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
ZMythos 10/20/18 7:16:21 PM #102:	LOL Get Fucked, Trump. Fucking piece of shit. --- Rainbow Dashing: "it's just star wars" AutumnEspirit: kissu <cite>ZMythos posted [p:910869969] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote>LOL Get Fucked, Trump. Fucking piece of shit.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
snake1989 10/20/18 7:17:10 PM #103:	I don't think Trump should be able to block people. Now make Twitter and Facebook follow the same rules. If we take the analogy that social media is the new town hall for communicating directly with those in power, which this ruling does, then Twitter and Facebook are acting like thugs at the front door, restricting people's right to access their representatives in the first place. We already have laws in place that prevent private companies from restricting free speech (such as laws protecting the right to organize unions or reveal your salary to coworkers), so we have precedence for the government needing to regulate businesses in order to protect free expression and communciation. Let's apply that here as well. --- "A man chooses. A slave obeys."-Andrew Ryan <cite>snake1989 posted [p:910870007] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote>I don't think Trump should be able to block people. Now make Twitter and Facebook follow the same rules. If we take the analogy that social media is the new town hall for communicating directly with those in power, which this ruling does, then Twitter and Facebook are acting like thugs at the front door, restricting people's right to access their representatives in the first place. We already have laws in place that prevent private companies from restricting free speech (such as laws protecting the right to organize unions or reveal your salary to coworkers), so we have precedence for the government needing to regulate businesses in order to protect free expression and communciation. Let's apply that here as well.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
gunplagirl 10/20/18 7:20:40 PM #104:	1NfamousACE_2 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. He could block people...if he wasn't the President. Everyone should be able to see his messages. He'd maybe have an argument if he used the official POTUS Twitter for presidential stuff and his personal one for "I'm golfing and costing taxpayers 10+ million for the third time this month!" stuff. --- Pew pew! <cite>gunplagirl posted [p:910870190] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>1NfamousACE_2 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> He could block people...if he wasn't the President. Everyone should be able to see his messages.</quote> He'd maybe have an argument if he used the official POTUS Twitter for presidential stuff and his personal one for "I'm golfing and costing taxpayers 10+ million for the third time this month!" stuff.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
VipaGTS 10/20/18 7:22:40 PM #105:	gunplagirl posted... 1NfamousACE_2 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. He could block people...if he wasn't the President. Everyone should be able to see his messages. He'd maybe have an argument if he used the official POTUS Twitter for presidential stuff and his personal one for "I'm golfing and costing taxpayers 10+ million for the third time this month!" stuff. Exactly. But he uses his personal one to discuss policy and make political statements. Thats his own fault. --- "I devour urine just like my Portland Trailblazers, with piss poor defense." <cite>VipaGTS posted [p:910870288] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>gunplagirl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>1NfamousACE_2 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> He could block people...if he wasn't the President. Everyone should be able to see his messages.</quote> He'd maybe have an argument if he used the official POTUS Twitter for presidential stuff and his personal one for "I'm golfing and costing taxpayers 10+ million for the third time this month!" stuff.</quote> Exactly. But he uses his personal one to discuss policy and make political statements. Thats his own fault.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Anteaterking 10/20/18 7:35:02 PM #106:	snake1989 posted... I don't think Trump should be able to block people. Now make Twitter and Facebook follow the same rules. If we take the analogy that social media is the new town hall for communicating directly with those in power, which this ruling does, then Twitter and Facebook are acting like thugs at the front door, restricting people's right to access their representatives in the first place. So the way it should work is that any private organization that the president chooses to use is then taken over by the government? We already have laws in place that prevent private companies from restricting free speech (such as laws protecting the right to organize unions or reveal your salary to coworkers), so we have precedence for the government needing to regulate businesses in order to protect free expression and communciation. Let's apply that here as well. The NLRA is not about "free speech". It doesn't appeal to the First Amendment at all, but rather to the commerce clause. --- http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg <cite>Anteaterking posted [p:910870799] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>snake1989 posted...</cite> <quote>I don't think Trump should be able to block people. Now make Twitter and Facebook follow the same rules. If we take the analogy that social media is the new town hall for communicating directly with those in power, which this ruling does, then Twitter and Facebook are acting like thugs at the front door, restricting people's right to access their representatives in the first place. </quote> So the way it should work is that any private organization that the president chooses to use is then taken over by the government? <quote> We already have laws in place that prevent private companies from restricting free speech (such as laws protecting the right to organize unions or reveal your salary to coworkers), so we have precedence for the government needing to regulate businesses in order to protect free expression and communciation. Let's apply that here as well.</quote> The NLRA is not about "free speech". It doesn't appeal to the First Amendment at all, but rather to the commerce clause.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Funbazooka 10/20/18 7:46:02 PM #107:	Does anyone really believe that anyone he blocks on Twitter would have no way of seeing his tweets? --- "Don't trade your authenticity for approval." -Kanye West <cite>Funbazooka posted [p:910871295] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote>Does anyone really believe that anyone he blocks on Twitter would have no way of seeing his tweets?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
