Poll of the Day > Judge rules that blocking people is unconstitutional

(+) Yeah! (+)

http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/23/media/judge-rules-trump-cant-block-twitter-users/index.html

So I guess block and mute buttons are unconstitutional now.

In all seriousness this is dumb and will set very bad precedents.
---

Only if you're a government official using twitter as an official source of communication
---

JOExHIGASHI posted...

Only if you're a government official using twitter as an official source of communication

Even the title makes that clear

What are you doin TC
---

This is an outrageous witch hunt he didn't touch those girls
---

JOExHIGASHI posted...

Only if you're a government official using twitter as an official source of communication

Twitter is a private site. The judge is a moron.
---

As the president of our country, he should be listening to everyone's voice, especially those disagreeing with you.

His blocking of users that disagree with him proves what an immature child he is, who can only handle life in an echo chamber.
---

Yeah, this is really stupid. I don't think the judge knows what twitter is or how it works.
---

SunWuKung420 posted...

As the president of our country, he should be listening to everyone's voice, especially those disagreeing with you.

His blocking of users that disagree with him proves what an immature child he is, who can only handle life in an echo chamber.

Yes he's an idiot but this is really dumb. By the same logic if Twitter blocked him then they would also be breaking the constitution.
---

Revelation34 posted...

SunWuKung420 posted...

As the president of our country, he should be listening to everyone's voice, especially those disagreeing with you.

His blocking of users that disagree with him proves what an immature child he is, who can only handle life in an echo chamber.

Yes he's an idiot but this is really dumb. By the same logic if Twitter blocked him then they would also be breaking the constitution.

Honestly, being President, he should have never been using it for official statements.
---

Looks like Duckbear wins again huehuehue
---

SunWuKung420 posted...

As the president of our country, he should be listening to everyone's voice, especially those disagreeing with you.

His blocking of users that disagree with him proves what an immature child he is, who can only handle life in an echo chamber.

on one hand I agree, but you know shit tons of people are just on their trolling him. those people I could understand being blocked as they are just clogged up the feed or whatever and making it harder to filter through to the posts from people actually being serious. I think if its obvious trolls then yeah they should be blocked.

twitter shouldn't be used for official business though. not saying he can't say whatever he wants on there, just should also go through the proper channels for official statements.
---

Trump is the first president to use Twitter as a means of doing official business and giving out information about what is going on. Therefore he is not using it the same way Joe Smith down the street does, Joe can block 1000 people from his twitter account and no one cares, meanwhile when Trump does it he is helping to silence free speech.

Trump is the reason they had to make a ruling on this anyways, he is one of the few people actually using Twitter in that way. It's also why Obama didn't constantly use Twitter to let people know his thoughts on current events, and his plans at times.
---

Revelation34 posted...

JOExHIGASHI posted...

Only if you're a government official using twitter as an official source of communication

Twitter is a private site. The judge is a moron.

There are a lot of places that are very quickly moving towards the 'open forum' doctrine. Malls for instance are private property, but because they're considered a public forum you have to treat it as such.
---

I don't know what to think about this. This is why my favorite branch of government is the "old school" judicial branch.
---

Americans are constitutionally granted the right to redress of grievances from our government. It is by that right that the judge found that blocking users on Twitter was an illegal action. If it is to be used as an official platform (and certain it it is being treated as such), then the President must allow for open redress of grievances from the citizens.

Hope this clears that up. The judge's ruling may seem strange at first, but it does appear to be correct.

SushiSquid posted...

Americans are constitutionally granted the right to redress of grievances from our government. It is by that right that the judge found that blocking users on Twitter was an illegal action. If it is to be used as an official platform (and certain it it is being treated as such), then the President must allow for open redress of grievances from the citizens.

Hope this clears that up. The judge's ruling may seem strange at first, but it does appear to be correct.

I think rather than make that weird ruling, someone should make him go through proper channels for official statements. once again though I don't care if he repeats said official statements on twitter, i'd just rather him also do it properly.
---

It's an incredibly stupid ruling given that Twitter is a private platform and that the people complaining weren't so much using it for speech as they were pretty explicitly using it for self-promotion. Not to mention that it in no ways hinders their free speech in the first place or the broader implication that virtually ALL politicians block troublemakers on social media.

An Angry Candian's discussion of the case from earlier on which illustrates some of the problems:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQZautO_bpo" data-time="

At any rate, hopefully Trump will appeal this all the way to the SCOTUS which should kill this ridiculous measure in style.
---

Crazy that Zeus is defending Trump its almost like he isnt a Left Leaning Centrist at all
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

I think rather than make that weird ruling, someone should make him go through proper channels for official statements.

