Now with added cancer!

Snapshots:

1. This Post - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, archive.is

^{I am a bot. (Info / Contact)}

Here’s where it gets fun.

If Twitter is a public forum, then banning or censoring “hate speech” becomes problematic.

In short, progressives win the battle against Drumpf, lose the war on denying nazis, conservatives, anyone right of Sanders, etc. it’s a bit of a Pyrrhic victory.

It's only the president of the united states as an acting member of the government that can't prevent people from interacting directly with him.

Especially given that he said it was official communication

It seems like the ruling just might be that Twitter is a public forum when Trump, as a public official, is using it as such.

Twitter is a

Only his timeline/his twats etc as a consequence of being a spergy twatter posting POTUS

“This case requires us to consider whether a public official may, consistent with the First Amendment, ’block’ a person from his Twitter account in response to the political views that person has expressed, and whether the analysis differs because that public official is the President of the United States,” Buchwald said. “The answer to both questions is no.”

Daddy Defenders reading things

Daddy Defender. Ewwwwewe. Nope I’m just interested in seeing if the CA 1A public forum argument advances to cyberspace. And all signs say: gradually.

Go 'way.

lmao

Consistent with the First.

Now working forwards, can Twatter block someone from free speech? Look to CA and the mall cases. I’m betting this gets fun with people trying to toe the line on what is private versus public.

This case is based on idiotic facts but it could provide a very interesting line of 1A case law. I’m interested in how it develops.

communicating with the president in a public square arguably makes you a public figure for legal purposes

it could be that one tweet at trump and youre not allowed to block anyone ever again if they get their way

That’s not how public figure works.

You can speak at city hall and go home. You’re not a public figure.

once youre home youre not but these guys are on twitter all day

communicating with the president in a public square arguably makes you a public figure for legal purposes

wat

if someones giving a speech and you go up on stage with them to debate, then youre also open to that happening to you

you cant barge in and say your piece and then act as though youre entitled not to be disturbed afterwards lol

Lol, do you have brain damage or are you a natural born idiot?

nah i just know how basic obvious things work

also it turns out the judge cant actually make trump unblock anyone or stop him from blocking, he just said its unconstitutional

ya, nobody seems to be able to stop trump from doing unconstitutional shit

nah i just know how basic obvious things work

Lmao, good one

well i guess well see how this pans out huh

it could be that one tweet at trump and youre not allowed to block anyone ever again if they get their way

Lol, retard.

That's how it works out.

yeah i guess well have to watch trump definitely unblock everyone and not just ignore the non ruling

Changing the subject to something that makes you look like less of an idiot won't make me stop laughing at the retarded shit you've already said.

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/8lue9s/trump_ignores_court_ruling_that_he_cant_block/?st=jhl2lxfd&sh=a8d18e7c

oh wow turns out i was right

now watch absolutely no repercussions come of it

the public square analogy was always a hypothetical because this was always going to be the outcome

it could be that one tweet at trump and youre not allowed to block anyone ever again if they get their way

Lol, retard.

That's how it pans out.

these are pretty bad responses dude

"u dum" is like the maximum level some of you guys are capable of, lift your game

No u

If someone is giving a speech and he asks the audience for their pinion, that does not make every audience member who replies a public figure.

what if they come up on stage and grab the mic

because thats effectively what youre doing replying to the president on his social media

Nigga what.

the argument is that his twitter is a platform for official statements

if someone adds their piece theyre also on that platform by proxy

its literally identical in terms of law to interrupting a speech bernie style

and whether the analysis differs because that public official is the President of the United States

it really doesnt though

also it can be argued that you can see everything if you log out

nobody is entitled to snarky replies to presidential announcements

I mean it's right there in the quote by the judge who made the ruling. I'm literally quoting the ruling.

yeah its speculative though, and in this case hes wrong regardless

activist judges need to be removed tbh

What is speculative? What do you mean when you say he's wrong? By default, he's more correct than you are because he's the judge presiding over the case. It's like saying littering is legal because you disagree with the law. No, it isn't. Those are just your opinions.

By default, he's more correct than you are because he's the judge presiding over the case.

lol

It's like saying littering is legal because you disagree with the law. No, it isn't. Those are just your opinions.

no because its just his opinion its not an actual law

Judges job is to interpret the law, a legally enforced interpretation. The citizen can disagree, but can't enforce his interpretation of the law. So saying "he's wrong" means literally nothing in a court. And still, I have no idea what you mean when you say "it's speculative". No, it's not, it's a ruling, not a speculation. Unless I'm reading you wrong?