1NfamousACE_2 10/20/18 7:50:18 PM #108:	Funbazooka posted... Does anyone really believe that anyone he blocks on Twitter would have no way of seeing his tweets? Its not just about them seeing his tweets. Its about silencing their ability to speak back to him. --- New signature needed, acquire within from management <cite>1NfamousACE_2 posted [p:910871495] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>Funbazooka posted...</cite> <quote>Does anyone really believe that anyone he blocks on Twitter would have no way of seeing his tweets?</quote> Its not just about them seeing his tweets. Its about silencing their ability to speak back to him.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Lorenzo_2003 10/20/18 7:52:31 PM #109:	Tmaster148 posted... 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. That doesn't make sense because Twitter is not stopping these people from tweeting. They can tweet all they want, just not at a specific account/person if that person doesn't want to see it. It also doesn't make sense to use the government angle because there are restrictions even in real life as to how, when and where you can communicate in a government space. You will literally be arrested if you try to enter a secured restricted location, for example, and there are still rules to follow if we are just talking public access sites. --- ... <cite>Lorenzo_2003 posted [p:910871602] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <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> That doesn't make sense because Twitter is not stopping these people from tweeting. They can tweet all they want, just not at a specific account/person if that person doesn't want to see it. It also doesn't make sense to use the government angle because there are restrictions even in real life as to how, when and where you can communicate in a government space. You will literally be arrested if you try to enter a secured restricted location, for example, and there are still rules to follow if we are just talking public access sites.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
VipaGTS 10/20/18 7:55:20 PM #110:	The President cant pick and chose who is allowed to respond to him. Twitter is no different. He cant silence some people and not others on the same platform. He chose to become president and be a leader. So yea, they can still tweet but thats not the issue. He cant pick and choose who is allowed to respond to him specifically as president. Since he uses his personal account politically he cant do that. --- "I devour urine just like my Portland Trailblazers, with piss poor defense." <cite>VipaGTS posted [p:910871741] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote>The President cant pick and chose who is allowed to respond to him. Twitter is no different. He cant silence some people and not others on the same platform. He chose to become president and be a leader. So yea, they can still tweet but thats not the issue. He cant pick and choose who is allowed to respond to him specifically as president. Since he uses his personal account politically he cant do that.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TrevorBlack79 10/20/18 8:06:41 PM #111:	Anteaterking posted... So the way it should work is that any private organization that the president chooses to use is then taken over by the government? No one is saying this. In fact, several users have clarified itt that: A) He can mute these people instead B) He can use a different medium from Twitter if he wants to speak in his official capacity C) Government communication, not the medium used to communicate it, is subject to the First Amendment. Twitter can ban users. Government Twitter accounts cannot. Do you want to continue being willfully ignorant, or do you want to stop asking the same stupid question that has already been put to bed itt? --- "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:910872309] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>Anteaterking posted...</cite> <quote>So the way it should work is that any private organization that the president chooses to use is then taken over by the government?</quote> No one is saying this. In fact, several users have clarified itt that: A) He can mute these people instead B) He can use a different medium from Twitter if he wants to speak in his official capacity C) Government communication, not the medium used to communicate it, is subject to the First Amendment. Twitter can ban users. Government Twitter accounts cannot. Do you want to continue being willfully ignorant, or do you want to stop asking the same stupid question that has already been put to bed itt?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Anteaterking 10/20/18 8:07:41 PM #112:	Lorenzo_2003 posted... That doesn't make sense because Twitter is not stopping these people from tweeting. They can tweet all they want, just not at a specific account/person if that person doesn't want to see it. It's not about what Twitter is doing, it's about what Trump is doing. Twitter isn't an entity who needs to comply with the laws in question, but public officials do. It also doesn't make sense to use the government angle because there are restrictions even in real life as to how, when and where you can communicate in a government space. You will literally be arrested if you try to enter a secured restricted location, for example, and there are still rules to follow if we are just talking public access sites. It's not about government spaces, it's about "public forums" which the district court judge used the Supreme Court standards for determining. --- http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg <cite>Anteaterking posted [p:910872348] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>Lorenzo_2003 posted...</cite> <quote>That doesn't make sense because Twitter is not stopping these people from tweeting. They can tweet all they want, just not at a specific account/person if that person doesn't want to see it.