GOP leader accuses Twitter of censoring conservatives, doesn't go as planned

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: xuenchen

Well ask McCarthy about that. He's the one who posted the image.

The Dodge Boys.

There's no link to Ingrahm's Tweet.

a reply to: xuenchen

So, to be clear, you are calling McCarthy a liar and this never happened. He just posted a fake tweet from Laura Ingraham in order to make a fool of himself and demonstrate his inability to use Twitter?

It just another Twitter whine. No one has to use the platform. I suppose the "wrong" persons developed twitter. That hasn't stopped the others from trying to make a buck off the stock though.

Ah Twitter. The pinnacle of modern communication in all its greatness. Ugh.

So Twitter owns their own content? And can do what they want with it? And have free reign to censor what they want?
Because it's not a free speech thing, right? 1st amendment doesn't apply.

But the sitting President cannot block someone on Twitter? At least according to a judge, because of the 1st amendment.

Hmmmm...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Just to be clear, is it your assertion that Twitter does not practice in the act of censoring conservatives?

I am making no assertion one way or the other in this thread. I didn't write this thread to talk about Twitter's alleged censoring habits. I made it to talk about a Congressman who just publicly demonstrated his inability to use Twitter.

Okay so you are saying the guy is an idiot for not knowing that Twitter in its default setting censored a Tweet that had no fathomable reason for being censored and not knowing that Twitter would even have such an unthinkable alt-left setting in its platform?

Is this what you are saying?

a reply to: jjkenobi

So Twitter owns their own content? And can do what they want with it? And have free reign to censor what they want? Because it's not a free speech thing, right? 1st amendment doesn't apply.

Yes. They can do what they wish with their private property, as long as they do not break laws or violate the rights of others.

People do not have a 1st amendment right to tweet. So they follow the terms and conditions or pay the consequences. In this case, it appears you could still see the tweet in question, if you had the settings in proper order.

But the sitting President cannot block someone on Twitter? At least according to a judge, because of the 1st amendment.

Yes. Trump is a representative of the government and Trump uses twitter as a communication tool to the public. Therefore it would be a violation of someone's 1st amendment right if he, as a government representative, were to ban certain people from his twitter activity based on their political leanings.

The 1st puts restrictions on what the government can do. Not a private entity such as twitter itself.

a reply to: Alien Abduct

There are an awful lot of assumptions in that synopsis that I'm not willing to sign off on. You don't even know what Ingraham's tweet said that prompted Twitter to mask it under that setting.

PS: Masking content isn't censorship. It's still there. It just takes a little bit of extra effort to see it.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
Okay so you are saying the guy is an idiot for not knowing that Twitter in its default setting censored a Tweet that had no fathomable reason for being censored and not knowing that Twitter would even have such an unthinkable alt-left setting in its platform?

He's a double idiot. For the above and for also being a politician.

a reply to: jjkenobi

That's correct. Just like ATS.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
But the sitting President cannot block someone on Twitter? At least according to a judge, because of the 1st amendment.

This is basically suggesting you don't know the difference between a public and private entity as it pertains to the 1st Amendment.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: jjkenobi

So Twitter owns their own content? And can do what they want with it? And have free reign to censor what they want? Because it's not a free speech thing, right? 1st amendment doesn't apply.

Yes. They can do what they wish with their private property, as long as they do not break laws or violate the rights of others.

People do not have a 1st amendment right to tweet. So they follow the terms and conditions or pay the consequences. In this case, it appears you could still see the tweet in question, if you had the settings in proper order.

But the sitting President cannot block someone on Twitter? At least according to a judge, because of the 1st amendment.

Yes. Trump is a representative of the government and Trump uses twitter as a communication tool to the public. Therefore it would be a violation of someone's 1st amendment right if he, as a government representative, were to ban certain people from his twitter activity based on their political leanings.

The 1st puts restrictions on what the government can do. Not a private entity such as twitter itself.

Yes this is correct and would be true if he attempted to block someone on an official government twitter account however on a private twitter account its a different story. At least that's my take on it.

ETA: But dont worry the alt-left Twitter team will be there to enforce the alt-left agenda if the alt-left judges fail

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: jjkenobi

So Twitter owns their own content? And can do what they want with it? And have free reign to censor what they want? Because it's not a free speech thing, right? 1st amendment doesn't apply.

Yes. They can do what they wish with their private property, as long as they do not break laws or violate the rights of others.

People do not have a 1st amendment right to tweet. So they follow the terms and conditions or pay the consequences. In this case, it appears you could still see the tweet in question, if you had the settings in proper order.

But the sitting President cannot block someone on Twitter? At least according to a judge, because of the 1st amendment.

Yes. Trump is a representative of the government and Trump uses twitter as a communication tool to the public. Therefore it would be a violation of someone's 1st amendment right if he, as a government representative, were to ban certain people from his twitter activity based on their political leanings.

The 1st puts restrictions on what the government can do. Not a private entity such as twitter itself.

Yes this is correct and would be true if he attempted to block someone on an official government twitter account however on a private twitter account its a different story. At least that's my take on it.

It doesn't matter if the account is private or official government. He is the president. As a individual at the top of government, he is prohibited by the 1st amendment from restricting someone's free speech in a public forum.

The real irony here is the President's account is exactly the type of content Twitter is targeting to censor. They did deactivate his govt account at one point. Did a judge order his account be activated again citing the first amendment? Hmmmm.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: jjkenobi

So Twitter owns their own content? And can do what they want with it? And have free reign to censor what they want? Because it's not a free speech thing, right? 1st amendment doesn't apply.

