Shouldn’t Twitter Trolls = Fire in a public place

Here’s the political issue

A Clinton appointee judge ruled that the President cannot block people in Twitter. Do you think she made the ruling because if the law or because how she personally feels about Trump?

Personally, I am ok with anything being said. I also understand, you cannot have a civil thread if someone is going all crazy every 30 seconds in it. To me if a politician wants to block a Trill, that’s the same as not allowing someone to yell fire in a theater.

Does this ruling apply to everyone of only American citizens? Does that then trickle down all politicians? Again, is that just people in their districts or anywhere in the world? Can people tweet this judge and she cannot block people?

Does this now mean that tech companies have more power to censor? Does Twitter T&C override people’s 1st amendment rights? Can twitter block or remove me from twitter for saying something to a politician that, that politician cannot block me for?

originally posted by: SocratesJohnson
Here’s the political issue

A Clinton appointee judge ruled that the President cannot block people in Twitter. Do you think she made the ruling because if the law or because how she personally feels about Trump?

Personally, I am ok with anything being said. I also understand, you cannot have a civil thread if someone is going all crazy every 30 seconds in it. To me if a politician wants to block a Trill, that’s the same as not allowing someone to yell fire in a theater.

Does this ruling apply to everyone of only American citizens? Does that then trickle down all politicians? Again, is that just people in their districts or anywhere in the world? Can people tweet this judge and she cannot block people?

Does this now mean that tech companies have more power to censor? Does Twitter T&C override people’s 1st amendment rights? Can twitter block or remove me from twitter for saying something to a politician that, that politician cannot block me for?

Trumps twitter feed has been used as the presidential twitter feed, it is therefore a public/governmental entity and cannot block people from it. This isn’t that complex an issue.

If Trump is not allowed to block anyone on Twitter, then wouldn't it stand to reason no elected official can block anyone on Twitter?

a reply to: eNumbra

Actually that is not true. When Trump signed up for Twitter he accepted there T&C and as living in a country that we do and that Twitter adherents as to they can change policy as they please.
And no Twitter is not a government entity.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
If Trump is not allowed to block anyone on Twitter, then wouldn't it stand to reason no elected official can block anyone on Twitter?

If they’re using their twitter account in a manner for public policy/promotion of their office yes that’s exactly right.

If it’s solely their private account on which they share cat videos? No.

a reply to: jjkenobi

It should be so if their feed is officially connected to their position.

Trump can block his personal twitter feed, but not the official presidential one.

a reply to: SocratesJohnson

He could block people on his personal Twitter but not on a official government account.

That would fall under discrimination laws I think.

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: eNumbra

Actually that is not true. When Trump signed up for Twitter he accepted there T&C and as living in a country that we do and that Twitter adherents as to they can change policy as they please.
And no Twitter is not a government entity.

Completely irrelevent. If Trump kept that one as his personal Twitter, he could block who he liked. But he has been using as President, making it a public account. He can solve all this by opening his own personal account - where he can friend or block whoever he likes.

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: eNumbra

Actually that is not true. When Trump signed up for Twitter he accepted there T&C and as living in a country that we do and that Twitter adherents as to they can change policy as they please.
And no Twitter is not a government entity.

There is an official POTUS account he could use for policy, but doesn’t, he uses his own to push policy, that’s the difference he cannot use the platform in an official capacity without adhereing to the guidelines and rules any other official medium would require.

a reply to: Flavian

How is that irrelevant? What I said is completely true and is in no way discredited.
And why would you like him if you do to block people from reading it.

a reply to: Grimpachi

I think what you guys are saying is if they have never once tweeted anything regarding their political office they would be ok?

But if they've tweeted even one political or policy item then they'd be included?

originally posted by: eNumbra

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: eNumbra

Actually that is not true. When Trump signed up for Twitter he accepted there T&C and as living in a country that we do and that Twitter adherents as to they can change policy as they please.
And no Twitter is not a government entity.

There is an official POTUS account he could use for policy, but doesn’t, he uses his own to push policy, that’s the difference he cannot use the platform in an official capacity without adhereing to the guidelines and rules any other official medium would require.

I did not know there was a official account that standing officials could use for this. I don’t use Twitter cause I think is creates a disconnect for face to face interaction.
But T&C I do understand.

a reply to: SocratesJohnson If the president chooses to converse through Twitter, he should be subject to the same rules as everyone else. All forms of communication have their pros and cons. Conversing via internet on forums like Twitter will make you subject to trolls, it comes with the territory.

