LogFAQs > #910866509

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, Database 4 ( 07.23.2018-12.31.2018 ), DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Trump is trying to appeal the decision that he can't block people on twitter.
DarkTransient 10/20/18 5:57:46 PM #23:	Tmaster148 posted... DarkTransient posted... Tmaster148 posted... DarkTransient posted... Tmaster148 posted... DarkTransient posted... tldr; are we talking "he wants to block them on his account so he doesn't see them" (in which case why the fuck shouldn't he be able to?), or "he wants to block them from the platform altogether" (in which case, get fucked Trump)? When you block someone on twitter they can't view your profile and can't respond to your tweet. This violates the first amendment, because it means he's preventing people from talking to him. The first amendment doesn't oblige any specific person to hear what you have to say. It just means you cannot be punished for saying it. I'll definitely agree that it's really immature and whiny, but thinking it's actually illegal or unconstitutional is ridiculous. The first amendment means the government can't prevent you from speaking. Trump is president aka a government entity and he uses his twitter account as the president. This makes his twitter account a government entity. What were they able to say before, that they cannot say afterwards? The 1st amendment doesn't care about the content of the message. It only cares that someone is capable of speaking without being prevented by the government. They are able to say anything they like on Twitter prior to being blocked. They are able to say anything they like on Twitter after being blocked. The only difference is that the user who blocks them will not see the post. The first amendment doesn't make any guarantee that anyone will receive your message, only that you're allowed to state it. --- Proud to be part of the 1% of society that's smart enough to realise Australia is not real. <cite>DarkTransient posted [p:910866509] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote>tldr; are we talking "he wants to block them on his account so he doesn't see them" (in which case why the fuck shouldn't he be able to?), or "he wants to block them from the platform altogether" (in which case, get fucked Trump)?</quote> When you block someone on twitter they can't view your profile and can't respond to your tweet. This violates the first amendment, because it means he's preventing people from talking to him.</quote> The first amendment doesn't oblige any specific person to hear what you have to say. It just means you cannot be punished for saying it. I'll definitely agree that it's really immature and whiny, but thinking it's actually illegal or unconstitutional is ridiculous.</quote> The first amendment means the government can't prevent you from speaking. Trump is president aka a government entity and he uses his twitter account as the president. This makes his twitter account a government entity.</quote> What were they able to say before, that they cannot say afterwards?</quote> The 1st amendment doesn't care about the content of the message. It only cares that someone is capable of speaking without being prevented by the government.</quote> They are able to say anything they like on Twitter prior to being blocked. They are able to say anything they like on Twitter after being blocked. The only difference is that the user who blocks them will not see the post. The first amendment doesn't make any guarantee that anyone will receive your message, only that you're allowed to state it. --- Proud to be part of the 1% of society that's smart enough to realise Australia is not real.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1