Jump to content
Stefani Tee
Sign in to follow this  
politics

Trump Breaks First Amendment on Twitter

Featured Posts

Woolfsmck
1 hour ago, iCpro said:

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.

Supreme Court has ruled otherwise regardless of 'your' views here 

like a cat in a sil, I observe life, moving and still. My words give a clue,look inside to see whats true

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Woolfsmck
1 hour ago, SEANGT said:

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.

Public legislators matter in that their tweets impact a very large percentage of people. 

I could tweet shvt and about 2 people would smell the stink  

like a cat in a sil, I observe life, moving and still. My words give a clue,look inside to see whats true

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
iCpro
26 minutes ago, Woolfsmck said:

Supreme Court has ruled otherwise regardless of 'your' views here 

Hmm are you sure about that?

https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2019/6/17/18682099/supreme-court-ruling-first-amendment-social-media-public-forum

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190617/16001942415/supreme-court-signals-loud-clear-that-social-media-sites-are-not-public-forums-that-have-to-allow-all-speech.shtml

The Supreme Court ruled that social media sites are not public forums therefore are not subject to first amendment laws requiring them to allow free speech.

That being said, Trump using these platforms to suppress opposing voices is still a MAJOR violation of the first amendment.

G A G A

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Woolfsmck
1 hour ago, iCpro said:

Hmm are you sure about that?

https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2019/6/17/18682099/supreme-court-ruling-first-amendment-social-media-public-forum

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190617/16001942415/supreme-court-signals-loud-clear-that-social-media-sites-are-not-public-forums-that-have-to-allow-all-speech.shtml

The Supreme Court ruled that social media sites are not public forums therefore are not subject to first amendment laws requiring them to allow free speech.

That being said, Trump using these platforms to suppress opposing voices is still a MAJOR violation of the first amendment.

K...but AOC is different how?

like a cat in a sil, I observe life, moving and still. My words give a clue,look inside to see whats true

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
lovedillon

2 republicans are also trying to sue AOC for blocking them on Twitter... Twitter is not a government owned company & neither are the accounts held on their site so this case honestly doesn’t feel valid. It’s like people saying Starbucks can’t kick cops out of a public place, they actually can because it’s not a public place, it is privately owned property.

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Woolfsmck
17 minutes ago, lovedillon said:

2 republicans are also trying to sue AOC for blocking them on Twitter... Twitter is not a government owned company & neither are the accounts held on their site so this case honestly doesn’t feel valid. It’s like people saying Starbucks can’t kick cops out of a public place, they actually can because it’s not a public place, it is privately owned property.

You forgot to include the democrate lawsuit against AOC ...

On this violation you cannot separate the two or anyone else who have 

like a cat in a sil, I observe life, moving and still. My words give a clue,look inside to see whats true

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
iCpro
1 hour ago, Woolfsmck said:

K...but AOC is different how?

I didn’t mention AOC previously but ok...

However on that note you could argue that in Trumps case it violates the first amendment rights as everything Trump says or tweets is classified as an offical release, and therefore everything he says and does must be in line with the first amendment. I’m not sure whether the same rules apply to members of Congress but if they don’t then it could be argued that their twitter acc’s are for personal use rather than official business, as they are not a part of the executive but rather the legislative.

Edited by iCpro
G A G A
  • Like 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Woolfsmck
40 minutes ago, iCpro said:

I didn’t mention AOC previously but ok...

However on that note you could argue that in Trumps case it violates the first amendment rights as everything Trump says or tweets is classified as an offical release, and therefore everything he says and does must be in line with the first amendment. I’m not sure whether the same rules apply to members of Congress but if they don’t then it could be argued that their twitter acc’s are for personal use rather than official business, as they are not a part of the executive but rather the legislative.

Interesting spin.  

Let's see if it comes up during the proceedings

like a cat in a sil, I observe life, moving and still. My words give a clue,look inside to see whats true

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
lovedillon
2 hours ago, Woolfsmck said:

You forgot to include the democrate lawsuit against AOC ...

On this violation you cannot separate the two or anyone else who have 

I’m not trying to separate anyone, I didn’t know about the democrat suing her? Lmao either way it doesn’t change the fact that I think both cases against AOC & Trump are dumb & that they should be able to block whoever they want on a privately owned social media site.

Edited by lovedillon

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Faysalaaa
7 hours ago, iCpro said:

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.

Its not part of government but its also not a private company. These companies get government protection, allow them to break the law, give them special treatment, make it illegal for Americans to sue Google, dont pay taxes..

Any company that gets government protection like this are not part of the free market and no other company can ever compete with it.

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Woolfsmck
2 hours ago, lovedillon said:

I’m not trying to separate anyone, I didn’t know about the democrat suing her? Lmao either way it doesn’t change the fact that I think both cases against AOC & Trump are dumb & that they should be able to block whoever they want on a privately owned social media site.

Their private accounts are part of the litigation 

like a cat in a sil, I observe life, moving and still. My words give a clue,look inside to see whats true

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
×
×
  • Create New...