In addition to being the President, he's still a citizen and thus has a right to free speech. Banning the President from using Twitter would violate his constitutional rights.

SushiSquid posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

I think rather than make that weird ruling, someone should make him go through proper channels for official statements.

Good luck with that.

don't wish me luck I have no control over it. just stating how I feel about it. you'd think he'd have people to do stuff like this for him.
---

Revelation34 posted...

JOExHIGASHI posted...

Only if you're a government official using twitter as an official source of communication

Twitter is a private site. The judge is a moron.

The president's twitter feed is a public forum, and him blocking people from it amounts to a government figure choosing to limit who's allowed to speak in that forum. Twitter still has the right to ban people for abusive behaviour if need be, because it's their site and they can run it however they want to, but as a government figure, Trump has no right to make that call.
---

Mead posted...

Crazy that Zeus is defending Trump its almost like he isnt a Left Leaning Centrist at all

Crazy that Mead is attacking Zeus and demonstrating the depths of his obsession again. It's almost like Mead's obsession with opposing Zeus is forcing him to take a stupid stance on an issue yet again while, at the same time, demonstrating his political ignorance.
---

To be clear: blocking someone doesn't allow the person to talk in Trump's tweets at all.

So, while it doesn't really matter if Trump ignores someone, removing them from the conversation entirely is bad.
---

Zeus posted...

Mead posted...

Crazy that Zeus is defending Trump its almost like he isnt a Left Leaning Centrist at all

Crazy that Mead is attacking Zeus and demonstrating the depths of his obsession again. It's almost like Mead's obsession with opposing Zeus is forcing him to take a stupid stance on an issue yet again while, at the same time, demonstrating his political ignorance.

Pretty low bar definition for an attack lol

Just pointing out your own repeated stance when it comes to posts that everyone on this board recognizes. Not my fault that you choose to be so thin skinned and refuse to accept any criticism
---

shadowsword87 posted...

To be clear: blocking someone doesn't allow the person to talk in Trump's tweets at all.

So, while it doesn't really matter if Trump ignores someone, removing them from the conversation entirely is bad.

To be clear, they have unlimited ability to speak elsewhere on Twitter, to reference Trump, and to be in that conversation -- assuming that they don't get banned from the platform over other matters although, if they get the same wackadoo judge, they could sue to appeal the ban. There's really no basis or good justification to defend this ruling which, by the way, sets a terrible precedent, considering the slew of attention-seeking trolls online.
---

Zeus posted...

There's really no basis or good justification to defend this ruling

It's a government figure dictating where people can and cannot speak. That's exactly what the First Amendment is meant to prevent.

Again, twitter can still ban them as desired if their conduct becomes too abusive. It's just that Trump can't.
---

Mead posted...

Zeus posted...

Mead posted...

Crazy that Zeus is defending Trump its almost like he isnt a Left Leaning Centrist at all

Crazy that Mead is attacking Zeus and demonstrating the depths of his obsession again. It's almost like Mead's obsession with opposing Zeus is forcing him to take a stupid stance on an issue yet again while, at the same time, demonstrating his political ignorance.

Pretty low bar definition for an attack lol

Just pointing out your own repeated stance when it comes to posts that everyone on this board recognizes. Not my fault that you choose to be so thin skinned and refuse to accept any criticism

Repeated harassment sets the bar where it is. When you've been doing this shit forever and very consistently, you don't need to go all out on big acts like holding a boombox out in the rain.

And it's not my fault that you lack self-awareness concerning your creepy, harassing behavior. Nor is it my fault that you've repeatedly refused to accept criticism, leveled by myself and others, for said behavior which makes ICO look tame by comparison. Nor is it my fault that you're never going to change, whether it's making stories about me (and spreading it via alt apparently, since you and your alt are the only two people who somehow think I'm Edward Snowden -- although you've also make countless other bizarre claims), launching into crazed grandiloquent criticisms of my comments which you single-out even when others said the exact same thing earlier, repeated mentions, or just random trolling--- all of which you then project onto me (just like you do to others) because, again, no self-awareness.

I know I said you were cut from the same cloth as ICO, but you're probably way worse.
---

this seems weird at first but it actually makes sense within the context of the constitution i feel.

so...yeah

Zeus posted...

Mead posted...

Zeus posted...

Mead posted...

Crazy that Zeus is defending Trump its almost like he isnt a Left Leaning Centrist at all

Crazy that Mead is attacking Zeus and demonstrating the depths of his obsession again. It's almost like Mead's obsession with opposing Zeus is forcing him to take a stupid stance on an issue yet again while, at the same time, demonstrating his political ignorance.

