congressman uses a Twitter account with any name for the purposes of communicating my state's policies and his public actions, then he would have the same restrictions and Donald Trump.
The rest of your list is ridiculous. I believe Donald Trump can actually have a "personal" Twitter account that he posts non-presidential things on that he could have more leeway with. He could just not conduct government business on it and he'd be fine. If he just wants a Twitter account to discuss football scores, etc.
Full disclosure, I don't actually like Donald Trump. The guy is a dick. But you seriously believe that it is valid to take away one person and one person only's rights? That's crazy! No other public servant is to be forcibly held to the same standard? That certainly isn't legal. That is a direct violation of the 14th Amendment's "equal protection under the law" clause.
Any Constitutional ruling regarding Twitter kills their "we're a private company and we'll do what we want" argument. The judge just invoked the 1st Amendment and applied it to part of the Twittersphere. Application of Constitutional rights to any part of Twitter means they get the whole thing applied to all of Twitter. The whole Constitution. All 27 Amendments. Every scrap of Constitutional Judicial precedent. If the 1st Amendment, then the 14th also applies. At minimum, everyone Twitter has ever banned for any reason must be reinstated sufficient to have access to the Twitter feeds of Trump and all relevant public servants. If they don't have full unfettered access to Trump's Twitter feed then their rights are being infringed, and Twitter is the one committing that violation. They should also be compensated by Twitter for this gross violation of their rights.
All I'm really saying is make things apply equally to everyone because that's what the law says.
Full disclosure, I don't actually like Donald Trump. The guy is a dick. But you seriously believe that it is valid to take away one person and one person only's rights? That's crazy! No other public servant is to be forcibly held to the same standard? That certainly isn't legal. That is a direct violation of the 14th Amendment's "equal protection under the law" clause.
It might be applicable to other public servants. Only one was sued and ruled upon. If you believe others are doing the same and shouldn't, you know what to do.
It might be applicable to other public servants. Only one was sued and ruled upon. If you believe others are doing the same and shouldn't, you know what to do.
It will be applicable to other public servants who use social media accounts to conduct their politics and policies. I am confident of that.
No. Just like this forum, Twitter can block anyone it wants because it's privately owned. But once anyone writes something on Twitter, by Twitter's own rules, the writer can't wipe out posts he doesn't like.
That's where the free speech aspect came in. If Trump doesn't like the criticism, he can't erase the posts because they are not his to erase. They belong to Twitter, just like this one belongs to City-Data as soon as I post it.
That's what the judge meant when he said this was a narrow ruling. No one forced Trump to join Twitter, and joining didn't cost anything. But joining a free forum never means any member gets to write the rules afterward.
If Trump doesn't like Twitter's policy, he can always buy the business, if he can, and then change the rules. Or he can quit, but that won't make his posts or the responses to them disappear. But once anything anyone writes on a forum open to the public, the writing becomes public, and is the property of the sponsoring forum.
That's the free speech aspect. If you make a speech in public, you are accountable for your words. Same here. And on Twitter or any other forum. They are public too.
Another look into the Brain of Donald Trump and what a soft, whiney snowflake he is.
Trump loves to rage and rant and scream on Twitter, posting 10+ angry tweets the other day. But he wants to block people who might actually respond to his hateful and rude Tweets.
Donald Trump, the ultimate snowflake.
That's president snowflake to you, and Hillary still lost.
No. Just like this forum, Twitter can block anyone it wants because it's privately owned. But once anyone writes something on Twitter, by Twitter's own rules, the writer can't wipe out posts he doesn't like.
That's where the free speech aspect came in. If Trump doesn't like the criticism, he can't erase the posts because they are not his to erase. They belong to Twitter, just like this one belongs to City-Data as soon as I post it.
That's what the judge meant when he said this was a narrow ruling. No one forced Trump to join Twitter, and joining didn't cost anything. But joining a free forum never means any member gets to write the rules afterward.
If Trump doesn't like Twitter's policy, he can always buy the business, if he can, and then change the rules. Or he can quit, but that won't make his posts or the responses to them disappear. But once anything anyone writes on a forum open to the public, the writing becomes public, and is the property of the sponsoring forum.
That's the free speech aspect. If you make a speech in public, you are accountable for your words. Same here. And on Twitter or any other forum. They are public too.
Unless I'm not understanding this, I think your write up is wrong. I believe blocking means being able to stop other people from contacting you? It has nothing to do with erasing your own posts?
FYI I'm on twitter - it's the only social media I use other than this.
It will be applicable to other public servants who use social media accounts to conduct their politics and policies. I am confident of that.
Okay so what happens when a public figure says they're just chatting and none of it is official, but somebody disagrees with that assessment? If I'm a public figure and somebody says, "you are conducting the business your role as public servant, now you can't block me for calling you a goat raping baby cannibalizing freak." What's the threshold for establishing the right to troll me?
Twitter absolutely is obligated to unban everyone for denying them access to the public forum of Donald Trump's Twitter feed. After all, how many Twitter accounts are now protected by 1st Amendment rights? All of them. Trump can't block anyone, so all Twitter accounts have 1st Amendment rights inherently. I think the judge wants to keep this small, but it doesn't work that way. Every single Twitter account has been granted 1st Amendment rights. That means you've given 1st Amendment rights to the whole of Twitter. So contrary to the judge's wishes, either the whole of Twitter is a public forum or none of it is. You don't get to make rules that apply to Bob and Tom but not to Harry.
No. Just like this forum, Twitter can block anyone it wants because it's privately owned. But once anyone writes something on Twitter, by Twitter's own rules, the writer can't wipe out posts he doesn't like.
That's where the free speech aspect came in. If Trump doesn't like the criticism, he can't erase the posts because they are not his to erase. They belong to Twitter, just like this one belongs to City-Data as soon as I post it.
That's what the judge meant when he said this was a narrow ruling. No one forced Trump to join Twitter, and joining didn't cost anything. But joining a free forum never means any member gets to write the rules afterward.
If Trump doesn't like Twitter's policy, he can always buy the business, if he can, and then change the rules. Or he can quit, but that won't make his posts or the responses to them disappear. But once anything anyone writes on a forum open to the public, the writing becomes public, and is the property of the sponsoring forum.
That's the free speech aspect. If you make a speech in public, you are accountable for your words. Same here. And on Twitter or any other forum. They are public too.
twitter may be privatively owned (but it is a PUBLIC COMPANY (it is traded on the stockmarket therefore it is considered public))...AND IT is a PUBLIC forum...anything you or ANYBODY posts on the internet becomes PUBLIC
for example...CD (our wonderful City-Data forum)..is a private company… but all these posts that we all enjoy, they are a public entity, and we as posters can currently block/ignore other posters is we find them rude or we don't agree with their opinions.... and CD it self can ban/suspend posters that are rude, etc
by a Judge making a LEGAL STATEMENT (judgement) that a individual ,( potus or not) can not ban/block/ignore ANYONE, even the most rudest other entities is against those very rude entities 1st amendment.. she set the precedent ……. and companies like twitter, facebook, and CD …...WILL HAVE TO re-evaluate their TOS ban/ignore policies, possibly REMOVING THE IGNORE feature FROM INDIVIDUALS.. this is not about that particular company banning.... but it does LIMIT individuals from being able to ignore others.... this is a VAST dereliction of duty from the far left judge who has just limited individual freedoms
this is not about if you like trump or not....... this is more liberal limiting individuals of freedoms.....
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.