Yes. They can do what they wish with their private property, as long as they do not break laws or violate the rights of others.

People do not have a 1st amendment right to tweet. So they follow the terms and conditions or pay the consequences. In this case, it appears you could still see the tweet in question, if you had the settings in proper order.

But the sitting President cannot block someone on Twitter? At least according to a judge, because of the 1st amendment.

Yes. Trump is a representative of the government and Trump uses twitter as a communication tool to the public. Therefore it would be a violation of someone's 1st amendment right if he, as a government representative, were to ban certain people from his twitter activity based on their political leanings.

The 1st puts restrictions on what the government can do. Not a private entity such as twitter itself.

Yes this is correct and would be true if he attempted to block someone on an official government twitter account however on a private twitter account its a different story. At least that's my take on it.

It doesn't matter if the account is private or official government. He is the president. As a individual at the top of government, he is prohibited by the 1st amendment from restricting someone's free speech in a public forum.

Source?

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: xuenchen

Well ask McCarthy about that. He's the one who posted the image.

The Dodge Boys.

There's no link to Ingrahm's Tweet.

too bad twitter didn't ban the russians......
had they banned the russians would this discussion even be taking place???

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: jjkenobi

So Twitter owns their own content? And can do what they want with it? And have free reign to censor what they want? Because it's not a free speech thing, right? 1st amendment doesn't apply.

Yes. They can do what they wish with their private property, as long as they do not break laws or violate the rights of others.

People do not have a 1st amendment right to tweet. So they follow the terms and conditions or pay the consequences. In this case, it appears you could still see the tweet in question, if you had the settings in proper order.

But the sitting President cannot block someone on Twitter? At least according to a judge, because of the 1st amendment.

Yes. Trump is a representative of the government and Trump uses twitter as a communication tool to the public. Therefore it would be a violation of someone's 1st amendment right if he, as a government representative, were to ban certain people from his twitter activity based on their political leanings.

The 1st puts restrictions on what the government can do. Not a private entity such as twitter itself.

Yes this is correct and would be true if he attempted to block someone on an official government twitter account however on a private twitter account its a different story. At least that's my take on it.

It doesn't matter if the account is private or official government. He is the president. As a individual at the top of government, he is prohibited by the 1st amendment from restricting someone's free speech in a public forum.

I think this is only true if he does it in the official capacity as president. Im pretty sure he is also a citizen and is afforded the same rights as everyone else.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
The real irony here is the President's account is exactly the type of content Twitter is targeting to censor. They did deactivate his govt account at one point. Did a judge order his account be activated again citing the first amendment? Hmmmm.

That was a rogue employee. Not a twitter management move.

a reply to: xuenchen

LOL. Do you not think that Ingraham would quickly distance herself and actually delete the tweet and re-tweet?

Also think about it long and hard. Ingraham would have been all over it if it had been fake.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: jjkenobi

So Twitter owns their own content? And can do what they want with it? And have free reign to censor what they want? Because it's not a free speech thing, right? 1st amendment doesn't apply.

Yes. They can do what they wish with their private property, as long as they do not break laws or violate the rights of others.

People do not have a 1st amendment right to tweet. So they follow the terms and conditions or pay the consequences. In this case, it appears you could still see the tweet in question, if you had the settings in proper order.

But the sitting President cannot block someone on Twitter? At least according to a judge, because of the 1st amendment.

Yes. Trump is a representative of the government and Trump uses twitter as a communication tool to the public. Therefore it would be a violation of someone's 1st amendment right if he, as a government representative, were to ban certain people from his twitter activity based on their political leanings.

The 1st puts restrictions on what the government can do. Not a private entity such as twitter itself.

Yes this is correct and would be true if he attempted to block someone on an official government twitter account however on a private twitter account its a different story. At least that's my take on it.

It doesn't matter if the account is private or official government. He is the president. As a individual at the top of government, he is prohibited by the 1st amendment from restricting someone's free speech in a public forum.

Source?

thehill.com...

There is one link that discusses the judges ruling on the matter.

For anything else, I would have you refer to the constitution.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: jjkenobi

So Twitter owns their own content? And can do what they want with it? And have free reign to censor what they want? Because it's not a free speech thing, right? 1st amendment doesn't apply.

Yes. They can do what they wish with their private property, as long as they do not break laws or violate the rights of others.

People do not have a 1st amendment right to tweet. So they follow the terms and conditions or pay the consequences. In this case, it appears you could still see the tweet in question, if you had the settings in proper order.

But the sitting President cannot block someone on Twitter? At least according to a judge, because of the 1st amendment.

Yes. Trump is a representative of the government and Trump uses twitter as a communication tool to the public. Therefore it would be a violation of someone's 1st amendment right if he, as a government representative, were to ban certain people from his twitter activity based on their political leanings.

The 1st puts restrictions on what the government can do. Not a private entity such as twitter itself.

Yes this is correct and would be true if he attempted to block someone on an official government twitter account however on a private twitter account its a different story. At least that's my take on it.

It doesn't matter if the account is private or official government. He is the president. As a individual at the top of government, he is prohibited by the 1st amendment from restricting someone's free speech in a public forum.

I think this is only true if he does it in the official capacity as president. Im pretty sure he is also a citizen and is afforded the same rights as everyone else.

Everything he does while in the office is considered "official capacity".