Pretty low bar definition for an attack lol

Just pointing out your own repeated stance when it comes to posts that everyone on this board recognizes. Not my fault that you choose to be so thin skinned and refuse to accept any criticism

Repeated harassment sets the bar where it is. When you've been doing this shit forever and very consistently, you don't need to go all out on big acts like holding a boombox out in the rain.

And it's not my fault that you lack self-awareness concerning your creepy, harassing behavior. Nor is it my fault that you've repeatedly refused to accept criticism, leveled by myself and others, for said behavior which makes ICO look tame by comparison. Nor is it my fault that you're never going to change, whether it's making stories about me (and spreading it via alt apparently, since you and your alt are the only two people who somehow think I'm Edward Snowden -- although you've also make countless other bizarre claims), launching into crazed grandiloquent criticisms of my comments which you single-out even when others said the exact same thing earlier, repeated mentions, or just random trolling--- all of which you then project onto me (just like you do to others) because, again, no self-awareness.

I know I said you were cut from the same cloth as ICO, but you're probably way worse.

I accept criticism all the time dude, it isnt something that bothers me at all

Please post 5 more paragraphs in response
---

Revelation34 posted...

JOExHIGASHI posted...

Only if you're a government official using twitter as an official source of communication

Twitter is a private site. The judge is a moron.

You say the stupidest shit.
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

SushiSquid posted...

Americans are constitutionally granted the right to redress of grievances from our government. It is by that right that the judge found that blocking users on Twitter was an illegal action. If it is to be used as an official platform (and certain it it is being treated as such), then the President must allow for open redress of grievances from the citizens.

Hope this clears that up. The judge's ruling may seem strange at first, but it does appear to be correct.

I think rather than make that weird ruling, someone should make him go through proper channels for official statements. once again though I don't care if he repeats said official statements on twitter, i'd just rather him also do it properly.

Some of Trump's own people inside the white house have tried to stop him from tweeting, but it's like trying to stop a baby from sucking it's thumb. I'm sure if his cabinet had their way he would have stopped tweeting that stuff the second he became President. I mean its getting to the point where 200 years from now we might see Trump's tweets in a fucking history book (well whatever a history book is 200 years from now), the same way we see Lincoln's speeches in history books.
---

SushiSquid posted...

In addition to being the President, he's still a citizen and thus has a right to free speech. Banning the President from using Twitter would violate his constitutional rights.

The irony of this post is pretty great.

adjl posted...

Zeus posted...

There's really no basis or good justification to defend this ruling

It's a government figure dictating where people can and cannot speak. That's exactly what the First Amendment is meant to prevent.

Again, twitter can still ban them as desired if their conduct becomes too abusive. It's just that Trump can't.

You would have a valid argument if Trump ordered Twitter to ban these people.

Cacciato posted...

You say the stupidest shit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FopyRHHlt3M" data-time="
---

Yeah... Maybe he shouldn't be using Twitter for official communications if he wants to be able to block people?
---

You can post that YouTube video, but you still didnt know what the word period meant when used at the end of a sentence.
---

SunWuKung420 posted...

As the president of our country, he should be listening to everyone's voice, especially those disagreeing with you.

His blocking of users that disagree with him proves what an immature child he is, who can only handle life in an echo chamber.

---

Revelation34 posted...

You would have a valid argument if Trump ordered Twitter to ban these people.

That's not remotely a necessary condition (though that would also be flagrantly unconstitutional). Trump can ban people from commenting on his feed himself. That means he - the epitome of a government figure - is censoring people.

Imagine that Trump made a public appearance every day where he'd announce whatever was on his mind and then allow the attendees to take turns stepping up to the podium to express their opinions on it. Now imagine that anyone who had spoken critically of him in the past (including in other fora) was required to wear a ball gag while attending the event and was not permitted that time at the podium.

The analogy gets a little awkward because of how the Internet transcends the practical limitations of physical space, but that's exactly what's happening when Trump bans people from his twitter feed. If that were happening physically, nobody would think twice about ruling such a practice unconstitutional. Why, then, the resistance to making the same ruling in an Internet setting?
---

adjl posted...

Revelation34 posted...

You would have a valid argument if Trump ordered Twitter to ban these people.

That's not remotely a necessary condition (though that would also be flagrantly unconstitutional). Trump can ban people from commenting on his feed himself. That means he - the epitome of a government figure - is censoring people.

Imagine that Trump made a public appearance every day where he'd announce whatever was on his mind and then allow the attendees to take turns stepping up to the podium to express their opinions on it. Now imagine that anyone who had spoken critically of him in the past (including in other fora) was required to wear a ball gag while attending the event and was not permitted that time at the podium.

