SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the silence-all-disagreement-and-only-agreement-will-be-seen dept.
Columbia University's Knight First Amendment Institute has filed a lawsuit against President Trump for blocking seven users on Twitter, claiming that the action violates the users' First Amendment right to participate in a public political forum:
The institute filed suit today on behalf of seven Twitter users who were blocked by the president, which prevents them from seeing or replying to his tweets. It threatened legal action in a letter to Trump in June, and now "asks the court to declare that the viewpoint-based blocking of people from the @realDonaldTrump account is unconstitutional."
The lawsuit, which was filed in the Southern District of New York, elaborates on the Knight Institute's earlier letter. It contends that Trump's Twitter account is a public political forum where citizens have a First Amendment right to speak. Under this theory, blocking users impedes their right to participate in a political conversation and stops them from viewing official government communication. Therefore, if Trump blocks people for criticizing his political viewpoints, he'd be doing the equivalent of kicking them out of a digital town hall.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @01:17PM (30 children)
How can a members only private web site be a public political forum?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @01:42PM (2 children)
More interesting. Being blocked by the POTUS does not impede you from participating in this 'public forum'.
Considering that if this is found to be the case, then Twitter can't shadowban anyone like that one reporter who published leaks over drone killings and got shadowbanned by twitter. See: http://members.efn.org/~paulmd/OwnWork/AdventuresinCensorship.pdf [efn.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @09:42PM (1 child)
> Being blocked by the POTUS does not impede you from participating in this 'public forum'.
On Twitter, can you reply to someone who has blocked you?
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Thursday July 13 2017, @12:11AM
Of course, you can. Blocking [twitter.com] doesn't affect your ability to tweet. But you can still reply to Trump's tweets (though with some difficulty) and people can still read your replies.
It's basically just a normal anti-harassment tool. Given that blocking doesn't actually stifle anyone's speech and Twitter is not a government organization, there's no point to this lawsuit.
(Score: 5, Informative) by tonyPick on Wednesday July 12 2017, @01:47PM (9 children)
When Donald Trump makes it part of the official Presidential Record.
https://theconversation.com/donald-trumps-tweets-are-now-presidential-records-71973 [theconversation.com]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @02:33PM (1 child)
If I store a backup of a website in the cloud it does not mean cloud TOS apply to the original website.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @05:59PM
I don't understand how your comment intersects with the topic. First of all, the lawsuit is about people getting blocked by President Trump. It's not about him deleting his tweets. Second, his tweets aren't usually a second copy of something that was originally posted on whitehouse.gov. Maybe I just don't understand your comment.
(Score: 2) by BK on Wednesday July 12 2017, @04:04PM (5 children)
It doesn't follow that the need to include something in the official record makes it a public forum. It seems to me that if someone has been blocked via twitter, they could still request and expect to receive a copy of the records in question via FOIA, etc.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday July 12 2017, @04:29PM (4 children)
It's easier than that. They can just logout and then view the posts. There is only two things blocking does: It prevents a person from directly responding thus limiting the chance the person will be heard by the politician (but really, unless the tweet is accompanied by a six figure donation, what politician will actually listen). Even so, people can still indirectly respond (take a screenshot while logged out and add snark in the user's own tweet).
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday July 12 2017, @04:29PM (1 child)
only ONE thing
(Score: 3, Funny) by Gaaark on Wednesday July 12 2017, @11:12PM
Cleric: And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to two, no more, no less. Two shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be two. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou one, excepting that thou then proceed to two. Five is right out. Once the number two, being the second number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it.
Brother Maynard: Amen.
All: Amen.
King Arthur: Right. Zero... one... five!
Galahad: Two, sir.
King Arthur: Two! [throws the grenade]
With humble apologies to Sir Monty Python, Sir Esquire, the Sir Second, Sir Jr.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday July 12 2017, @06:26PM
It's pretty bizarre that Twitter would make tweets unviewable to blocked users when they can just log out. They should change that.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by cykros on Friday July 14 2017, @04:47AM
One thing that makes Donald perhaps so terrifying and yet appear so cool to some people is how accessible he can appear, and the fact that that often involves amusing him in some fashion or other, which gives us a glimpse into his almost juvenile drives. Basically, you might not need a six figure donation; as we saw recently, all you need to do is tickle him with a picture of him taking on CNN in the ring. It's the same principle that drives John Oliver's Catheter Cowboy ads on Fox and Friends.
While he may not be the savior much of his voter base perhaps believes he is, and honesty isn't a strong suit, he isn't actually much like a run of the mill politician, and operates under a different set of parameters.
