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

a reply to: ScepticScot

Twitter Facebook etc in my view absolutely have become too powerful.

The way to deal with that is to deal with their monopoly status.

How do you propose we do that?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: ScepticScot

Saying you appeal to authority and it’s sad isn’t an insult.

I outlined exactly what the decision says and it’s implications, you said it can’t be true cause the media didn’t report it.

That doesn’t prove anything

Ten court said trumps tweets are governmental business that everyone has the right to read and discuss

Private businesses, even ones facilitating government business, can not keep people from participating in government business for ideological reasons

The ruling states
'
The First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilises a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise‐open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees.'

It applies to public officials and their use of Twitter. The first amendment can't be used to compel private companies.

If the further implication is that, by trump
using Twitter people are prevented from participating , then it may arguably illegal for public official to use Twitter for official business at all.

Again that does not, can not and should not compel an action on private individuals or organisations via the first amendment.

If Twitter were no longer allowed to ban users,it would be all over the news, Twitter would have made an official statement and Trump.himself would have tweeted about it. Have any of these things happened or do you think you are somehow have some unique insight into the implications of this ruling?

a reply to: Grambler

LOL holy Hell. My post to you just happened to end up on the last post on page 6 which prolly won't even be seen. How fitting.

Maybe check it out. Not gonna re-post due to bad luck.

Double

originally posted by: Wookiep
a reply to: Grambler

Screw the weirdos. We need to talk about the "block option" Twitter provides, and the implications of this recent ruling.

Would you be so kind as to address your thoughts on my reply to "darkbake", as I passionately feel there is a much bigger issue here at stake. For some reason, everyone is ignoring it. It's strange. Not surprising tho.

Wel the block option and our opinions of it are meaningless in a world where they are a private company that can make their own decisions

And I don’t think it’s nearly as big as a problem as selective censoring

So unless I’m understanding you wrong, I don’t think the block option is a big deal

Now if you are saying in the world of twitter being a platform for government business

The ruling disallows trump or aoc to block, if your point is Twitter should take away the option. To block for them, I guess that’s fine

Though I don’t think that is a big issue compared to the implications of this case

Unless I am misunderstanding you

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

Twitter Facebook etc in my view absolutely have become too powerful.

The way to deal with that is to deal with their monopoly status.

How do you propose we do that?

TheRedneck

It can either be dealt with by consumer action. The good old free market.

Or it it can be dealt with by legislation. If existing monopoly legislation (anti trust is the US term correct? ) then maybe new legislation is required for online (which does seen to becoming over dominated by a few large companies).

Twitter is not a private company when it is a public forum for the discussion of government business.

If it was a private company, then trump could block. The court said people have the right to read and comment this government business. Trump can’t stop them, and neither can the public forum, twitter

a reply to: ScepticScot

a reply to: Grambler

Let's start simple. Twitter provides an option for users to use, to block people. Yes, or no?

originally posted by: Grambler
Twitter is not a private company when it is a public forum for the discussion of government business.

If it was a private company, then trump could block. The court said people have the right to read and comment this government business. Trump can’t stop them, and neither can the public forum, twitter

a reply to: ScepticScot

Twitter is a private company, the rulling applies to public officials use of Twitter as it specifically states.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler
Twitter is not a private company when it is a public forum for the discussion of government business.

If it was a private company, then trump could block. The court said people have the right to read and comment this government business. Trump can’t stop them, and neither can the public forum, twitter

a reply to: ScepticScot

Twitter is a private company, the rulling applies to public officials use of Twitter as it specifically states.

The decisions says its peoples first amendment right to participate in government discussions

A private company can not keep you from heating or discussing governmental business legally

originally posted by: Wookiep
a reply to: Grambler

Let's start simple. Twitter provides an option for users to use, to block people. Yes, or no?

Ok I think we can start a little bit past that. Of course there is a block function

a reply to: Grambler

And yes, so far you are missing my point bigly! And I'm on your team! (I think)

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler
Twitter is not a private company when it is a public forum for the discussion of government business.

If it was a private company, then trump could block. The court said people have the right to read and comment this government business. Trump can’t stop them, and neither can the public forum, twitter

a reply to: ScepticScot

Twitter is a private company, the rulling applies to public officials use of Twitter as it specifically states.

