Trump Violates First Amendment by Blocking Twitter Users From Feed, Judge Says

[Hammster]

infringement

“the action of limiting or undermining something.”

You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

 

[Hammster]

The government does not have the right to pick how you wish to communicate with the government if they open up different forms of communication to the public. I can't tell one group they can only use e-mails, tell another group they can only use letters, and tell another group they can only protest at night from 3:35 to 3:45, etc. When you bar some people from communicating, but not others, that's an infringement of free speech.

Nobody is being barred from communicating.

 

[SummerMadness]

Nobody is being barred from communicating.

Yes they are, if they are banned, they are not able to leave public comments.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Really:

But on Wednesday, one of Mr. Trump’s Twitter habits — his practice of blocking critics on the service, preventing them from engaging with his account — was declared unconstitutional by a federal judge in Manhattan.
​

I’ve read the link and the attached article. There is zero mention of the plaintiffs party affiliation

It is widely known that the President has his critics on both sides of the isle.

Fair enough -- Donald tried to silence all dissent. Feel free to cheer him on.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Only if you ignore the “just”.

As it was irrelevant, it was justifiably ignored.

“the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.”

Which doesn’t define not being able to respond to a president on Twitter. There’s other ways that you can communicate.

Irrelevant to your own definition. Part of the "etc" was suppressed by the government while you cheer.

 

[Stormy]

Mute works beautifully and they never know. Twitter does not tell you when you are muted. They can see your tweets but you can't see theirs. They are left to scream into the wind.

 

[Bobber]

Well if it's wrong for Twitter to have this feature on their platform then who's the one at fault. I really don't understand what it's saying. I thought you can block yourself from seeing an attackers tweets or block them from following you...but what are they saying he did?

 

[SummerMadness]

Mute works beautifully and they never know. Twitter does not tell you when you are muted. They can see your tweets but you can't see theirs. They are left to scream into the wind.

If they are muted, other users can still see their replies, it's just you who can not see the replies. You may ignore the user, but that does not mean their replies are not reaching people.

 

[bhsmte]

Stupid ruling by this judge. And by the way, I can't stand Trump, but this was a purely political ruling.

 

[Stormy]

Mute works who cares if they reach other people with their wild insane replies. Have you ever read the responses to his tweets. The democrats come off as completely hateful and dumb. No that is not an insult. It is the truth. Their hate is hurting their own party and driving people away.

I think Trump is probably looking for a simpler way to read constructive comments and questions without taking the time to sift through the crazies... Mute has made my twitter experience much more enjoyable

 

[Bobber]

Oh, I think I get it. You mean email is still available to those whose free speech was violated by blocking their twitter. Their free speech was still violated.

Their free speech wasn't blocked. All that is blocked is the President can't see it BUT everyone else can. But if that is going to be a ruling from the judicial branch that means therefore everyone can sue everybody else on twitter. And why shouldn't twitter be faced with a law suit in providing the blocking you can't see feature?

 

[Hammster]

Yes they are, if they are banned, they are not able to leave public comments.

Yes they are.

 

[Hammster]

As it was irrelevant, it was justifiably ignored.




Irrelevant to your own definition. Part of the "etc" was suppressed by the government while you cheer.

Oh the drama!!!

Nobody is being suppressed.

 

[Hammster]

Stupid ruling by this judge. And by the way, I can't stand Trump, but this was a purely political ruling.

Hear, hear!!

 

[Stormy]

What some people don't realise is that replying to a twitter post is not like standing in the living room of the poster and shouting (or praising for that matter) the poster.

It's more like standing outside of a speech with a sign with your opinion on it. It's a public display of opinion, either in support or protest of the thing being said/written. When Trump posts something and people reply, their replies can be seen by everyone around the world, not just the original twitter poster.

So blocking someone in twitter is not akin to keeping them from learning about what you said or from shouting at you in your living room, it's more comparable from preventing someone from holding up a sign with his opinion in the vicinity of your speech. And THAT is pretty much the textbook definition of violation of free speech.

So then how is it that only Trump is in violation and not twitter for having the block option for all of us.
When I am allowed to block, I also deprive someone of their free speech.
And Facebook... Shouldn't I have to be friends with everyone so they all can have their say with me?

Or is the second amendment twitter thingy only used by democrat appointed judges to slam a Republican president?

 

[Fantine]

Twitter made his site a public site---he can't block anyone from access.

 

[TerranceL]

The judge is tech illiterate.

All one has to do to see Trumps posts is log out. It's not rocket science.

The judge claims that twitter is a public forum, it's not it's a private entity just like this forum. Now I'm pretty sure Jack is feeling a bit nervous over the whole "public forum" stuff, I can see lawsuits from that for twitter banning people.

 

[TerranceL]

What some people don't realise is that replying to a twitter post is not like standing in the living room of the poster and shouting (or praising for that matter) the poster.

It's more like standing outside of a speech with a sign with your opinion on it. It's a public display of opinion, either in support or protest of the thing being said/written. When Trump posts something and people reply, their replies can be seen by everyone around the world, not just the original twitter poster.

So blocking someone in twitter is not akin to keeping them from learning about what you said or from shouting at you in your living room, it's more comparable from preventing someone from holding up a sign with his opinion in the vicinity of your speech. And THAT is pretty much the textbook definition of violation of free speech.

Only if we stretch the definition of free speech so far to apply to private institutions.

It would be like someone here claiming their free speech rights were violated because their posts were edited by a mod, or because someone put them on ignore.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Fair enough -- Donald tried to silence all dissent. Feel free to cheer him on.

Lack of facts to back up statements duly noted.

 

[TerranceL]

Twitter made his site a public site---he can't block anyone from access.

His site?

What in the world are you talking about?