Court decision against trump means Twitter can no longer kick off conservatives

a reply to: ScepticScot

So Trump can block anyone he likes because it's not official?

originally posted by: Starhooker
a reply to: ScepticScot

So Trump can block anyone he likes because it's not official?

Nope. Trump is a public official.

a reply to: ScepticScot

It found that trumps use of Twitter was for official business. Not that Twitter it self is an official government channel.

It's the same thing.

Twitter can have a private section as well; everything it does is not required to be official government business. But if part of its service is providing a forum for official government business, that part is an official government venue. That's the definition of an official government venue!

Again the ruling applies to public officials, not Twitter. The government does not pay Twitter nor gave a contract with Twitter to provide government announcements.

Twitter certainly does get paid for hosting Trump's tweets!

The advertising revenue, plus the fact that their membership and thus market share grows due to those tweets, is a payment. Not every payment must be in green paper. Twitter receives a thing of value - Internet traffic, which translates directly to advertising revenue - from the government's use of their service.

If Twitter does not wish to be bound by the rules concerning hosting an official government venue, they can ban Trump, AOC, Talib, Omar, and every other government official from posting anything concerning their position. Of course, if they do that, their advertising revenue will drop to almost nothing overnight and in three months Twitter will be lying in a grave next to MySpace.

TheRedneck

a reply to: ScepticScot

So all public officials are not allowed to block anyone? But Twitter can still block users from criticising a public official. So a private entity controls the criticism that their side gets from the other side. Got it. This will result in a lot of public officials quitting Twitter im guessing.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

It found that trumps use of Twitter was for official business. Not that Twitter it self is an official government channel.

It's the same thing.

Twitter can have a private section as well; everything it does is not required to be official government business. But if part of its service is providing a forum for official government business, that part is an official government venue. That's the definition of an official government venue!

Again the ruling applies to public officials, not Twitter. The government does not pay Twitter nor gave a contract with Twitter to provide government announcements.

Twitter certainly does get paid for hosting Trump's tweets!

The advertising revenue, plus the fact that their membership and thus market share grows due to those tweets, is a payment. Not every payment must be in green paper. Twitter receives a thing of value - Internet traffic, which translates directly to advertising revenue - from the government's use of their service.

If Twitter does not wish to be bound by the rules concerning hosting an official government venue, they can ban Trump, AOC, Talib, Omar, and every other government official from posting anything concerning their position. Of course, if they do that, their advertising revenue will drop to almost nothing overnight and in three months Twitter will be lying in a grave next to MySpace.

TheRedneck

It really isn't the same thing.

Can you show a ruling where any private organisation was covered by the 1st because of indirect benefits.

originally posted by: Starhooker
a reply to: ScepticScot

So all public officials are not allowed to block anyone? But Twitter can still block users from criticising a public official. So a private entity controls the criticism that their side gets from the other side. Got it. This will result in a lot of public officials quitting Twitter im guessing.

Probably which would be a pity. As I said before I don't agree with ruling.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Twitter turns politicians into children and debate into death threats. Good riddance I say. Let the curtain fall back down. It seems transparency isn't such a good thing in politics. Social media is used more now to highlight what divides us instead of what we have in common. Oh well. I wonder what tomorrow's outrage will be...

a reply to: ScepticScot

It really isn't the same thing.

Yes, it really is exactly the same thing.

Can you show a ruling where any private organisation was covered by the 1st because of indirect benefits.

I just gave you one: the store where I vote. They get the advertising benefit and the traffic. There's no money that directly changes hands, but they are still bound by law to allow people to use their property for official government business.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

It really isn't the same thing.

Yes, it really is exactly the same thing.

Can you show a ruling where any private organisation was covered by the 1st because of indirect benefits.

I just gave you one: the store where I vote. They get the advertising benefit and the traffic. There's no money that directly changes hands, but they are still bound by law to allow people to use their property for official government business.

TheRedneck

It really isn't the same at all.

If your local newspaper publishes a piece by your Mayor or do you believe the paper has to publish a letter by you in reply.

a reply to: ScepticScot

A newspaper is not a two-way communication medium by nature. Twitter, FaceBook are.

A better comparison would be to a town hall meeting to discuss issues. An official cannot bar someone from that for ideological reasons, either. And, neither can the owner of the building.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

A newspaper is not a two-way communication medium by nature. Twitter, FaceBook are.

A better comparison would be to a town hall meeting to discuss issues. An official cannot bar someone from that for ideological reasons, either. And, neither can the owner of the building.

TheRedneck

And Trump didn't hire Twitter.

He has used a existing medium of communication. His actions don't imply an obligation on Twitter.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

A newspaper is not a two-way communication medium by nature. Twitter, FaceBook are.

A better comparison would be to a town hall meeting to discuss issues. An official cannot bar someone from that for ideological reasons, either. And, neither can the owner of the building.

TheRedneck

A better comparison would be an interactive public access cable channel. The government speaker CANNOT ban people from watching or replying (which would be very possible by disabling the channel on individual cable boxes), and the provider (cable company) also CANNOT block individuals based upon their political affiliation or statements of disagreement or challenging questions.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Trump didn't hire Twitter, but Twitter accepted the responsibility by not banning him from using their forum for a government venue.

You seem intent on demanding that a corporation hold the power of government access. It just don't work like that here. Government venue access is a basic right of all citizens, and cannot be infringed by anyone... official, citizen, or corporation.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Krakatoa

That would be an apt comparison. Thanks!

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

Trump didn't hire Twitter, but Twitter accepted the responsibility by not banning him from using their forum for a government venue.

You seem intent on demanding that a corporation hold the power of government access. It just don't work like that here. Government venue access is a basic right of all citizens, and cannot be infringed by anyone... official, citizen, or corporation.

TheRedneck

Not demanding anything of private corporations as, the ruling isn't about then. It restricts what public officials can do, not what Twitter can do.

This does not give everyone the rightly access Twitter because public officials use it. It confirms that public officials don't have the right to restrict people access.

They are two different things.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Not demanding anything of private corporations as, the ruling isn't about then. It restricts what public officials can do, not what Twitter can do.

That's my point. If Twitter has the right to block people from a government venue for any reasons they choose, then Twitter becomes the arbitor of who can speak to the government. And that is against every principle in law. Just because it is not spelled out does not mean it does not apply.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

Not demanding anything of private corporations as, the ruling isn't about then. It restricts what public officials can do, not what Twitter can do.

That's my point. If Twitter has the right to block people from a government venue for any reasons they choose, then Twitter becomes the arbitor of who can speak to the government. And that is against every principle in law. Just because it is not spelled out does not mean it does not apply.

TheRedneck

Twitter can't block people from a public venue. It can block people from using a privately owned web service.

If the ruling was that Twitter can't have term and conditions of use it would have said that.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Twitter can't block people from a public venue. It can block people from using a privately owned web service.

The court just found that Twitter's government accounts are a public venue.

Otherwise, the government official is just a private citizen.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

Twitter can't block people from a public venue. It can block people from using a privately owned web service.

The court just found that Twitter's government accounts are a public venue.

Otherwise, the government official is just a private citizen.

TheRedneck

Trump just has a fairly lengthy press conference on the very topic of social media.

He even I believe talked about Twitter.

Did he by chance mention how Twitter are no longer able to ban people?

I believe the ruling is that the government official can't block people from their own page. And that it does not stop Twitter from banning people in general for violations to its T&Cs or for any reason they want.