</quote> It's not about what Twitter is doing, it's about what Trump is doing. Twitter isn't an entity who needs to comply with the laws in question, but public officials do. <quote> It also doesn't make sense to use the government angle because there are restrictions even in real life as to how, when and where you can communicate in a government space. You will literally be arrested if you try to enter a secured restricted location, for example, and there are still rules to follow if we are just talking public access sites.</quote> It's not about government spaces, it's about "public forums" which the district court judge used the Supreme Court standards for determining.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Anteaterking 10/20/18 8:08:49 PM #113:	TrevorBlack79 posted... No one is saying this. In fact, several users have clarified itt that: A) He can mute these people instead B) He can use a different medium from Twitter if he wants to speak in his official capacity C) Government communication, not the medium used to communicate it, is subject to the First Amendment. Twitter can ban users. Government Twitter accounts cannot. Do you want to continue being willfully ignorant, or do you want to stop asking the same stupid question that has already been put to bed itt? Did you quote the wrong person? I agree with all of those things. The person I'm responding to said that we should hold Twitter to the same standards that we hold public officials to. --- http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg <cite>Anteaterking posted [p:910872416] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>TrevorBlack79 posted...</cite> <quote>No one is saying this. In fact, several users have clarified itt that: A) He can mute these people instead B) He can use a different medium from Twitter if he wants to speak in his official capacity C) Government communication, not the medium used to communicate it, is subject to the First Amendment. Twitter can ban users. Government Twitter accounts cannot. Do you want to continue being willfully ignorant, or do you want to stop asking the same stupid question that has already been put to bed itt?</quote> Did you quote the wrong person? I agree with all of those things. The person I'm responding to said that we should hold Twitter to the same standards that we hold public officials to.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Funbazooka 10/20/18 8:19:59 PM #114:	Funny how Twitter itself has blocked messages and statements from politicians before, simply because they disagreed with it. Was Twitter violating everyone's First Amendment rights to see the Senator's statement? https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/twitter-blocks-marsha-blackburns-pro-life-senate-campaign-ad A digital ad by Republican Senate candidate Marsha Blackburn was blocked by Twitter on Monday after the company claimed it contained an "inflammatory statement" related to abortion. Blackburn used her two-minute ad to say she "fought Planned Parenthood, and we stopped the sale of baby body parts, thank God." An employee of Twitter told Blackburn's team the ad would be blocked from appearing on the popular social media site unless Blackburn's claim that she "stopped the sale of baby body parts" while serving in Congress is edited out. Boasting of shutting down that aspect of Planned Parenthood's operation constituted "an inflammatory statement that is likely to evoke a strong negative reaction," Twitter told Blackburn's campaign. --- "Don't trade your authenticity for approval." -Kanye West <cite>Funbazooka posted [p:910872986] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote>Funny how Twitter itself has blocked messages and statements from politicians before, simply because they disagreed with it. Was Twitter violating everyone's First Amendment rights to see the Senator's statement? https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/twitter-blocks-marsha-blackburns-pro-life-senate-campaign-ad A digital ad by Republican Senate candidate Marsha Blackburn was blocked by Twitter on Monday after the company claimed it contained an "inflammatory statement" related to abortion. Blackburn used her two-minute ad to say she "fought Planned Parenthood, and we stopped the sale of baby body parts, thank God." An employee of Twitter told Blackburn's team the ad would be blocked from appearing on the popular social media site unless Blackburn's claim that she "stopped the sale of baby body parts" while serving in Congress is edited out. Boasting of shutting down that aspect of Planned Parenthood's operation constituted "an inflammatory statement that is likely to evoke a strong negative reaction," Twitter told Blackburn's campaign.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ZMythos 10/20/18 8:20:46 PM #115:	Funbazooka still can't fathom the difference between a government entity silencing somebody and a private entity enforcing their terms of service. --- Rainbow Dashing: "it's just star wars" AutumnEspirit: kissu <cite>ZMythos posted [p:910873021] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote>Funbazooka still can't fathom the difference between a government entity silencing somebody and a private entity enforcing their terms of service.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TrevorBlack79 10/20/18 8:20:55 PM #116:	Anteaterking posted... The person I'm responding to said that we should hold Twitter to the same standards that we hold public officials to. No he didn't, nor did he suggest what you said he suggested in the paragraph I quoted before. --- "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:910873033] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>Anteaterking posted...</cite> <quote>The person I'm responding to said that we should hold Twitter to the same standards that we hold public officials to.</quote> No he didn't, nor did he suggest what you said he suggested in the paragraph I quoted before.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Anteaterking 10/20/18 8:22:19 PM #117:	TrevorBlack79 posted... No he didn't, nor did he suggest what you said he suggested in the paragraph I quoted before. snake1989 posted... Now make Twitter and Facebook follow the same rules. --- http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg <cite>Anteaterking posted [p:910873096] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>TrevorBlack79 posted...</cite> <quote>No he didn't, nor did he suggest what you said he suggested in the paragraph I quoted before.</quote> <cite>snake1989 posted...</cite> <quote>Now make Twitter and Facebook follow the same rules.</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
