Trump Breaks First Amendment on Twitter

[jprince99x 1,068]

The 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a New York judge's ruling and found that Trump "engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination by utilizing Twitter's 'blocking' function to limit certain users' access to his social media account, which is otherwise open to the public at large, because he disagrees with their speech."

"We hold that he engaged in such discrimination," the ruling adds.

The judges on the appeals court concluded that "the First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise-open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees."

SOURCE:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/09/politics/twitter-trump-appeals-court/index.html

this has me rolling 

[M Monstre 29,497]

The same people who defend hate speech as "free speech" will also defend Trump saying "well, those people were just hating on him, so he has the right to block them!!!1"

[ZacharyMark 10,048]

He also blocked a veterans page with over 500k followers didn't he?

[geopang 3,861]

There’s a difference between blocking a person’s tweets, and completely eradicating someone’s existence from social media. Which is exactly what these platforms have been doing..All that money they throw into politics, I would expect them to be held to constitutional law as well

Edited July 10 by geopang

[neptugne 26,605]

See when you do clownery

[iCpro 14,112]

11 minutes ago, geopang said:

There’s a difference between blocking a person’s tweets, and completely eradicating someone’s existence from social media. Which is exactly what these platforms have been doing..All that money they throw into politics, I would expect them to be held to constitutional law as well

That’s not how freedom of speech works. FOS protects you from the government censoring you, not private companies. A company like twitter is well within its rights to decide was is and isn’t acceptable on its own site so long as it doesn’t interfere with discrimination and hate speech laws. 

[Faysalaaa 1,648]

His account is still public, they can still view the page. Cortez has blocked many people. Blocking users should not be illegal lol

[Faysalaaa 1,648]

20 minutes ago, iCpro said:

That’s not how freedom of speech works. FOS protects you from the government censoring you, not private companies. A company like twitter is well within its rights to decide was is and isn’t acceptable on its own site so long as it doesn’t interfere with discrimination and hate speech laws. 

These are not private companies, they are monopoly protected and funded by government. 

[Woolfsmck 1,331]

4 hours ago, Faysalaaa said:

His account is still public, they can still view the page. Cortez has blocked many people. Blocking users should not be illegal lol

AOC has two lawsoots filed against her. .One from conservative, one from liberal legislators.  

For the 'exact' constitutional infraction.

[Faysalaaa 1,648]

3 hours ago, Woolfsmck said:

AOC has two lawsoots filed against her. .One from conservative, one from liberal legislators.  

For the 'exact' constitutional infraction.

They sued her for the same reason as Trump? thats crazy I dont think it has anything to do with the constitution. Public figures should be allowed to have privacy but Trump and AOC accounts are still public even if they block you.

[Woolfsmck 1,331]

22 minutes ago, Faysalaaa said:

They sued her for the same reason as Trump? thats crazy I dont think it has anything to do with the constitution. Public figures should be allowed to have privacy but Trump and AOC accounts are still public even if they block you.

Freedom of speech on a public media outlet...

Trump/AOC can block their personal accounts but not their public verified ones 

[iCpro 14,112]

12 hours ago, Faysalaaa said:

These are not private companies, they are monopoly protected and funded by government. 

You acknowledge that there are multiple companies at play, yet you still think that it’s a monopoly? That’s not how this works.

Regardless of whether they receive government funding and assistance or not, it does not change the fact that they are NOT part of the government, and therefore the first amendment does not apply to their use of their own services.

[djBuffoon 9,461]

13 hours ago, M Monstre said:

The same people who defend hate speech as "free speech" will also defend Trump saying "well, those people were just hating on him, so he has the right to block them!!!1"

^^^ This. 

[SEANGT 2,819]

Yeah I think this is a dumb thing to bring to court at all. Just sign out and go to their profile if you must see the tweets. Really not a big deal.

[Postboy 3,863]

This is absurd. Blocking someone from your view does not equal to literally blocking their speech. Their “speech” is still public and accessible.  

Please move on to issues that matter.