jprince99x 1,844 Report Posted July 10 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 Let’s have some fun this beat is Sapokanikan 3 4 3 1 Quote Share Link to post Share on other sites Facebook Twitter
M Monstre 31,553 Report Posted July 10 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" 2 2 Quote Share Link to post Share on other sites Facebook Twitter
ZacharyMark 10,653 Report Posted July 10 He also blocked a veterans page with over 500k followers didn't he? 1 Quote Share Link to post Share on other sites Facebook Twitter
geopang 4,824 Report Posted July 10 (edited) 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 1 Quote Share Link to post Share on other sites Facebook Twitter
weed 31,135 Report Posted July 10 See when you do clownery 1 Quote Share Link to post Share on other sites Facebook Twitter
iCpro 14,177 Report Posted July 10 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. G A G A 7 2 Quote Share Link to post Share on other sites Facebook Twitter
Faysalaaa 3,083 Report Posted July 10 His account is still public, they can still view the page. Cortez has blocked many people. Blocking users should not be illegal lol 2 Quote Share Link to post Share on other sites Facebook Twitter
Faysalaaa 3,083 Report Posted July 10 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. 1 Quote Share Link to post Share on other sites Facebook Twitter
Woolfsmck 2,007 Report Posted July 10 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. like a cat in a sil, I observe life, moving and still. My words give a clue,look inside to see whats true Quote Share Link to post Share on other sites Facebook Twitter
Faysalaaa 3,083 Report Posted July 10 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. Quote Share Link to post Share on other sites Facebook Twitter
Woolfsmck 2,007 Report Posted July 11 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 like a cat in a sil, I observe life, moving and still. My words give a clue,look inside to see whats true Quote Share Link to post Share on other sites Facebook Twitter
iCpro 14,177 Report Posted July 11 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. G A G A 6 Quote Share Link to post Share on other sites Facebook Twitter
djBuffoon 9,524 Report Posted July 11 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. Quote Share Link to post Share on other sites Facebook Twitter
SEANGT 3,109 Report Posted July 11 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. 2 Quote Share Link to post Share on other sites Facebook Twitter
Postboy 4,112 Report Posted July 11 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. 1 1 Quote Share Link to post Share on other sites Facebook Twitter