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: 3, Insightful) by Fishscene on Wednesday July 12 2017, @01:44PM (11 children)
I suppose it should also illegal to remove people from the whitehouse property because it violates their ability to give (maybe through shouting) and receive official government communication?
OR
You can go through the usual channels (Like the media everyone so loves right now) and get your information that way. It would be nice if there was an outlet you could trust. But we've been moving towards "Truth is relative" for decades now.
Be careful what you ask for. If these folks were blocked because they were giving death threats or some other disruptive, nonconstructive criticism that wouldn't be tolerated at say, a public venue where a public figure is addressing the public, wouldn't tweeting these things then open them up for arrests and prosecution? It goes both ways - and we don't know what they said to get themselves blocked.
I know I am not God, because every time I pray to Him, it's because I'm not perfect and thankful for what He's done.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @01:59PM (2 children)
The issue and lawsuit are not specifically about these blocked people. They are about the larger legal issue.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @02:19PM (1 child)
There IS no "larger legal issue", that is the salient point. You need to pay attention to your betters and understand your intellectual inferiority means you are in capable of grasping the realities in the situation.
In the mean time, if you have ever considered jumping off a bridge, I can't say I'd discourage you.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @06:05PM
Thank you for the example of dunning kruger.
Since I am sure that is a foreign term for you, or commie term to put it in your parlance, I have attached an explanation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by frojack on Wednesday July 12 2017, @03:14PM (7 children)
Ah yes, freedom of the press when combined with freedom of speech must mean I am entitled to my own front page article in the New York Times to expound my pet theories, right?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @03:40PM (5 children)
It means that the government isn't allowed to block you from writing in a newspaper. The President is part of the government. The suit is about whether the President is allowed to block people from writing in response to his messages on Twitter.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @04:25PM
Easy now, you've poked the overstuffed teddy bears. It is odd how easily they fall over themselves defending such an asshat.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday July 12 2017, @04:43PM (3 children)
If you write a letter to the editor, is the newspaper required to publish it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @06:07PM
No but is the president allowed to bar you from writing the letter?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @06:12PM (1 child)
Obviously the editor isn't required to publish it, but like the OP's analogy, yours has little to do with the topic.
If the President, Congress, or a government agency directed a newspaper editor not to publish my letters, that would be analogous.
If Hillary Clinton had gotten elected and she tried to block people from commenting on her social media channels, you'd be up in arms. Literally. But it's your guy so you defend him.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday July 12 2017, @11:26PM
No. First, nothing prevents a blocked user from commenting on Trump tweets. They can view them while logged out, can quote them, screenshot them, and publish their own comments. Twitter is the platform and all but the banned are free to publish and comment almost anything they want.
Do I think it looks petty and small for Trump to ban people? Yes I do. But my opinion would be the same for HRC, Trump, or b00bl0v3r. It just doesn't feel unconstitutional.
So if the letter to the editor analogy is out, we're back to sending a letter to the president. As the recipient, he can ignore whatever he wants to (whether wise or not is a different question).
Lastly, Trump's not my guy. Both he and HRC were shit candidates and I didn't vote for either one.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by jmorris on Wednesday July 12 2017, @04:47PM
Yea. About that. Try showing up in the White House Press Room to make your point and watch how fast the MEDIA demand you be thrown out for violating their prerogative of being the Official Blessed Ones who get to decide which questions are going to be part of today's Narrative. That is what this is really all about. Forbid blocking and a swarm of trolls will crawl out of the Kos and DU swamp and make Twitter unusable. And that is the point of the exercise. If you have watched even an hour of MSM commentary since the election you know Trump's use of Twitter enrages them for the power it gives him to bypass them. They spend hours laying out a carefully coordinated attack designed to dominate a news cycle and then Trump derails it with a single tweet, forcing the conversation to whatever he would rather they talk about all weekend. They HATE it.