That all said, this is a bit tangential to the topic. Twitter blocking is effectively nothing other than a rather gentle "your attention is unwelcome" notice to curb harassment. This case is without merit.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Wednesday July 12 2017, @05:11PM
The second problem is that @potus is supposed to be the official channel, but @realDonaldTrump is where all the insanity gets posted.
Legally, one could define the first as public space nobody should get blocked from, while the other would be a "private citizen"'s blabberspace with blocking rights.
But this particular politician is not about to separate his private and public megaphones.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday July 12 2017, @02:10PM (15 children)
It's not members only. That's what makes this even stupider. Everything on Twitter is completely public! I'm not even a user and I can see the tweets just fine. Any time I do that by accident, I'm immediately reminded why Twitter is a complete fucking waste of time.
This is as stupid as ACs crapposting and then complaining that their comments are being deleted because they got downmodded.
Oh my god this is so stupid! Wasn't the MSM just complaining that assigned males are harassing Hunnies on Twitter? Why the fuck can't they block the users harassing them? Doesn't Twitter have a “friends only” setting or something? No, it doesn't! Cognitive dissonance much?!
More shock and amazement! You're right that Twitter is a private website. Twitter could decide to block @realDonaldTrump or @POTUS if it wanted! Twitter can block whoever the fuck it wants, and that's not a free speech issue either! Did I miss the fucking memo announcing that Twitter is a government contractor now?!
Our news media and political system are a goddamned farce. I'm having trouble believing any of this is real. This must be the circenses part. Democracy is dead. Our government has no power and is merely a vehicle for entertainment. There wasn't a revolution. Nobody declared martial law. No evil comic book villain. The corporations and international bankers merely found they could buy and sell laws by providing the gullible masses with circenses, witty sound bytes, and divisive distraction issues of no consequence, and so they simply supplanted "nations" as the embodiment of sovereignty and political authority during the first half of the 21st century.¹
¹ It should be noted, however, that during the first half of the 21st century, the corporations had no interest in dissolving the antiquated "nations," for the same reason that a farmer keeps a fence around his COWS. (The correct term is of course cattle. It just doesn't roll off the tongue quite like YOU ARE ALL COWS!!)
(Score: 4, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Wednesday July 12 2017, @02:53PM (4 children)
Sounds like the lawsuit is specifically about people posting on Twitter. So unless you can do that anonymously, yes, it is members-only.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @03:04PM (3 children)
I cannot board a plane anonymously. Does this mean flying is members only? And if so, what organization do I need to be member of in order to board a plane?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday July 12 2017, @03:09PM
That's not analogous. You need to join Twitter to post. Then you're a Twitter member.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @06:42PM (1 child)
You used to be able to, and you should be able to, at least if it's a flight from one place in the US to another.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @01:57PM
No, not true. It never worked like the train system with a conductor walking down the aisles saying "tickets, please!"
(Score: 5, Interesting) by FakeBeldin on Wednesday July 12 2017, @03:58PM (9 children)
Having only glimpsed the issue, I thought the reasoning of the complainers went roughly like this:
- Trump uses twitter a lot for government-related subjects
- Many of his tweets lead to a discourse on twitter (by means of replies)
- Due to how he uses twitter (both content and frequency), his twitter feed has become an important platform to discuss his policies
- being banned means you cannot partake in that platform (view: yes, engage others: no)
- the president has no right to ban folks from engaging in a discussion of his policies.
The main point of the suit (as I see it) is that if the president continuously chooses a specific public platform for divulging his policies, he does not get to impose limitations on who can access his part of the platform.
How about a real-life analogy? Suppose the president is often speaking and discussing with the public in Central Park, but that he requires that certain individuals (that he gets to point out) are kept far away from him and can only "attend" these events by watching monitors set up near Time Square. Is complaining about that stupid?
(Score: 3, Touché) by PocketSizeSUn on Wednesday July 12 2017, @04:37PM (1 child)
Ever heard of 'free speech zones'? Your real-life example is how it is done today, IRL.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @01:49AM
Right, and there's been a fuckton of lawsuits [wikipedia.org] challenging them.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by jmorris on Wednesday July 12 2017, @04:39PM (5 children)
You mean how things actually work? Most public appearances have been carefully limited to supporters for quite some time, going back at least to Clinton (the rapist, not the loser) and probably farther. Why do you think every appearance by a President doesn't collapse into chanting and protest signs?