VipaGTS 10/20/18 8:23:14 PM #118:	ZMythos posted... Funbazooka still can't fathom the difference between a government entity silencing somebody and a private entity enforcing their terms of service. Shhhh hes not the quickest one...just let him nonsensically ramble. --- "I devour urine just like my Portland Trailblazers, with piss poor defense." <cite>VipaGTS posted [p:910873155] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>ZMythos posted...</cite> <quote>Funbazooka still can't fathom the difference between a government entity silencing somebody and a private entity enforcing their terms of service.</quote> Shhhh hes not the quickest one...just let him nonsensically ramble.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SageHarpuiaHX 10/20/18 8:25:05 PM #119:	The hypocrisy behind this ruling is so blatant I would have that judge disbarred <cite>SageHarpuiaHX posted [p:910873249] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote>The hypocrisy behind this ruling is so blatant I would have that judge disbarred</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ZMythos 10/20/18 8:26:04 PM #120:	SageHarpuiaHX posted... The hypocrisy behind this ruling is so blatant I would have that judge disbarred Good thing you're not an authority on what constitutes fair judicial rulings. --- Rainbow Dashing: "it's just star wars" AutumnEspirit: kissu <cite>ZMythos posted [p:910873311] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>SageHarpuiaHX posted...</cite> <quote>The hypocrisy behind this ruling is so blatant I would have that judge disbarred</quote> Good thing you're not an authority on what constitutes fair judicial rulings.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Anteaterking 10/20/18 8:27:46 PM #121:	SageHarpuiaHX posted... The hypocrisy Please explain what makes it hypocritical. --- http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg <cite>Anteaterking posted [p:910873384] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>SageHarpuiaHX posted...</cite> <quote>The hypocrisy</quote> Please explain what makes it hypocritical.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Funbazooka 10/20/18 8:27:52 PM #122:	ZMythos posted... Funbazooka still can't fathom the difference between a government entity silencing somebody and a private entity enforcing their terms of service. Which is it? Private or public? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(legal) --- "Don't trade your authenticity for approval." -Kanye West <cite>Funbazooka posted [p:910873387] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>ZMythos posted...</cite> <quote>Funbazooka still can't fathom the difference between a government entity silencing somebody and a private entity enforcing their terms of service.</quote> Which is it? Private or public? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(legal)</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Bio1590 10/20/18 8:30:50 PM #123:	Funbazooka posted... Does anyone really believe that anyone he blocks on Twitter would have no way of seeing his tweets? Does anyone believe you've ever attempted an honest argument --- https://imgur.com/bbRWLI8 https://imgur.com/A0BErSV <cite>Bio1590 posted [p:910873531] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>Funbazooka posted...</cite> <quote>Does anyone really believe that anyone he blocks on Twitter would have no way of seeing his tweets?</quote> Does anyone believe you've ever attempted an honest argument</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MangaFan462 10/20/18 8:31:58 PM #124:	So is twitter going to remove the block function? --- https://i.redd.it/zwfbqetu2b8y.jpg / https://cdn.awwni.me/120ze.png / https://cdn.awwni.me/120w7.jpg https://imgur.com/ft0Sl2D /// MangaFan462 <cite>MangaFan462 posted [p:910873595] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote>So is twitter going to remove the block function?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ZMythos 10/20/18 8:32:09 PM #125:	Funbazooka posted... ZMythos posted... Funbazooka still can't fathom the difference between a government entity silencing somebody and a private entity enforcing their terms of service. Which is it? Private or public? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(legal) The nature of a place, the pattern of its normal activities, dictate the kinds of regulations of time, place, and manner that are reasonable. Another day, another instance of the Alt Right's infantile perception of context. --- Rainbow Dashing: "it's just star wars" AutumnEspirit: kissu <cite>ZMythos posted [p:910873608] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>Funbazooka posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ZMythos posted...</cite> <quote>Funbazooka still can't fathom the difference between a government entity silencing somebody and a private entity enforcing their terms of service.</quote> Which is it? Private or public? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(legal)</quote> <quote>The nature of a place, the pattern of its normal activities, dictate the kinds of regulations of time, place, and manner that are reasonable.</quote> Another day, another instance of the Alt Right's infantile perception of context.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Bio1590 10/20/18 8:32:27 PM #126:	Funbazooka posted... Funny how Twitter itself has blocked messages and statements from politicians before, simply because they disagreed with it. Was Twitter violating everyone's First Amendment rights to see the Senator's statement? https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/twitter-blocks-marsha-blackburns-pro-life-senate-campaign-ad A digital ad by Republican Senate candidate Marsha Blackburn was blocked by Twitter on Monday after the company claimed it contained an "inflammatory statement" related to abortion. Blackburn used her two-minute ad to say she "fought Planned Parenthood, and we stopped the sale of baby body parts, thank God." An employee of Twitter told Blackburn's team the ad would be blocked from appearing on the popular social media site unless Blackburn's claim that she "stopped the sale of baby body parts" while serving in Congress is edited out. Boasting of shutting down that aspect of Planned Parenthood's operation constituted "an inflammatory statement that is likely to evoke a strong negative reaction," Twitter told Blackburn's campaign. Weird it's almost like Twitter has the ability to control what content appears on its platform. --- https://imgur.com/bbRWLI8 https://imgur.com/A0BErSV <cite>Bio1590 posted [p:910873625] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>Funbazooka posted...