Current Events > Trump is trying to appeal the decision that he can't block people on twitter.

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4
Tmaster148 10/20/18 5:46:55 PM #1:	https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/10/were-telling-court-again-president-trump-and-other-government-officials-cant-block President Donald Trump and his lawyers still believe he can block people on Twitter because he doesnt like their views, so today weve filed a brief telling a court, again, that doing so violates the First Amendment. Were hopeful that the court, like the last one that considered the case, will side with the plaintiffs, seven individuals blocked by Trump who are represented by the Knight First Amendment Institute. As we explain in the brief, the case has broad implications for the public as social media use by the government becomes more and more ubiquitous. Trump lost the first round of the case when a judge sided with the plaintiffs, who include a university professor, a surgeon, a comedy writer, a community organizer, an author, a legal analyst, and a police officer. The judge agreed with the Knight Institute, which argued that the interactive spaces associated with the @realDonaldTrump account are public forums under the First Amendment, meaning that the government cannot exclude people from them simply because it disagrees with their views. In a brief filed in round one, we argued governmental use of social media platforms to communicate to and with the publicand allow the public to communication with each otheris now the rule of democratic engagement, not the exception. As a result, First Amendment rights of both access to those accounts and the ability to speak in them must apply in full force. The ruling in round one was a great victory for free speech and recognizes that in the digital age, when a local, state, or federal agent officially communicates, through Twitter, with the public about the governments business, he or she doesnt get to block people from receiving those messages because theyve used the forum to express their disagreement with the officials policies. Trump was forced to unblock the plaintiffs. The presidents attorneys are now trying to convince an appeals court to overturn this ruling, making the same arguments they made in the lower court that @realDonaldTrump, Trumps Twitter handle, is the presidents private property and he can block people if he wants. In the brief we filed today weve told the appeals court that those argumentswhich were wrong on the law in the first placeare still wrong. The president has chosen to use his longtime Twitter handle to communicate his administrations goals, announce policy decisions, and talk about government activity. Similarly, public agencies and officials, from city mayors and county sheriff offices to U.S. Secretaries of State and members of Congress, routinely use social media to communicate official positions, services, and important public safety and policy messages. Twitter has become a vital communications tool for government, allowing local and federal officials to transmit information when natural disasters such as hurricanes and wildfires strike, hold online town halls, and answer citizens questions about programs. When governmental officials and agencies choose a particular technique or technology to communicate with the public about governmental affairs, they have endowed the public with First Amendment rights to receive those messages. And this right, we told the appeals court, is infringed when government denies access to these messages because it disagrees with someones viewpoints. President really wants his safe space on twitter. --- https://imgur.com/BBcZDLJ <cite>Tmaster148 posted [p:910866029] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote>https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/10/were-telling-court-again-president-trump-and-other-government-officials-cant-block <quote>President Donald Trump and his lawyers still believe he can block people on Twitter because he doesnt like their views, so today weve filed a brief telling a court, again, that doing so violates the First Amendment. Were hopeful that the court, like the last one that considered the case, will side with the plaintiffs, seven individuals blocked by Trump who are represented by the Knight First Amendment Institute. As we explain in the brief, the case has broad implications for the public as social media use by the government becomes more and more ubiquitous. Trump lost the first round of the case when a judge sided with the plaintiffs, who include a university professor, a surgeon, a comedy writer, a community organizer, an author, a legal analyst, and a police officer. The judge agreed with the Knight Institute, which argued that the interactive spaces associated with the @realDonaldTrump account are public forums under the First Amendment, meaning that the government cannot exclude people from them simply because it disagrees with their views. In a brief filed in round one, we argued governmental use of social media platforms to communicate to and with the publicand allow the public to communication with each otheris now the rule of democratic engagement, not the exception. As a result, First Amendment rights of both access to those accounts and the ability to speak in them must apply in full force. The ruling in round one was a great victory for free speech and recognizes that in the digital age, when a local, state, or federal agent officially communicates, through Twitter, with the public about the governments business, he or she doesnt get to block people from receiving those messages because theyve used the forum to express their disagreement with the officials policies. Trump was forced to unblock the plaintiffs. The presidents attorneys are now trying to convince an appeals court to overturn this ruling, making the same arguments they made in the lower court that @realDonaldTrump, Trumps Twitter handle, is the presidents private property and he can block people if he wants. In the brief we filed today weve told the appeals court that those argumentswhich were wrong on the law in the first placeare still wrong. The president has chosen to use his longtime Twitter handle to communicate his administrations goals, announce policy decisions, and talk about government activity. Similarly, public agencies and officials, from city mayors and county sheriff offices to U.S. Secretaries of State and members of Congress, routinely use social media to communicate official positions, services, and important public safety and policy messages. Twitter has become a vital communications tool for government, allowing local and federal officials to transmit information when natural disasters such as hurricanes and wildfires strike, hold online town halls, and answer citizens questions about programs. When governmental officials and agencies choose a particular technique or technology to communicate with the public about governmental affairs, they have endowed the public with First Amendment rights to receive those messages. And this right, we told the appeals court, is infringed when government denies access to these messages because it disagrees with someones viewpoints.