These silly people are doing nothing less than making a demand that Trump stop using Twitter, they know it and so do the media giving this pointless lawsuit airtime. Amazing coincidence that 99.9% of the media want Trump to stop Tweeting and use their air to do all communicating with the public. Not even #FakeNews, blatently defending their turf. But the media are engaging in outright sedition daily so my question is why anyone in the administration is still permitted to speak to them, why is the White House Press room still used?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ilsa on Wednesday July 12 2017, @06:16PM (4 children)
The Central Park analogy is missing one critical detail:
"Suppose the president is often speaking and discussing with the public in Central Park" and everyone is invited. By making Twitter an (effectively) official means for everyone to communicate with him, he has changed the rules of the game. Twitter isn't the equivalent of a press gallery or a rally. It's literally a really really big auditorium where everyone gets to participate equally.
Whether Trump likes it or not, using his personal twitter account, while he is president, turns that account into a publicly recognized channel of political discussion. IANAL so I have no idea how that changes things from a legal perspective, but I can very easily see how the current situation could have come about.
And I'm probably going to regret asking this, but what exactly has the media done that is seditious?
(Score: 3, Informative) by jmorris on Wednesday July 12 2017, @07:46PM (3 children)
From dictionary.com [dictionary.com]:
Yea, it is always a fine line between sedition and legitimate dissent in a free society but if you don't think the Democrats and the legacy media (BIRM) have gone far enough over the line that it isn't a gray issue anymore, that is only because you agree with what they are doing. Imagine the media baying for Obama's head like this (couldn't happen of course) and if your mind can go there you will instantly achieve enlightenment. Imagine leading (not back bencher) Republicans daily calling for Obama's impeachment for months on end with zero actual evidence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @11:04PM
Are you actually implying that Democrats have zero evidence [cnn.com] of an impeachable offense by the Trump administration? You have a mighty strange definition of "zero evidence", sir!
(Score: 4, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday July 12 2017, @11:40PM (1 child)
Imagine leading (not back bencher) Republicans daily calling for Obama's impeachment for months on end with zero actual evidence.
"Are you allowed to impeach a president for gross incompetence?" --Donald J Trump
"It's very clear that allegation is one that everyone from Arlen Spector to Dick Morris has said is in fact a crime, and could be impeachable," -- Republican Darrell Issa of California
“It needs to happen, and I agree with you it would tie things up. No question about that.” (replying to a question about impeaching Obama) -- Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas)
“People may be starting to use the I-word before too long,” Inhofe said.
“The I-word meaning impeachment?” Humphries asked.
“Yeah,” Inhofe responded.
“Of all the great cover-ups in history — the Pentagon papers, Iran-Contra, Watergate, all the rest of them — this ... is going to go down as most egregious cover-up in American history,”
-- Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.)
In August 2013, Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma responded to a questioner in a town hall meeting, who had asserted that President Obama was failing to carry out his constitutional responsibilities, by saying that "you have to establish the criteria that would qualify for proceedings against the president... and that's called impeachment".[12][13] Coburn added, "I don't have the legal background to know if that rises to 'high crimes and misdemeanors', but I think you're getting perilously close"
At a 2013 town hall meeting with constituents, two years after Obama had released his long-form birth certificate to the public, Congressman Blake Farenthold said that Obama should be impeached due to conspiracy theories relating to Obama's birth certificate. Farenthold said that he thinks that "the House is already out of the barn on this, on the whole birth certificate issue."
In May 2016, the Oklahoma Legislature filed a measure asking the representatives from Oklahoma in the House of Representatives to impeach Obama, the U.S. attorney general, the U.S. secretary of education and any other administration officials involved in the decision to allow transgender students to use the bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity. The same resolution also "condemns the actions of the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice and the Office for Civil Rights of the United States Department of Education ... as contrary to the values of the citizens of Oklahoma".
On July 8, 2014, the former Governor of Alaska and 2008 Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin publicly called for Obama's impeachment for "purposeful dereliction of duty".[24] In a full statement, she said: “It’s time to impeach; and on behalf of American workers and legal immigrants of all backgrounds, we should vehemently oppose any politician on the left or right who would hesitate in voting for articles of impeachment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @01:57AM
The Burgess quote is from when he spoke in 2011 to "a group of Tea Party activists in Keller, Texas" [upi.com] on the possibility of raising the debt ceiling, and "a constituent suggested impeaching Obama to stop his agenda."
The Inhofe quote was about the Benghazi fiasco. [thehill.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Wednesday July 12 2017, @04:41PM
You just described every press conference ever had.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Dale on Wednesday July 12 2017, @03:16PM
Because it is being used by the POTUS as his main way of communicating to the American public. If the official account was the main delivery method and his personal account was used sparingly then this wouldn't be an issue.