</cite> <quote>Funny how Twitter itself has blocked messages and statements from politicians before, simply because they disagreed with it. Was Twitter violating everyone's First Amendment rights to see the Senator's statement? https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/twitter-blocks-marsha-blackburns-pro-life-senate-campaign-ad A digital ad by Republican Senate candidate Marsha Blackburn was blocked by Twitter on Monday after the company claimed it contained an "inflammatory statement" related to abortion. Blackburn used her two-minute ad to say she "fought Planned Parenthood, and we stopped the sale of baby body parts, thank God." An employee of Twitter told Blackburn's team the ad would be blocked from appearing on the popular social media site unless Blackburn's claim that she "stopped the sale of baby body parts" while serving in Congress is edited out. Boasting of shutting down that aspect of Planned Parenthood's operation constituted "an inflammatory statement that is likely to evoke a strong negative reaction," Twitter told Blackburn's campaign.</quote> Weird it's almost like Twitter has the ability to control what content appears on its platform.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darklit_Minuet 10/20/18 8:34:47 PM #127:	I hate Trump but I still think this ruling is fucking stupid <cite>Darklit_Minuet posted [p:910873714] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote>I hate Trump but I still think this ruling is fucking stupid</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Anteaterking 10/20/18 8:36:05 PM #128:	Funbazooka posted... Which is it? Private or public? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(legal) Turn to page 39 and you can see what the circuit judge says about the applicability of forum in this instance: https://knightcolumbia.org/sites/default/files/content/Cases/Twitter/2018.05.23%20Order%20on%20motions%20for%20summary%20judgment.pdf I'll save you the click. The court didn't rule that Twitter is a public forum, but that Trump's tweets and first level replies are, as he has control over those. --- http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg <cite>Anteaterking posted [p:910873775] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>Funbazooka posted...</cite> <quote>Which is it? Private or public? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(legal)</quote> Turn to page 39 and you can see what the circuit judge says about the applicability of forum in this instance: https://knightcolumbia.org/sites/default/files/content/Cases/Twitter/2018.05.23%20Order%20on%20motions%20for%20summary%20judgment.pdf I'll save you the click. The court didn't rule that Twitter is a public forum, but that Trump's tweets and first level replies are, as he has control over those.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
_REDDIT_ 10/20/18 8:38:38 PM #129:	Trump is a thin-skinned snowflake, much like his emotionally stunted supporters. News at 11 <cite>_REDDIT_ posted [p:910873894] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote>Trump is a thin-skinned snowflake, much like his emotionally stunted supporters. News at 11</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
smoliske 10/20/18 8:39:47 PM #130:	Bio1590 posted... Why are all of your posts only in this topic? Why is this account only brought out at certain times? Let's ask mr owl <cite>smoliske posted [p:910873946] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>Bio1590 posted...</cite> <quote>Why are all of your posts only in this topic? Why is this account only brought out at certain times?</quote> Let's ask mr owl</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Bio1590 10/20/18 8:41:35 PM #131:	Darklit_Minuet posted... I hate Trump but I still think this ruling is fucking stupid Eh, I think it'd be good if things got put on the books regarding how public officials may use social media. --- https://imgur.com/bbRWLI8 https://imgur.com/A0BErSV <cite>Bio1590 posted [p:910874030] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>Darklit_Minuet posted...</cite> <quote>I hate Trump but I still think this ruling is fucking stupid</quote> Eh, I think it'd be good if things got put on the books regarding how public officials may use social media.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SageHarpuiaHX 10/20/18 8:45:37 PM #132:	Anteaterking posted... SageHarpuiaHX posted... The hypocrisy Please explain what makes it hypocritical. Forget that he's the President, he agreed to the same ToU that everyone else did. On Twitter he's just another user. You guys are bitching all the time about how the GOP are fascist, and then turn around and try to dictate who people are allowed to ignore on fucking Twitter. <cite>SageHarpuiaHX posted [p:910874247] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>Anteaterking posted...</cite> <quote><cite>SageHarpuiaHX posted...</cite> <quote>The hypocrisy</quote> Please explain what makes it hypocritical.</quote> Forget that he's the President, he agreed to the same ToU that everyone else did. On Twitter he's just another user. You guys are bitching all the time about how the GOP are fascist, and then turn around and try to dictate who people are allowed to ignore on fucking Twitter.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Ray_Dorset 10/20/18 8:47:34 PM #133:	SageHarpuiaHX posted... Anteaterking posted... SageHarpuiaHX posted... The hypocrisy Please explain what makes it hypocritical. Forget that he's the President, he agreed to the same ToU that everyone else did. On Twitter he's just another user. You guys are bitching all the time about how the GOP are fascist, and then turn around and try to dictate who people are allowed to ignore on fucking Twitter. US Constitution > Twitter ToU --- Owner of https://imgtc.com/ <cite>Ray_Dorset posted [p:910874350] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>SageHarpuiaHX posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Anteaterking posted...</cite> <quote><cite>SageHarpuiaHX posted...</cite> <quote>The hypocrisy</quote> Please explain what makes it hypocritical.</quote> Forget that he's the President, he agreed to the same ToU that everyone else did. On Twitter he's just another user. You guys are bitching all the time about how the GOP are fascist, and then turn around and try to dictate who people are allowed to ignore on fucking Twitter.