</quote> President really wants his safe space on twitter.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DarkTransient 10/20/18 5:48:08 PM #2:	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)? --- Proud to be part of the 1% of society that's smart enough to realise Australia is not real. <cite>DarkTransient posted [p:910866068] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</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> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Nomadic View 10/20/18 5:48:50 PM #3:	Either Twitter is a public platform or it isnt. He should absolutely be able to block people, or in the alternative Twitter cannot ban speech it doesnt like. --- {}\\{}(o){}\\//{}//=\\{})){}(< \\//{}{{-{}//\\{} {}xxxxxxxx{};;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;> <cite>Nomadic View posted [p:910866095] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote>Either Twitter is a public platform or it isnt. He should absolutely be able to block people, or in the alternative Twitter cannot ban speech it doesnt like.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tmaster148 10/20/18 5:49:23 PM #4:	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. --- https://imgur.com/BBcZDLJ <cite>Tmaster148 posted [p:910866122] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</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> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Menardii 10/20/18 5:49:29 PM #5:	I think this is stupid from both sides of the story <cite>Menardii posted [p:910866126] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote>I think this is stupid from both sides of the story</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
1NfamousACE_2 10/20/18 5:51:02 PM #6:	Nomadic View posted... Either Twitter is a public platform or it isnt. He should absolutely be able to block people, or in the alternative Twitter cannot ban speech it doesnt like. He could block people...if he wasn't the President. Everyone should be able to see his messages. --- New signature needed, acquire within from management <cite>1NfamousACE_2 posted [p:910866194] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>Nomadic View posted...</cite> <quote>Either Twitter is a public platform or it isnt. He should absolutely be able to block people, or in the alternative Twitter cannot ban speech it doesnt like.</quote> He could block people...if he wasn't the President. Everyone should be able to see his messages.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#7	Post #7 was unavailable or deleted.
darkprince45 10/20/18 5:51:33 PM #8:	Menardii posted... I think this is stupid from both sides of the story --- Cubs, Rockies, Grizzlies, Patriots. <cite>darkprince45 posted [p:910866220] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>Menardii posted...</cite> <quote>I think this is stupid from both sides of the story</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DemonBuffet 10/20/18 5:51:54 PM #9:	Snowflake Trump --- Trololol <cite>DemonBuffet posted [p:910866241] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote>Snowflake Trump</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
stone 10/20/18 5:52:38 PM #10:	Apparently there are probably big babies on both sides. We all know who's the baby on his side, though. --- PONG WAS REAL? I thought that was just a story parents told kids to scare them <cite>stone posted [p:910866267] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote>Apparently there are probably big babies on both sides. We all know who's the baby on his side, though.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DarkTransient 10/20/18 5:52:42 PM #11:	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. --- Proud to be part of the 1% of society that's smart enough to realise Australia is not real. <cite>DarkTransient posted [p:910866271] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</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> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TrevorBlack79 10/20/18 5:52:46 PM #12:	Nomadic View posted... Either Twitter is a public platform or it isnt. He should absolutely be able to block people, or in the alternative Twitter cannot ban speech it doesnt like. If government officials choose to use social media in an official capacity, they don't get to block their constituents. If they don't like that they can stop using Twitter in their official capacity and communicate with the public by other means. --- "a minority is someone who you can tell off the bat they are black/hispanic/colored. LGBT isn't a minority" - Blakkheim1 <cite>TrevorBlack79 posted [p:910866275] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>Nomadic View posted...</cite> <quote>Either Twitter is a public platform or it isnt. He should absolutely be able to block people, or in the alternative Twitter cannot ban speech it doesnt like.</quote> If government officials choose to use social media in an official capacity, they don't get to block their constituents. If they don't like that they can stop using Twitter in their official capacity and communicate with the public by other means.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tmaster148 10/20/18 5:54:00 PM #13:	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. --- https://imgur.com/BBcZDLJ <cite>Tmaster148 posted [p:910866333] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</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> ... Copied to Clipboard!
