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.
Their speech on Twitter is not blocked.
Their rudeness and vulgarity had the effect of one person of the hundreds of millions on twitter to block them from getting to the personally.
Which they can still do to an extent by hash tagging the person.
But they were not blocked due to insults and vulgarity, so that point doesn't hold up.It’s like holding a press conference, and one person shouts insults and vulgarities. They will not stop, so they are removed, then they sue because their freedom of speech was effected
It’s like holding a press conference, and one person shouts insults and vulgarities. They will not stop, so they are removed, then they sue because their freedom of speech was effected
I can’t split the hair into that many pieces.I don't think press conferences are considered a public forum.
Free speech is not measured by the scope of the speech being blocked but if the government is blocking speech and if it has a compelling interest in doing so. Dos the government have a compelling reason to block them from posting on that feed? The fact they can use other functionality is not relevant to the ruling.
I figured.Obviously not. I'm going to say that that judge decided to favor the government establishment over we the people.
Opposite effect, opposite analysis. See how that works?
I figured.
I can’t split the hair into that many pieces.
Their access to Twitter has not been stopped.
Can you address that?
I do not believe they specifically call it out. However given that the judge likely knows they are not being blocked from all of Twitter it would not seem relevant to the ruling.Where does the judgement address that?
I do not believe they specifically call it out. However given that the judge likely knows they are not being blocked from all of Twitter it would not seem relevant to the ruling.
I still dont Get how a person's private account has to allow people to post on it. It seems a bit off to me. I'd feel the same way about anyones account. If it's my personal account should be able to block whomever I want.
I don’t make the same assumptions and there lies our differences.
Alright!This is the issue I see with this ruling. It relies on the idea that Trump is using his personal account for official business. That is the only way they could apply the first amendment. Otherwise it is not Donald Trump (President) blocking the account. It is Donald Trump (Citizen) blocking which does not run afoul the first amendment.
Another example. I have two individuals on ignore.
If I were to look, they are most likely still addressing me.
I’m not preventing their free speech, they can be as stupid as they want to be. I just don’t need to be abused by them anymore.
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?