</quote> US Constitution > Twitter ToU</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Laserion 10/20/18 8:48:31 PM #134:	Is there a way for Trump to "ignore" the user, but the user still sees his tweets? I know! Trump should post on GameFAQs! Then he can use the "ignore" feature! --- There is no "would of", "should of" or "could of". There is "would've", "should've" and "could've". <cite>Laserion posted [p:910874385] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote>Is there a way for Trump to "ignore" the user, but the user still sees his tweets? I know! Trump should post on GameFAQs! Then he can use the "ignore" feature!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Anteaterking 10/20/18 8:50:06 PM #135:	Laserion posted... Is there a way for Trump to "ignore" the user, but the user still sees his tweets? I know! Trump should post on GameFAQs! Then he can use the "ignore" feature! Yes, muting is an option. --- http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg <cite>Anteaterking posted [p:910874449] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>Laserion posted...</cite> <quote>Is there a way for Trump to "ignore" the user, but the user still sees his tweets? I know! Trump should post on GameFAQs! Then he can use the "ignore" feature!</quote> Yes, muting is an option.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
QwelzaarKane 10/20/18 8:50:12 PM #136:	SageHarpuiaHX posted... On Twitter he's just another user. He's not, though. --- Ain't no love shown but to those who down til we die <cite>QwelzaarKane posted [p:910874456] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>SageHarpuiaHX posted...</cite> <quote>On Twitter he's just another user.</quote> He's not, though.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TrevorBlack79 10/20/18 8:51:35 PM #137:	Anteaterking posted... TrevorBlack79 posted... No he didn't, nor did he suggest what you said he suggested in the paragraph I quoted before. snake1989 posted... We already have laws in place that prevent private companies from restricting free speech (such as laws protecting the right to organize unions or reveal your salary to coworkers), so we have precedence for the government needing to regulate businesses in order to protect free expression and communciation. Let's apply that here as well. Please bold the portion of this paragraph that says "we should hold Twitter to the same standards that we hold public officials to." Hint: He was saying we should hold businesses to similar standards wrt speech, not that we should hold businesses to the same standard as politicians. Even if that had been what he said, it still isn't "the way it should work is that any private organization that the president chooses to use is then taken over by the government." Are you done now? --- "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:910874526] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>Anteaterking posted...</cite> <quote><cite>TrevorBlack79 posted...</cite> <quote>No he didn't, nor did he suggest what you said he suggested in the paragraph I quoted before.</quote> <cite>snake1989 posted...</cite> <quote>We already have laws in place that prevent private companies from restricting free speech (such as laws protecting the right to organize unions or reveal your salary to coworkers), so we have precedence for the government needing to regulate businesses in order to protect free expression and communciation. Let's apply that here as well.</quote></quote> Please bold the portion of this paragraph that says "we should hold Twitter to the same standards that we hold public officials to." Hint: He was saying we should hold businesses to similar standards wrt speech, not that we should hold businesses to the same standard as politicians. Even if that had been what he said, it still isn't "the way it should work is that any private organization that the president chooses to use is then taken over by the government." Are you done now?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SageHarpuiaHX 10/20/18 8:52:21 PM #138:	Eh, I think it'd be good if things got put on the books regarding how public officials may use social media. Social Media is privately owned. Unless they're using it to post illegal content this is blatant government overreach. <cite>SageHarpuiaHX posted [p:910874559] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><quote>Eh, I think it'd be good if things got put on the books regarding how public officials may use social media.</quote> Social Media is privately owned. Unless they're using it to post illegal content this is blatant government overreach.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ledbowman 10/20/18 8:53:23 PM #139:	SageHarpuiaHX posted... Anteaterking posted... SageHarpuiaHX posted... The hypocrisy Please explain what makes it hypocritical. Forget that he's the President, he agreed to the same ToU that everyone else did. On Twitter he's just another user. You guys are bitching all the time about how the GOP are fascist, and then turn around and try to dictate who people are allowed to ignore on fucking Twitter. Imagine constantly putting in this much time for such shitty trolling. --- I wish we all waved <cite>ledbowman posted [p:910874615] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>SageHarpuiaHX posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Anteaterking posted...</cite> <quote><cite>SageHarpuiaHX posted...</cite> <quote>The hypocrisy</quote> Please explain what makes it hypocritical.</quote> Forget that he's the President, he agreed to the same ToU that everyone else did. On Twitter he's just another user. You guys are bitching all the time about how the GOP are fascist, and then turn around and try to dictate who people are allowed to ignore on fucking Twitter.</quote> Imagine constantly putting in this much time for such shitty trolling.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Bio1590 10/20/18 8:54:47 PM #140:	smoliske posted... Bio1590 posted... Why are all of your posts only in this topic? Why is this account only brought out at certain times? Let's ask mr owl lmao But seriously whose alt is it --- https://imgur.com/bbRWLI8 https://imgur.com/A0BErSV <cite>Bio1590 posted [p:910874670] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>smoliske posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Bio1590 posted...</cite> <quote>Why are all of your posts only in this topic? Why is this account only brought out at certain times?