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.
“the action of limiting or undermining something.”infringement
Nobody is being barred from communicating.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.
Yes they are, if they are banned, they are not able to leave public comments.Nobody is being barred from communicating.
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.
Only if you ignore the “just”.
“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.
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.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.
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?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.
Yes they are.Yes they are, if they are banned, they are not able to leave public comments.
Oh the drama!!!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.
Hear, hear!!Stupid ruling by this judge. And by the way, I can't stand Trump, but this was a purely political ruling.
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.
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.
Fair enough -- Donald tried to silence all dissent. Feel free to cheer him on.
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?