BTW I agree with the stance that it's a stupid ruling, but that doesn't mean much because it's just my opinion, man.

Judges job is to interpret the law, a legally enforced interpretation.

this is in no way legally enforced

And still, I have no idea what you mean when you say "it's speculative".

it was basically "the question is whether x affects y law", and then he states his opinion

its a suggestion

BTW I agree with the stance that it's a stupid ruling, but that doesn't mean much because it's just my opinion, man.

well youll be glad to know that trump is pretty much guaranteed to ignore it

it could be that one tweet at trump and youre not allowed to block anyone ever again if they get their way

Lol, retard.

This just in: all public officials private property is now public domain, because public is a word used in the title public official.

and whether the analysis differs because that public official is the President of the United States

Which office a public official holds shouldn't make any difference because they're all public officials to the exact same extent, right? Like, there is no "more public official than the other public officials", right?

I'm not sure I would think of the local mayor as the same as the president in terms of the public forum aspect. You'd have to read what the judge wrote about why he thinks it's different cause I don't know.

I'm only asking for the sake of conversation. I know you aren't responsible for the ruling.

It's okay, I'm just saying that I haven't read his justification of it. It's not really a ruling I agree with (corporate-owned social media as public forum isn't a good idea IMO.)

I demand a condo in trump tower. Socialism is the best

..and DRUMFPGHTPPHGHT'S GOING TO PAY FOR IT!!

Here’s where it gets fun.

OwO

If Twitter is a public forum

No it isn't. Nobody implied that. Goddamn retards 😂

likely the only way they can enforce it, if at all

Well now that I finished a bit of the slog through the opinion.

Yes, Ed, the judge essentially said it’s public in the sense that when a government official uses it, viewpoint discrimination can’t occur via blocking.

So if someone posted right wing speech to Pelosi that she didn’t like, but given this ruling can’t/shouldn’t remove, would it be proper for Twitter to remove the viewpoint expressed by the user or remove the user?

My hunch is no, because the end effect is the same, viewpoint discrimination.

I’m just amused by Daddy being the one to move 1A rights forward. Those 4 AM rants are worth something.

It's literally in the first paragraph genius

And Pelosi is a public official. Genius. So can the private forum remove speech on her behalf?

Public officials can't block people on Twitter. What is the difficulty that you're having?

Sigh I think you’re missing my point.

I’m pondering how far this can go. You can’t block people but can you have Twitter remove their content?

If Twitter is a public forum, then banning or censoring “hate speech” becomes problematic.

Yep, this is actually a win for the right since twitter is run by SJW's when it comes to censoring content.

Imagine forcing yourself to believe this.

Eh look at California. Free speech advocates made the argument that a privately owned mall is a public forum and the state court agreed.

The 1A argument cuts both ways in the Trump case and while the underlying facts are frankly ridiculous, there is an interesting argument now. If the blue check makes you a public figure, can you block people? Why makes te President’s account different from a Senators or a CEOs? Or an actors?

I’m predicting it gets fun.

Why makes te President’s account different from a Senators or a CEOs?

Probably something to do with one supposedly representing all constituents of America.

And that differs from someone representing the State of California in a meaningful way?

CEOs represent the state of california?

I was referencing a senator, since you included full text and referenced daddy representing us all.

But a CEO could be seen as a public figure. If the CEO of Exxon started flaming people and then blocking responses, I’d say he kinda put himself in the position of engaging in the public forum and people can respond to his public comments.

Similarly if one of the Koch’s started shitposting, I’d say he can’t really “suppress” alternative viewpoints and response since it strangled market’s viewpoints. Not wild it be reasonable to have the company (Twitter) remove viewpoints Koch didn’t like.

Honestly I’m a little surprised by the ruling but completely happy with it. This takes the First Amendment digital and applies to a private company. A court accepting technology and civil rights is good.

My next question, given how Daddy loooooves following orders: What would happen if the judge ordered Twitter to unblock the plaintiffs?

I was referencing a senator, since you included full text and referenced daddy representing us all.

Yeah tbh I didn't read it.

But a CEO could be seen as a public figure.

In the eyes of the law, no.

My next question, given how Daddy loooooves following orders: What would happen if the judge ordered Twitter to unblock the plaintiffs?