</quote> Let's ask mr owl</quote> lmao But seriously whose alt is it</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SageHarpuiaHX 10/20/18 8:54:59 PM #141:	Ray_Dorset posted... SageHarpuiaHX posted... Anteaterking posted... SageHarpuiaHX posted... The hypocrisy Please explain what makes it hypocritical. Forget that he's the President, he agreed to the same ToU that everyone else did. On Twitter he's just another user. You guys are bitching all the time about how the GOP are fascist, and then turn around and try to dictate who people are allowed to ignore on fucking Twitter. US Constitution > Twitter ToU This has nothing to do with the Constitution, just one idiot judge's ruling. He's not, though. You'll say this until him being banned for violating their terms gets brought up. <cite>SageHarpuiaHX posted [p:910874676] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>Ray_Dorset posted...</cite> <quote><cite>SageHarpuiaHX posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Anteaterking posted...</cite> <quote><cite>SageHarpuiaHX posted...</cite> <quote>The hypocrisy</quote> Please explain what makes it hypocritical.</quote> Forget that he's the President, he agreed to the same ToU that everyone else did. On Twitter he's just another user. You guys are bitching all the time about how the GOP are fascist, and then turn around and try to dictate who people are allowed to ignore on fucking Twitter.</quote> US Constitution > Twitter ToU</quote> This has nothing to do with the Constitution, just one idiot judge's ruling. <quote>He's not, though.</quote> You'll say this until him being banned for violating their terms gets brought up.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Bio1590 10/20/18 8:56:43 PM #142:	SageHarpuiaHX posted... Eh, I think it'd be good if things got put on the books regarding how public officials may use social media. Social Media is privately owned. Unless they're using it to post illegal content this is blatant government overreach. Every company is privately owned, why do we have laws related to what's acceptable conduct for public officials related to those then? --- https://imgur.com/bbRWLI8 https://imgur.com/A0BErSV <cite>Bio1590 posted [p:910874753] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>SageHarpuiaHX posted...</cite> <quote><quote>Eh, I think it'd be good if things got put on the books regarding how public officials may use social media.</quote> Social Media is privately owned. Unless they're using it to post illegal content this is blatant government overreach.</quote> Every company is privately owned, why do we have laws related to what's acceptable conduct for public officials related to those then?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Anteaterking 10/20/18 8:57:41 PM #143:	TrevorBlack79 posted... Hint: He was saying we should hold businesses to similar standards wrt speech, not that we should hold businesses to the same standard as politicians. Which the only way in which I am claiming that he said they should be held to the same standards. Even if that had been what he said, it still isn't "the way it should work is that any private organization that the president chooses to use is then taken over by the government." I'm asking him in which way he would like to see constitutional matters applying to the conduct of government be applied to private organizations. I have suggested one possible way for this to happen. He can say what method he would suggest instead. --- http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg <cite>Anteaterking posted [p:910874794] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>TrevorBlack79 posted...</cite> <quote>Hint: He was saying we should hold businesses to similar standards wrt speech, not that we should hold businesses to the same standard as politicians. </quote> Which the only way in which I am claiming that he said they should be held to the same standards. <quote> Even if that had been what he said, it still isn't "the way it should work is that any private organization that the president chooses to use is then taken over by the government."</quote> I'm asking him in which way he would like to see constitutional matters applying to the conduct of government be applied to private organizations. I have suggested one possible way for this to happen. He can say what method he would suggest instead.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TrevorBlack79 10/20/18 9:01:53 PM #144:	Anteaterking posted... Which the only way in which I am claiming that he said they should be held to the same standards. Anteaterking posted... The person I'm responding to said that we should hold Twitter to the same standards that we hold public officials to. How many times will I have to quote this before you remember you typed it? --- "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:910875002] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>Anteaterking posted...</cite> <quote>Which the only way in which I am claiming that he said they should be held to the same standards.</quote> <cite>Anteaterking posted...</cite> <quote>The person I'm responding to said that we should hold Twitter to the same standards that we hold public officials to.</quote> How many times will I have to quote this before you remember you typed it?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
1NfamousACE_2 10/20/18 9:07:13 PM #145:	Or he could just not post on Twitter? --- New signature needed, acquire within from management <cite>1NfamousACE_2 posted [p:910875230] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote>Or he could just not post on Twitter?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SageHarpuiaHX 10/20/18 9:10:22 PM #146:	What's next, will he be forced to have pms enabled too? Or even further, would he have to read every pm he was sent? How about every tweet talking about his "stupid orange head dick"? <cite>SageHarpuiaHX posted [p:910875376] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote>What's next, will he be forced to have pms enabled too? Or even further, would he have to read every pm he was sent? How about every tweet talking about his "stupid orange head dick"?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Irony 10/20/18 9:12:51 PM #147:	Judges should force people to have sigs --- I am Mogar, God of Irony and The Devourer of Topics. <cite>Irony posted [p:910875492] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote>Judges should force people to have sigs</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Anteaterking 10/20/18 9:13:52 PM #148:	TrevorBlack79 posted... How many times will I have to quote this before you remember you typed it? Please improve your reading context skills. --- http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg <cite>Anteaterking posted [p:910875554] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>TrevorBlack79 posted...