The decisions says its peoples first amendment right to participate in government discussions

A private company can not keep you from heating or discussing governmental business legally

It says public officials can not stop people participating in these discussions.

originally posted by: Wookiep
a reply to: Grambler

And yes, so far you are missing my point bigly! And I'm on your team!

(I think)

I know e probably agree.

But I don’t see where you are going

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler
Twitter is not a private company when it is a public forum for the discussion of government business.

If it was a private company, then trump could block. The court said people have the right to read and comment this government business. Trump can’t stop them, and neither can the public forum, twitter

a reply to: ScepticScot

Twitter is a private company, the rulling applies to public officials use of Twitter as it specifically states.

The decisions says its peoples first amendment right to participate in government discussions

A private company can not keep you from heating or discussing governmental business legally

It says public officials can not stop people participating in these discussions.

It says these discussions are our right as people with first amendment rights

It says these discussions are only occurring in this platform, which is why trump can’t block them

Therefore that means a private company can’t violate our rights

a reply to: Grambler

Ok. If TWITTER provides this option, as part of THEIR platform, who should be liable when said option is used? Trump? AOC? The court ruling suggests it's Trump's problem under the guise of an official speaking official business in a public forum. Do we agree so far?:

originally posted by: Wookiep
a reply to: Grambler

Ok. If TWITTER provides this option, as part of THEIR platform, who should be liable when said option is used? Trump? AOC? The court ruling suggests it's Trump's problem under the guise of an official speaking official business in a public forum. Do we agree so far?:

But is liability an issue? Is trump to be monetarily sued for this, or does he just have to reinstate them?

If it’s the latter , then liability isnt an issue

If the former, I guess trump could argue he didn’t know this was a violation and twitter provided the option, so he shouldn’t have to pay a fine

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wookiep
a reply to: Grambler

Ok. If TWITTER provides this option, as part of THEIR platform, who should be liable when said option is used? Trump? AOC? The court ruling suggests it's Trump's problem under the guise of an official speaking official business in a public forum. Do we agree so far?:

But is liability an issue? Is trump to be monetarily sued for this, or does he just have to reinstate them?

If it’s the latter , then liability isnt an issue

If the former, I guess trump could argue he didn’t know this was a violation and twitter provided the option, so he shouldn’t have to pay a fine

Fair. Alright. What about future implications? What if they say they can't block anyone except in cases of harassment? Let's say AOC or some other lefty decides to block someone whom disagrees with them. They decide said person is a white supremacist. It's false (as we've seen hundreds of times), but Twitter deems it OK for AOC.

Do you not think these people will not try to re-define what "harassment" is?

originally posted by: Wookiep

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wookiep
a reply to: Grambler

Ok. If TWITTER provides this option, as part of THEIR platform, who should be liable when said option is used? Trump? AOC? The court ruling suggests it's Trump's problem under the guise of an official speaking official business in a public forum. Do we agree so far?:

But is liability an issue? Is trump to be monetarily sued for this, or does he just have to reinstate them?

If it’s the latter , then liability isnt an issue

If the former, I guess trump could argue he didn’t know this was a violation and twitter provided the option, so he shouldn’t have to pay a fine

Fair. Alright. What about future implications? What if they say they can't block anyone except in cases of harassment? Let's say AOC or some other lefty decides to block someone whom disagrees with them. They decide said person is a white supremacist. It's false (as we've seen hundreds of times), but Twitter deems it OK for AOC.

Do you not think these people will not try to re-define what "harassment" is?

Oh for sure they will

But I don’t know if removing the block feature will help. They’ll then just go straight to Twitter management who will biasly act

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler
Twitter is not a private company when it is a public forum for the discussion of government business.

If it was a private company, then trump could block. The court said people have the right to read and comment this government business. Trump can’t stop them, and neither can the public forum, twitter

a reply to: ScepticScot

Twitter is a private company, the rulling applies to public officials use of Twitter as it specifically states.

The decisions says its peoples first amendment right to participate in government discussions

A private company can not keep you from heating or discussing governmental business legally

It says public officials can not stop people participating in these discussions.

It says these discussions are our right as people with first amendment rights

It says these discussions are only occurring in this platform, which is why trump can’t block them

Therefore that means a private company can’t violate our rights

It means a public official can't violate your rights as that is who the first amendment applies to.

As I have said 2 or 3 times now if someone to go to court over this they could potentially block public officials from using Twitter in an official capacity at all. There is nothing in it that forces Twitter to provide a service to anyone.