Twitter probably removes the feature from all verified active representatives in America.

In the eyes of the law, no.

Well yes a CEO can be a public figure in the eyes of the law. Slander law for instance. You can’t attack a private person unreasonably but the rules change for public figures, such as CEOs. In the case of free speech, as I stated elsewhere, some states have determine private property has become the public forum...so if a public figure holds forth an opinion, I could see some argument on viewpoint discrimination.

Twitter probably removes the feature from all verified active representatives in America.

Sounds like fun to me.

Well yes a CEO can be a public figure in the eyes of the law. Slander law for instance.

I edited my post just after posting because you wormed "public figure" in there when the discussion was over public officials. You should probably read the ruling: "The court's thorough decision recognizes that the President's use of @realDonaldTrump on Twitter makes it the type of public forum in which the government may not, under the First Amendment, silence its critics"

from your own link.

Let’s back trackbecahse in my excitement I was stumbling al over myself, and I agree I made a couple fallacious statements.

I think we can both agree this individual ruling does not apply to CEOs and actors.

I tossed or wormed, public figure in there because I’m thinking that will be the next case, if this one sticks (hoping Trump appeals). Can you block someone from your own little slice of public fora?

I agree that this ruling is narrow in that it applies to Trump and arguably most if not all elected officials who use the platform as a public stage. But I’m curious how far the court will go in this.

Example, say some Charlottesville groupies spam Bernie with alt right stuff. Bernie can’t block them and complains to Twitter. Can Twitter block the content or the alt righties? I don’t think so since it would be viewpoint discrimination. Unless it was calls for violence or some form of unprotected speech.

Example 2: let’s say the CEO of Wal-Mart, one of the largest employers in America, posts political positions and commentary on his Twitter, then deletes alternative viewpoints. He’s using a quasi-public forum and removing viewpoints he dislikes.Using California as an example of quasi-public forums, this couldbe improper.

To be honest I’m geeking out because this case is a bit unique in more than a Trump way. Since cyberspace is still “new” and the how society interacts with it is constantly changing, as well as managed/owned primarily by private companies, there is a interplay present that opens up new arguments.

I edited my post just after posting because you wormed "public figure"

Translation only righteous lefties can move the goal posts.

You talking about my interlocutor? We were discussing public officials, they moved the goal posts and tried to pass "public figures" as being equivalent.

CEOs represent the state of california?

Why are you being deliberately obtuse?

Please, I'm an acutie.

its the same with net neutrality, if it gets classed as a utility then you cant arbitrarily deny people a platform

Twitter was classified as a utility?

part of what net neutrality is about is the internet and media platforms therein as a utility

ie you cant ban people from it, like the water company cant ban you from water for being racist

net neutrality is about is the internet and media platforms therein as a utility

Didn't we have net neutrality for a period of time? Was Twitter considered a utility then?

Dunno, did you get your Twatter utility bill?

Because I never got mine.

wasnt the same as what theyre now proposing, the reporting on it is muddied and deliberately vague

Someone help me. If utilities are platforms.

Does the electric company have to let homeless people protest in the lobby? Are the homeless now public figures? Is /u/captainpriapism their leader?

lol you clearly dont understand the premise of a utility

Does the electric company have to let homeless people protest in the lobby? Are the homeless now public figures? Is /u/captainpriapism their leader?

how are you this confused lol

it just means that twitter could become much like the electric company- ie cant cancel your power because someone on the internet said you were a racist

Think you missed the joke.

What are you talking about?

If anyone has ever paid you for any legal representation then they are even more stupid than you.

The 1st amendment has never been held to restrict private property owner's right to restrict speech using their property. The question was can a government official using a 3rd party service to speak, use that service to block people who they disagree with.

Trump is acting in his role as a government official when he tweets so he's not allowed infringe people's right to free speech by blocking them and the fact he's on Twitter doesn't change that. The ruling doesn't make Twitter do anything and they're not even a party to this lawsuit. The ruling isn't that Twitter has to unblock these users. The ruling is that Trump has to do something.

Never?

Oh you sweet summer child.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

If you read the 70ish page opinion, the judge determined Twitter is a public forum. This could get weird.

it could develop into a bit of a Pyrrhic victory for all parties, as viewpoint discrimination restrictions will go digital

god i would come so fucking hard if that happened. i would try to stand up and slip in the oozing puddle of thick, viscous semen surrounding me, cracking my skull open and dying in shuddering paroxysms of ecstasy

Now he has to read my House of Cards fanfiction starring original character Donald J. Underwood!