</cite> <quote>How many times will I have to quote this before you remember you typed it?</quote> Please improve your reading context skills.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Bio1590 10/20/18 9:15:04 PM #149:	SageHarpuiaHX posted... What's next, will he be forced to have pms enabled too? Or even further, would he have to read every pm he was sent? How about every tweet talking about his "stupid orange head dick"? No No No --- https://imgur.com/bbRWLI8 https://imgur.com/A0BErSV <cite>Bio1590 posted [p:910875607] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>SageHarpuiaHX posted...</cite> <quote>What's next, will he be forced to have pms enabled too? Or even further, would he have to read every pm he was sent? How about every tweet talking about his "stupid orange head dick"?</quote> No No No</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Solar_Crimson 10/20/18 9:17:40 PM #150:	stone posted... 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. --- Be wary of boarding the hype train, lest you end up on the ruse cruise... - nanobuilder (r/nintendo) http://backloggery.com/SolarCrimson <cite>Solar_Crimson posted [p:910875737] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>stone posted...</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></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
snake1989 10/20/18 9:21:23 PM #151:	Anteaterking posted... So the way it should work is that any private organization that the president chooses to use is then taken over by the government? No, but any private organization that runs an essential channel of communication with our elected representatives should keep that channel free of undue interference. And as this court ruling determined, Twitter is becoming the primary means most people have of accessing their representatives. Likewise, if it came out that telephone companies were blocking citizens' phone calls to representatives, I would think that it is completely appropriate to demand that they cease that action, and petition the government to intervene if they don't. That doesn't require the government to step in and take over, at least no more so than they already do with regulations on food safety, allowing employees lunch breaks, truth in advertising, etc. Unless you consider all regulation a takeover? And in response to others quoting this exchange, I am not saying we should hold twitter to the same standard we hold our elected officials. The standard our government is held to is the first amendment. The standard corporations are held to is not based in the constitution, but we still regulate businesses to provide to their customers many of the protections guaranteed therein (being free of discrimination, for example). This is a socially derived standard that is more flexible, but my opinion is that if Twitter wants to benefit from being an official channel of public communication, that also requires action and responsibility on their part. Otherwise, people (including the government representatives) will eventually realize that there are better options for speaking to their constituents, and Twitter could find itself abandoned by them. For its own self interest and public interest, rather than a constitutional obligation, it should be kept free and open if it wishes to be that sort of platform. Anteaterking posted... The NLRA is not about "free speech". It doesn't appeal to the First Amendment at all, but rather to the commerce clause. I never mentioned the first amendment, and my entire point was that the government already intervenes in private industry in ways that ensure free speech is protected even when the issue is outside of the first-amendment protections. Various legal protections for whistleblowers are another example of the same principle. --- "A man chooses. A slave obeys."-Andrew Ryan <cite>snake1989 posted [p:910875904] in Trump is t... [t:77116249]...</cite> <quote><cite>Anteaterking posted...</cite> <quote> So the way it should work is that any private organization that the president chooses to use is then taken over by the government?</quote> No, but any private organization that runs an essential channel of communication with our elected representatives should keep that channel free of undue interference. And as this court ruling determined, Twitter is becoming the primary means most people have of accessing their representatives. Likewise, if it came out that telephone companies were blocking citizens' phone calls to representatives, I would think that it is completely appropriate to demand that they cease that action, and petition the government to intervene if they don't. That doesn't require the government to step in and take over, at least no more so than they already do with regulations on food safety, allowing employees lunch breaks, truth in advertising, etc. Unless you consider all regulation a takeover? And in response to others quoting this exchange, I am not saying we should hold twitter to the same standard we hold our elected officials. The standard our government is held to is the first amendment. The standard corporations are held to is not based in the constitution, but we still regulate businesses to provide to their customers many of the protections guaranteed therein (being free of discrimination, for example). This is a socially derived standard that is more flexible, but my opinion is that if Twitter wants to benefit from being an official channel of public communication, that also requires action and responsibility on their part. Otherwise, people (including the government representatives) will eventually realize that there are better options for speaking to their constituents, and Twitter could find itself abandoned by them. For its own self interest and public interest, rather than a constitutional obligation, it should be kept free and open if it wishes to be that sort of platform. <cite>Anteaterking posted...</cite> <quote> The NLRA is not about "free speech". It doesn't appeal to the First Amendment at all, but rather to the commerce clause.</quote> I never mentioned the first amendment, and my entire point was that the government already intervenes in private industry in ways that ensure free speech is protected even when the issue is outside of the first-amendment protections. Various legal protections for whistleblowers are another example of the same principle.</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.