stone 10/20/18 5:54:37 PM #14:	TrevorBlack79 posted... Nomadic View posted... Either Twitter is a public platform or it isnt. He should absolutely be able to block people, or in the alternative Twitter cannot ban speech it doesnt like. If government officials choose to use social media in an official capacity, they don't get to block their constituents. If they don't like that they can stop using Twitter in their official capacity and communicate with the public by other means. This. He can make a blog and rant on there if he wants. --- PONG WAS REAL? I thought that was just a story parents told kids to scare them <cite>stone posted [p:910866360] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>TrevorBlack79 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Nomadic View posted...</cite> <quote>Either Twitter is a public platform or it isnt. He should absolutely be able to block people, or in the alternative Twitter cannot ban speech it doesnt like.</quote> If government officials choose to use social media in an official capacity, they don't get to block their constituents. If they don't like that they can stop using Twitter in their official capacity and communicate with the public by other means.</quote> This. He can make a blog and rant on there if he wants.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
catboy0_0 10/20/18 5:54:39 PM #15:	tough shit, you're the president. you don't get to block people just because you disagree with their point of view --- I obviously like you at least a little to even talk to you -cornman one day I hope to post a message so great it ends up in someones sig -Two_Dee <cite>catboy0_0 posted [p:910866362] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote>tough shit, you're the president. you don't get to block people just because you disagree with their point of view</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Anteaterking 10/20/18 5:54:45 PM #16:	Twitter has a mute feature, so any argument that stems from "He doesn't want to see them" isn't valid. --- http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg <cite>Anteaterking posted [p:910866374] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote>Twitter has a mute feature, so any argument that stems from "He doesn't want to see them" isn't valid.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Alpha218 10/20/18 5:55:02 PM #17:	Nomadic View posted... Either Twitter is a public platform or it isnt. He should absolutely be able to block people, or in the alternative Twitter cannot ban speech it doesnt like. This isn't Twitter policy. It's literally illegal for him to block people from his Twitter account --- I'm Commander Shepard, and this is my favorite user on the Citadel. https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/1349-mario Now Playing: nothing :( <cite>Alpha218 posted [p:910866381] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>Nomadic View posted...</cite> <quote>Either Twitter is a public platform or it isnt. He should absolutely be able to block people, or in the alternative Twitter cannot ban speech it doesnt like.</quote> This isn't Twitter policy. It's literally illegal for him to block people from his Twitter account</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DarkTransient 10/20/18 5:55:07 PM #18:	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? --- Proud to be part of the 1% of society that's smart enough to realise Australia is not real. <cite>DarkTransient posted [p:910866388] 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>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> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DarkTransient 10/20/18 5:55:28 PM #19:	catboy0_0 posted... tough shit, you're the president. you don't get to block people just because you disagree with their point of view STFU, you don't think Tiamat is cute, you don't get to have an opinion. --- Proud to be part of the 1% of society that's smart enough to realise Australia is not real. <cite>DarkTransient posted [p:910866405] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>catboy0_0 posted...</cite> <quote>tough shit, you're the president. you don't get to block people just because you disagree with their point of view</quote> STFU, you don't think Tiamat is cute, you don't get to have an opinion.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tmaster148 10/20/18 5:55:54 PM #20:	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. --- https://imgur.com/BBcZDLJ <cite>Tmaster148 posted [p:910866420] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</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> ... Copied to Clipboard!
catboy0_0 10/20/18 5:56:15 PM #21:	DarkTransient posted... catboy0_0 posted... tough shit, you're the president. you don't get to block people just because you disagree with their point of view STFU, you don't think Tiamat is cute, you don't get to have an opinion. attractive maybe, but cute it is not. at least not in the image you posted --- I obviously like you at least a little to even talk to you -cornman one day I hope to post a message so great it ends up in someones sig -Two_Dee <cite>catboy0_0 posted [p:910866442] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote><cite>catboy0_0 posted...</cite> <quote>tough shit, you're the president. you don't get to block people just because you disagree with their point of view</quote> STFU, you don't think Tiamat is cute, you don't get to have an opinion.</quote> attractive maybe, but cute it is not. at least not in the image you posted</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ledbowman 10/20/18 5:56:22 PM #22:	He literally blocked a veteran advocacy group because they were calling his shit and getting liked to the top reply. --- I wish we all waved <cite>ledbowman posted [p:910866448] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote>He literally blocked a veteran advocacy group because they were calling his shit and getting liked to the top reply.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
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.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
AABLMD82 10/20/18 5:58:46 PM #24:	Wait, people actually side with Trump on this one? --- What ever happened to Mad Stalker? <cite>AABLMD82 posted [p:910866553] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote>Wait, people actually side with Trump on this one?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tmaster148 10/20/18 5:58:58 PM #25:	DarkTransient posted... 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. The president can't prevent people from speaking to him. Thus he can't block people on his twitter account that he uses as the president. It's a simple concept really. --- https://imgur.com/BBcZDLJ <cite>Tmaster148 posted [p:910866565] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</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><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.</quote> The president can't prevent people from speaking to him. Thus he can't block people on his twitter account that he uses as the president. It's a simple concept really.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Anteaterking 10/20/18 5:59:27 PM #26:	DarkTransient posted... The only difference is that the user who blocks them will not see the post. That's not the issue at stake here. If Trump was muting people, that wouldn't be an issue. --- http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg <cite>Anteaterking posted [p:910866587] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote>The only difference is that the user who blocks them will not see the post.</quote> That's not the issue at stake here. If Trump was muting people, that wouldn't be an issue.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
stone 10/20/18 5:59:34 PM #27:	AABLMD82 posted... Wait, people actually side with Trump on this one? His slurpers side with him on everything, nothing new there. --- PONG WAS REAL? I thought that was just a story parents told kids to scare them <cite>stone posted [p:910866596] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>AABLMD82 posted...</cite> <quote>Wait, people actually side with Trump on this one?</quote> His slurpers side with him on everything, nothing new there.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#28	Post #28 was unavailable or deleted.