The analogy gets a little awkward because of how the Internet transcends the practical limitations of physical space, but that's exactly what's happening when Trump bans people from his twitter feed. If that were happening physically, nobody would think twice about ruling such a practice unconstitutional. Why, then, the resistance to making the same ruling in an Internet setting?

Because Twitter is a privately owned company.
---

Revelation34 posted...

adjl posted...

Revelation34 posted...

You would have a valid argument if Trump ordered Twitter to ban these people.

That's not remotely a necessary condition (though that would also be flagrantly unconstitutional). Trump can ban people from commenting on his feed himself. That means he - the epitome of a government figure - is censoring people.

Imagine that Trump made a public appearance every day where he'd announce whatever was on his mind and then allow the attendees to take turns stepping up to the podium to express their opinions on it. Now imagine that anyone who had spoken critically of him in the past (including in other fora) was required to wear a ball gag while attending the event and was not permitted that time at the podium.

The analogy gets a little awkward because of how the Internet transcends the practical limitations of physical space, but that's exactly what's happening when Trump bans people from his twitter feed. If that were happening physically, nobody would think twice about ruling such a practice unconstitutional. Why, then, the resistance to making the same ruling in an Internet setting?

Because Twitter is a privately owned company.

What does that have to do with anything? Twitter is not the problem here, the President using Twitter as an official platform for Presidential business and what Trump has on his mind is the problem.
---

Mead posted...

JOExHIGASHI posted...

Only if you're a government official using twitter as an official source of communication

Even the title makes that clear

What are you doin TC

i mean it's still pretty silly to say he can't block people. but idk. imo he shouldn't be using twitter anywhere near as much as he does.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Because Twitter is a privately owned company.

Which means they can do whatever they want. But this is not a question of what Twitter can and cannot do, it's a question of what government figures can and cannot do in the forum Twitter has provided.

In the analogy I gave, Twitter would be the company that owned the building and rented it to Trump for the event. They can ban whoever they want from coming in, or enforce whatever restrictions they want to, because it's their building. That's totally distinct from Trump making that call, though. If Trump did it, because he's a government figure, it would be a violation of the first amendment.

The salient point here is that the first amendment prohibits the government from censoring citizens. When Trump blocks somebody from commenting on his Twitter, he's censoring them, which is unconstitutional now that he's part of the government.
---

adjl posted...

Revelation34 posted...

Because Twitter is a privately owned company.

Which means they can do whatever they want with their platform. But this is not a question of what Twitter can and cannot do, it's a question of what government figures can and cannot do in the forum Twitter has provided.

In the analogy I gave, Twitter would be the company that owned the building and rented it to Trump for the event. They can ban whoever they want from coming in, or enforce whatever restrictions they want to, because it's their building. That's totally distinct from Trump making that call, though. If Trump did it, because he's a government figure, it would be a violation of the first amendment.

The salient point here is that the first amendment prohibits the government from censoring citizens. When Trump blocks somebody from commenting on his Twitter, he's censoring them, which is unconstitutional now that he's part of the government.

I'll make sure to tell Trump I like pineapple on my pizza then bitch when he blocks me.
---

Revelation34 posted...

adjl posted...

Revelation34 posted...

Because Twitter is a privately owned company.

Which means they can do whatever they want with their platform. But this is not a question of what Twitter can and cannot do, it's a question of what government figures can and cannot do in the forum Twitter has provided.

In the analogy I gave, Twitter would be the company that owned the building and rented it to Trump for the event. They can ban whoever they want from coming in, or enforce whatever restrictions they want to, because it's their building. That's totally distinct from Trump making that call, though. If Trump did it, because he's a government figure, it would be a violation of the first amendment.

The salient point here is that the first amendment prohibits the government from censoring citizens. When Trump blocks somebody from commenting on his Twitter, he's censoring them, which is unconstitutional now that he's part of the government.

I'll make sure to tell Trump I like pineapple on my pizza then bitch when he blocks me.

yeah see thats where i'm divided. I understand the problem here, but there has to be a middle ground that allows him to filter out the obvious trolls.
---

So basically Trump can't use Twitter now.
Because anti-Trump people can just organize a mass spamming of his account, and he can't block any of them.
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

there has to be a middle ground that allows him to filter out the obvious trolls.

The first amendment says there can't be. That's what free speech means. No matter what you're saying, the government doesn't ever get to censor you (outside of explicit threats, which are specifically designated as a crime).

I agree that it's impractical to not be able to take any control over your own feed like that, but to me, that just indicates how inappropriate it is for Trump to be using Twitter as he does.
---