I liken trolls as the newer version of the little guy in the big truck that drives aggressively and full of anger. Folks too weak to confront their frustrations directly, find a feeling of power and control being harsh, incognito, on the internet. Why should the president be able to avoid this, no one else gets to?

originally posted by: Allaroundyou

originally posted by: eNumbra

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: eNumbra

Actually that is not true. When Trump signed up for Twitter he accepted there T&C and as living in a country that we do and that Twitter adherents as to they can change policy as they please.
And no Twitter is not a government entity.

There is an official POTUS account he could use for policy, but doesn’t, he uses his own to push policy, that’s the difference he cannot use the platform in an official capacity without adhereing to the guidelines and rules any other official medium would require.

I did not know there was a official account that standing officials could use for this. I don’t use Twitter cause I think is creates a disconnect for face to face interaction.
But T&C I do understand.

Yeah, you can still be banned from Twitter/Trumps feed if you violate T&C, but that’s a Twitter decision, Trump cannot personally block critics because he doesn’t like what they’re saying. It was a murky gray area with just him as the president but once he began using his personal feed for official statements, it became an official channel. Blocking people for simple criticism is then a violation of their first amendment rights.

I even remember this issue being predicted early on, possibly before he was even inaugurated; because of how much trump uses Twitter.

a reply to: eNumbra

So do you think that he should block certain people from his feed seeing how tech company’s have this power? As in do you believe it would benefit his agenda whatever that may be?

originally posted by: eNumbra

originally posted by: SocratesJohnson
Here’s the political issue

A Clinton appointee judge ruled that the President cannot block people in Twitter. Do you think she made the ruling because if the law or because how she personally feels about Trump?

Personally, I am ok with anything being said. I also understand, you cannot have a civil thread if someone is going all crazy every 30 seconds in it. To me if a politician wants to block a Trill, that’s the same as not allowing someone to yell fire in a theater.

Does this ruling apply to everyone of only American citizens? Does that then trickle down all politicians? Again, is that just people in their districts or anywhere in the world? Can people tweet this judge and she cannot block people?

Does this now mean that tech companies have more power to censor? Does Twitter T&C override people’s 1st amendment rights? Can twitter block or remove me from twitter for saying something to a politician that, that politician cannot block me for?

Trumps twitter feed has been used as the presidential twitter feed, it is therefore a public/governmental entity and cannot block people from it. This isn’t that complex an issue.

Ummm , what ?

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: SocratesJohnson

He could block people on his personal Twitter but not on a official government account.

That would fall under discrimination laws I think.

It wasn't very clear which account they were referring to based on the source I read, but it seemed like this is in reference to his personal Twitter account. Seems like a slippery-slope situation.

a reply to: jjkenobi

This article explains it better than I can.

Judge Buchwald's decision explains how the case hinges on two crucial questions: Whether a public official can block people on Twitter in response to their political views without violating their First Amendment rights, and whether it matters when the person doing the blocking is the President.

“The answer to both questions is no,” Buchwald wrote. “No government official—including the President—is above the law,” she continued.

The ruling crucially distinguishes between the President’s Twitter account—which, like public parks, is under government control—and private citizens’ accounts. While ordinary Twitter users can block and follow other Twitter users they do or don’t agree with, the judge found that @realdonaldtrump is essentially a space operated by the government for government business, and therefore, cannot curb speech based on people’s viewpoints.

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: eNumbra

So do you think that he should block certain people from his feed seeing how tech company’s have this power? As in do you believe it would benefit his agenda whatever that may be?

As a government official, and an extension of that government, communicating through what is now an official channel, no; he (nor anyone else really) cannot block people on that feed. A private company is not the government, that is a clear distinction that some people seem to want to cloud, trump gave that distinction up when he used his feed for public policy, possibly even when he became president.

a reply to: SocratesJohnson

First of all, Trolling is actually a term which describes a relatively narrow list of behaviours, none of which have anything to do with uttering facts.

As such, those calling Trump out and criticising his policies and his actions as President are not Trolling the President, merely airing grievances against the US government under his command, and against the President himself. All nations which even PRETEND to have any respect for the freedom and liberty of the people therein, hold within either written law or common understanding among all citizens, that airing a grievance toward ones leaders, is an absolute right which cannot be stifled by any law, enforcement agency, act of violence or imprisonment, or by any other method.

It is the fundamental underpinning of all decent governance, to at least permit grievances to be aired in some manner, even if they are not immediately addressed.

Therefore, even if some loophole could be found to silence criticism of the President, it would be a technical loop hole, not a matter of ethics. Ethically speaking, there can never be any silencing of protest, of criticism of the government, its policies, or its leadership, without utterly changing the structure of the government, and the expectations the citizen ought to have about its willingness to act on the citizens behalf, rather than according to its own agenda.