SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
Reuters reports that Twitter has sued to stop the U.S. government's effort to learn the identity of a Twitter user who has criticized that government's policies.
"The rights of free speech afforded Twitter's users and Twitter itself under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution include a right to disseminate such anonymous or pseudonymous political speech," Twitter said in the lawsuit.
further information:
court filing
additional coverage:
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Twitter Sues U.S. over User's Anonymity
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 38 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
You are a fluke of the universe; you have no right to be here.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @11:05PM (6 children)
But they also censored anything trending about Bernie Sanders.
So Twitter acted as a de-facto shield against anything that might make HRC look bad. Wikileaks, Bernie, and anything right-wing were actively suppressed from trending news feeds. Post-election, Dorsey started banning right-wingers who went against the homophobic, racist, misogynistic portrait that they wanted Trump supporters to look like.
Anyway, back to the original article: Trump will re-file as a violation of the Hatch Act, and will likely win. This is a USG employee using a Twitter account to voice political opinions under the guise of being an official USG policy. Trump filed paperwork for his 2020 Presidential run the night of the Inauguration; he has effectively been campaigning since then, which prevents non-profits and government employees from voicing opinions against his policy. Brilliant move by the way. That presents a third path for recourse against this Government employee.
It's okay to have a political opinion and voice it on the Internet. What's not okay is leeching off the Government's dime while you do it.
Trump will re-file, and Twitter will lose here.
You know, assuming Twitter doesn't shut down first. They've been bleeding users since the election.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @01:19AM (4 children)
But they also censored anything trending about Bernie Sanders.
Bullshit. You bernie bros are just as nutty as the alt-right. Seeing conspiracy under every rock.
At worst twitter's automated systems reacted to malicious reporting by people trying to manipulate the system. That's no more censorship by twitter than an anarchist group cutting CNN's satellite feed is censorship by CNN.
Trump filed paperwork for his 2020 Presidential run the night of the Inauguration; he has effectively been campaigning since then, which prevents non-profits and government employees from voicing opinions against his policy. Brilliant move by the way.
Case in point. No it does not. [snopes.com]
For one thing, non-profits can and do make political speech all the time. Political action commitees are required to be non-profits for chrissakes.
For another thing government employees have more guarantees of freedom of speech than do regular employees because the government is restricted by the 1st amendment despite being their employer. An anonymous twitter user can claim to be anything, that doesn't make it a violation of the hatch act. A big component of the hatch act is using the trappings of office to promote a political agenda. An anonymous twitter user has no more trappings of office than do I, Alt-Maddis the alt-secdef.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday April 08 2017, @01:29AM (3 children)
"Seeing conspiracy under every rock."
But, there WAS a conspiracy, and that Wasserman-Schultz broad resigned in disgrace because it was exposed. Go ahead, explain that away. Give us your alt-reality.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @01:42AM (2 children)
> Wasserman-Schultz broad resigned in disgrace because it was exposed
What does she have to do with twitter?
Oh, that's right, nothing.
But critical thinking has never been your strong suit, so you get a pass tonight.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @05:04AM (1 child)
Um, you must be dense (or something) if you can't connect the dots....
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @07:34AM
> Um, you must be dense (or something) if you can't connect the dots....
I know, right? The world is full of sheeple who refuse to wake up.
Its probably easier that way. The knowledge of conspiracy is a hairy burden, my friend.
It is a weight I willingly shoulder for my fellow man though.
Keep fighting the good fight, comrade!
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Saturday April 08 2017, @02:39AM
But they also censored anything trending about Bernie Sanders.
[CITATION NEEDED]
So Twitter acted as a de-facto shield against anything that might make HRC look bad. Wikileaks...
Actually, Twitter defended Wikileaks' privacy for pretty much the same reason. [wikipedia.org]