Post excerpts 😁😉

I'm sorry, I'm too tired. For now, enjoy this incel meme

Nice maymay! 😜

That's a great argument for incelcide

get laid or get shot

Can’t tell which one I want more at the moment.

You definitely don't pull the lever in that situation tbqh

Donald J. Get-on-that-wood.

how many times do i gotta ask for a dick pic till he gives in 😔

lol implying hes ever read a tweet reply in his life

Clearly read the comments of the people he banned.

imagine spamming his twitter all day every day until you get banned and then demanding legal recourse so you can continue

It was mostly just people who posted highly upvoted critical comments. Steven King was banned and so was J.K. Rowling. He did not use that ability to clean up spam.

if i were him i would block JK Rowling too, that lady is nuts.

trumps twitter is filled with paid shills and blue checkmark nobodies and he was right to block them all en masse

critical comments

thats an interesting way to describe sperging twitter losers like ed krassenstein or jules suzdalwhatever copy pasting the same bullshit over and over

Steven King was banned and so was J.K. Rowling.

yeah theyre spergs that spam bullshit with the rest of them, theyre not beyond reproach for writing overrated novels

He did not use that ability to clean up spam.

everything that replies to him is spam what are you talking about

i challenge you to find one good comment replying to trump ever

If Trumps personal account is public domain, isn't everyone's?

No, because he's a President who uses the account for policy announcements and the like and we aren't.

Is that the line? Any sitting official anywhere who mentions anything about policy is subject to being sued for blocking trolls?

Depends on if the trolls are replying to an account he uses to announce policy decisions. It's Trump's own fault hat he uses the official Presidential Twitter account and his personal account interchangeably.

'Official Presidential Twitter Account'. Love that framing. Is your Twitter account instantly the representative account of whatever business you happen to own/work for because you used it to talk about work? That's a pretty blurry line. Where does it stop? Does any host of a video featuring Obama instantly become public domain, incapable of blocking anti-Obama trolls in the comment section because Obama was POTUS at the time of recording?

I get that this decision was already made and that Trump will most likely appeal, but between you and me, this is a little bit ridiculous, right? You understand it's a judge with either a) further political ambitions and/or b) a political judge that genuinely dislikes Donald Trump.

Is your Twitter account instantly the representative account of whatever business you happen to own/work for because you used it to talk about work?

Things are different with regards tot he government lol. using a Twitter account for policy announcements makes it a governmental Twitter account.

No, it is not. if Trump is enough of an idiot to make policy announcements using his personal account, his personal account should be treated as governmental in nature.

Right, but we both know that you would never hold a prospective President Hillary Clinton/Bernie Sanders to that. Yeah, I know.. *"Yah huh I would!" No, you wouldn't, and it's obvious by the way you talk about him. You can't even help yourself lol.

bUt What AboUT HilLarY?

I mean, at least you didn't try to convince me of your objectivity lol. Thanks for that.

I dislike Hillary, but I also dislike Trump. Why is this so difficult for non-centrists to udnerstand?

Haha yeah me too. Totally hate everyone bro, but let me tell you why Hillary needs to go to prison for the rest of her life, bud..

What? N ever said Trump should go to prison, just that his Twitter posts should be considered an avenue by which the government communicates with the public in nature.

No, I get it pal. I'm right there with you, buddy. I'm a compete centrist. I'm so centrist that when I cast my ballot, I put a check mark directly in between the box for Hillary and Trump. Measured it with a micrometer. ..but let me tell you why anyone that dislikes Trump is anti-American.

This is what fentanyl does to you.

Yep. Right again, guy. Can't call you biased without being fucked up from fentanyl.

Lol mayo fragillity in action.

Imagine memeing to distract from being called out :^)

I'm only biased against whites.

Imagine trying to continue the meme for further distraction.

Imagine thinking that I don't unironcially dislike mayos.

Dank meme Terry! So glad we were able to get to the bottom of this. Imagine thinking that I don't unironically appreciate how reasonable and honest (especially with yourself) you are.

He has about as thin of skin as it gets. He def reads tweets and REEEEEEEs irl

i guarantee he posts shit and doesnt even care, hes like 70

have you seen old people facebook

the weirdos that reply to every single thing he does within minutes are the most pathetic people on earth with zero exaggeration

"In United States constitutional law, a public forum is a government-owned property that is open to public expression and assembly."