catboy0_0 10/20/18 5:59:57 PM #29:	wtf republicans hate the first amendment now --- I obviously like you at least a little to even talk to you -cornman one day I hope to post a message so great it ends up in someones sig -Two_Dee <cite>catboy0_0 posted [p:910866619] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote>wtf republicans hate the first amendment now</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#30	Post #30 was unavailable or deleted.
DarkTransient 10/20/18 6:00:45 PM #31:	Tmaster148 posted... The president can't prevent people from speaking to him. Thus he can't block people on his twitter account that he uses as the president. It's a simple concept really. Please point out exactly which words in the First Amendment you think cover this situation. --- Proud to be part of the 1% of society that's smart enough to realise Australia is not real. <cite>DarkTransient posted [p:910866658] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <quote>The president can't prevent people from speaking to him. Thus he can't block people on his twitter account that he uses as the president. It's a simple concept really.</quote> Please point out exactly which words in the First Amendment you think cover this situation.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#32	Post #32 was unavailable or deleted.
WhoAltisitneway 10/20/18 6:01:30 PM #33:	Tmaster148 posted... 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. You can just log off twitter to view his tweets so... --- #Resist #BlueWave2018 #NotMyPresident <cite>WhoAltisitneway posted [p:910866692] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <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> You can just log off twitter to view his tweets so...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
scar the 1 10/20/18 6:01:47 PM #34:	DarkTransient posted... 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. Well, according to that federal court, the first amendment guarantees that a government official using their Twitter in an official capacity is not allowed to block the Twitter accounts of American citizens. --- Everything has an end, except for the sausage. It has two. <cite>scar the 1 posted [p:910866701] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</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><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.</quote> Well, according to that federal court, the first amendment guarantees that a government official using their Twitter in an official capacity is not allowed to block the Twitter accounts of American citizens.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheCyborgNinja 10/20/18 6:01:53 PM #35:	People need to just tag him in tiny hand, Toad, or stupid people pics. Constantly. --- "message parlor" ? do you mean the post office ? - SlayerX888 <cite>TheCyborgNinja posted [p:910866709] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote>People need to just tag him in tiny hand, Toad, or stupid people pics. Constantly.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
spudger 10/20/18 6:02:13 PM #36:	funny how the right cried like babies when his account was shut down for half a second or when they were considering blocking his account altogether. --- -Only dead fish swim with the current http://error1355.com/ce/spudger.html <cite>spudger posted [p:910866727] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote>funny how the right cried like babies when his account was shut down for half a second or when they were considering blocking his account altogether.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#37	Post #37 was unavailable or deleted.
Tmaster148 10/20/18 6:02:43 PM #38:	WhoAltisitneway posted... Tmaster148 posted... 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. You can just log off twitter to view his tweets so... I think you missed the part about being able to talk to him. --- https://imgur.com/BBcZDLJ <cite>Tmaster148 posted [p:910866745] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>WhoAltisitneway posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <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> You can just log off twitter to view his tweets so...</quote> I think you missed the part about being able to talk to him.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#39	Post #39 was unavailable or deleted.
#40	Post #40 was unavailable or deleted.
