The US constitution. Unless the government has a compelling interest they can't limit free speech. What compelling interest does the government have in limiting who can respond to a twitter feed?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So where is it written that anyone who wants to respond must be able to do so while having access to a president’s twitter feed?
Your point is moot because free speech is still available.You've now jumped back to a sinking ship you previously abandoned. Pointing out alternative forms of communication is moot.
They can still tweet.The US constitution. Unless the government has a compelling interest they can't limit free speech. What compelling interest does the government have in limiting who can respond to a twitter feed?
But they cannot participate in the public forum of the tweet itself. Sure, they can use twitter, but they cannot participate in the discussion that other people can. If everyone is allowed in a certain room to discuss something, the government can't say "no, you can't come into this room simply because I don't like what you have to say. But it's ok, you can go into that room over there with a different group of people to talk about the issue" Without a compelling reason, you have every right to be in the room that everyone else is allowed into.They can still tweet.
Free speech doesn’t mean free discussion. Just because you can petition the government doesn’t mean they have to respond.But they cannot participate in the public forum of the tweet itself. Sure, they can use twitter, but they cannot participate in the discussion that other people can. If everyone is allowed in a certain room to discuss something, the government can't say "no, you can't come into this room simply because I don't like what you have to say. But it's ok, you can go into that room over there with a different group of people to talk about the issue" Without a compelling reason, you have every right to be in the room that everyone else is allowed into.
*sniff sniff*“Because no government official is above the law and because all government officials are presumed to follow the law once the judiciary has said what the law is, we must assume that the President and Scavino will remedy the blocking we have held to be unconstitutional,” [the judge] wrote.
Eugene Gu, a surgeon at Vanderbilt University Medical Center and one of the seven plaintiffs in the lawsuit, told Newsweek on Thursday that Trump still hasn’t complied with the court’s ruling. “I am still blocked,” Gu said at 11 a.m. ET. “I have spoken to the other plaintiffs, and they are still blocked as well.”
It's the government preventing you from engaging in a discussion that everyone else is allowed to engage in. Yes, the government is under no obligation to listen to you or respond to it, but again, if the government is opening up a venue in which people can openly engage in a discussion they are absolutely violating your free speech if they are preventing you from using that venue without a good reason.Free speech doesn’t mean free discussion. Just because you can petition the government doesn’t mean they have to respond.
The government did not open that venue. So, moot point.It's the government preventing you from engaging in a discussion that everyone else is allowed to engage in. Yes, the government is under no obligation to listen to you or respond to it, but again, if the government is opening up a venue in which people can openly engage in a discussion they are absolutely violating your free speech if they are preventing you from using that venue without a good reason.
They may not have. As I mentioned before, I'm not convinced that the president's personal twitter account falls under the government. I'm arguing under the assumption that it does.The government did not open that venue. So, moot point.
I would agree with that.They may not have. As I mentioned before, I'm not convinced that the president's personal twitter account falls under the government. I'm arguing under the assumption that it does.
But if there was an official twitter account that is operated and the general public is allowed to respond to it, then yes, then that account is what I would consider a new venue to engage in discussion. So the government couldn't block just some people from reading and responding without a good reason. It's an all or nothing thing. There can be rules, but "We'll block you just because we don't like what you have to say" generaly isn't an acceptable rule.
They can still tweet.
I didn’t know that the government was doing such a thing. So I cannot answer your question.That does not answer my question. What is the governments compelling interest in blocking some users from Trumps feed?
I didn’t know that the government was doing such a thing. So I cannot answer your question.
On his private account that was set up way before he was president.You are unaware that that the President of the United States was blocking some users from his Twitter feed? The very subject this entire thread is about?
And as soon as he became president, and started tweeting govt policy as the US numero uno govt employee it’s legal status changed.On his private account that was set up way before he was president.
On his private account that was set up way before he was president.
And what law or rule makes that so?And as soon as he became president, and started tweeting govt policy as the US numero uno govt employee it’s legal status changed.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?