I don't think Trump's personal twitter account is government owned property, hell I don't even know if he owns his account.

Twitter is a CIA psyop to distract the sheeple away from learning about the chemtrails, so yeah it's gov owned

>unironically being this retarded

don't do meth, kids

he unironically fell for the meme

don't do meth, kids

Sorry about your temporary autism.

Yet some states have recognized that private property becomes public forum.

A lot of 1A nerds are excited right now.

It's effectively rented from Twitter, the rent is just your data and ads. Anyway, he conducts diplomacy over the platform and announces orders to his subordinates that are legally binding, he cannot claim it is not an official platform of the US President. Twitter is just the contractor that manages the platform for him.

You are the reason why well known people, such as every president ever and majority of celebrities can't even have a life without autists like yourself screeching over something that happened in it and writing on 20 different platforms, like OMG, A PERSON IS GETTING MARRIED, OMG A PERSON HAS KIDS, OMG OMG OMG.

The levels of autism I find on internet never stop to amuse me, thank you for keeping the streak going.

plus he had his account long before becoming president

i mean he still will, judges say stupid shit all the time thats unenforceable

legal rulings are unenforceable

not remembering Brown v. Board and how it took almost 10 years for real desegregation to happen (only through legislative action).

Unless the legislature decides out of the blue to do this, Daddy will still block anyone who sends him unsolicited bussy pics (me).

lol you just read a headline and took it at face value, the judge just made a comment about it and isnt forcing any change

do you think trump cares when a judge says something is unconstitutional, honestly

No, there's an actual ruling I read earlier today, let me try to drag it up

https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/999335948302389248

its in here, its literally just a statement that what he did is, in the judges opinion, unconstitutional

theres nothing in there to compel trump to do anything about it if he doesnt care personally

also the statement applies to literally anyone thats ever been paid by the american government, so shills btfo

I mean Abraham Lincoln arrested Francis Scott Keys grandson without charge because he wrote an editorial criticizing how Lincoln was ignoring a Judges ruling on not being allowed to arrest people without charges. Just sayin...

If he issue an injunction to Twitter to remove that capability from his account, Twitter had to comply.

https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/999335948302389248

literally just a judge bitching about muh constitution theres nothing there to compel trump to change anything

Well yeah, he's never cared about the law during his life anyway

#LawAndOrder

"wtf I hate the 1st amendment now!"

Implying people didn't already hate already

Well, reddit is a public forum, and reddit rules such as "no kys" violate first amendment so how about admins of the reddit as a whole can get the fucking rope now.

I wonder what the daddy defense force will say this time. Gas trump supporters

Here’s an issue with the ruling. You are not prevented from interacting with the tweet. He just won’t see the interaction. So not a violation of the 1A in the way they claimed it was.

I'm pretty sure 1st ammendment is freedom of speech and lack of it is violation of 1st ammendment.

Then again, it shouldn't exist on twitter, twitter is not USA.

You still have freedom of speech. The other person (in this instance) is just not listening.

Actually, in this instance it's:

"Can I say something?"

Server: fuck off autist.

So no, you don't, and freedom of speech doesn't fucking apply on internet, companies can do whatever the fuck they want inside, reddit admins can tell me what I can't say and what I can say, and I can even get banned for no reason whatsoever (even though they normally won't do that), so it doesn't matter either way.

But is limiting one avenue preventing freedom of speech? You can still write him letters or give him a call or find him at a rally and yell whatever hate you want at him.

Him blocking you on twitter is equivalent to someone putting on ear plugs in real life.

And agree with the rest of your comment. I dont see how someone can take any action against him blocking people on twitter.

We are talking solely about him blocking someone on twitter.

For any reason?

the judge better wiretap his house now that every area public officials express themselves in is apparently subject to this

I wonder if they realize that the implications for this is that literally every social media platform is not "open to the public" and that nothing is allowed to be banned??

if you log out you can see any tweet on trumps timeline whether he has that user blocked or not eg there’s no censorship

another tech ruling from people with no understanding of tech

You can also stop being a fuckwad who harasses politicians for no reason and you won't be blocked lol.

This also means that Twitter can not shadowban, if it does happen you can sue them. :) I don't care that Trump can't block people on twitter, to be honest, it is actually a step in the right direction because now Twitter is official a public forum.