Tmaster148 10/20/18 6:03:40 PM #41:	Hi_Rihanna posted... spudger posted... funny how the right cried like babies when his account was shut down for half a second or when they were considering blocking his account altogether. funny how people who boast about ignore lists suddenly hate ignore lists Ignoring someone on gamefaqs doesn't prevent them from speaking to you. --- https://imgur.com/BBcZDLJ <cite>Tmaster148 posted [p:910866783] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>Hi_Rihanna posted...</cite> <quote><cite>spudger posted...</cite> <quote>funny how the right cried like babies when his account was shut down for half a second or when they were considering blocking his account altogether.</quote> funny how people who boast about ignore lists suddenly hate ignore lists</quote> Ignoring someone on gamefaqs doesn't prevent them from speaking to you.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tropicalwood 10/20/18 6:03:44 PM #42:	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. So does a door --- ayy lmao ayy lmao \|\| oaml oaml yya yya ayy lmao ayy lmao \|\| oaml oaml yya yya <cite>Tropicalwood posted [p:910866784] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</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> So does a door</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DarkTransient 10/20/18 6:03:47 PM #43:	scar the 1 posted... Well, according to that federal court, the first amendment guarantees that a government official using their Twitter in an official capacity is not allowed to block the Twitter accounts of American citizens. There's literally nothing in the actual text of the first amendment that says anything of the sort. If such a decision really did happen, it's clearly a case of legislating from the bench - and will be shot down the instant it reaches the supreme court. --- Proud to be part of the 1% of society that's smart enough to realise Australia is not real. <cite>DarkTransient posted [p:910866787] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>scar the 1 posted...</cite> <quote>Well, according to that federal court, the first amendment guarantees that a government official using their Twitter in an official capacity is not allowed to block the Twitter accounts of American citizens.</quote> There's literally nothing in the actual text of the first amendment that says anything of the sort. If such a decision really did happen, it's clearly a case of legislating from the bench - and will be shot down the instant it reaches the supreme court.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
spudger 10/20/18 6:03:52 PM #44:	Hi_Rihanna posted... spudger posted... funny how the right cried like babies when his account was shut down for half a second or when they were considering blocking his account altogether. funny how people who boast about ignore lists suddenly hate ignore lists funny how one's the president of the united states --- -Only dead fish swim with the current http://error1355.com/ce/spudger.html <cite>spudger posted [p:910866794] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>Hi_Rihanna posted...</cite> <quote><cite>spudger posted...</cite> <quote>funny how the right cried like babies when his account was shut down for half a second or when they were considering blocking his account altogether.</quote> funny how people who boast about ignore lists suddenly hate ignore lists</quote> funny how one's the president of the united states</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
NeoShadowhen 10/20/18 6:04:04 PM #45:	He's pushing the issue because it's putting Twitter in a very akward position. You'd better believe Twitter just wants this whole thing to go away. <cite>NeoShadowhen posted [p:910866805] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote>He's pushing the issue because it's putting Twitter in a very akward position. You'd better believe Twitter just wants this whole thing to go away.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
catboy0_0 10/20/18 6:04:11 PM #46:	Hey_Rihanna --- I obviously like you at least a little to even talk to you -cornman one day I hope to post a message so great it ends up in someones sig -Two_Dee <cite>catboy0_0 posted [p:910866811] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote>Hey_Rihanna</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#47	Post #47 was unavailable or deleted.
ThePieReborn 10/20/18 6:04:45 PM #48:	The district court substantially twisted the definition of a designated public forum. It's likely to be overturned. --- Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire! <cite>ThePieReborn posted [p:910866835] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote>The district court substantially twisted the definition of a designated public forum. It's likely to be overturned.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Serious Cat 10/20/18 6:04:53 PM #49:	DarkTransient posted... 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. It's not just preventing feedback. It's deliberately preventing specific individuals and entities from reading otherwise publicly available official government statements. That's illegal. --- I are Serious Cat This is serious thread <cite>Serious Cat posted [p:910866842] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote>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.</quote> It's not just preventing feedback. It's deliberately preventing specific individuals and entities from reading otherwise publicly available official government statements. That's illegal.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DarkTransient 10/20/18 6:04:54 PM #50:	catboy0_0 posted... Hey_Rihanna What a surprise, the guy with bad taste in babes also doesn't know how to tag or get usernames right. Let me fix that for you. @Hi_Rihanna --- Proud to be part of the 1% of society that's smart enough to realise Australia is not real. <cite>DarkTransient posted [p:910866843] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>catboy0_0 posted...</cite> <quote>Hey_Rihanna</quote> What a surprise, the guy with bad taste in babes also doesn't know how to tag or get usernames right. Let me fix that for you. @Hi_Rihanna</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4

Current Events > Trump is trying to appeal the decision that he can't block people on twitter. (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > Trump is trying to appeal the decision that he can't block people on twitter.