Good luck with that.

[Hayabusa Rider]

Judge rules that Trump and other politicians cannot block people on Twitter- Politicians say "make us". The only way to enforce this is with Twitter pulling permissions on politicians accounts. Magic Eight Ball sez- When pigs fly. Hopefully, I'm wrong.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Let’s see what the appeal court says too. Personally I’d prefer them to be able to block people.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Why is that?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Let’s see what the appeal court says too. Personally I’d prefer them to be able to block people.

I'm fine with them (politicians) ignoring opinions they don't like and even promoting ones they prefer but they shouldn't be able to provide a platform to some and completely shut out others. That's the price you pay for using the personal account for government business. And even if he didn't use it for government related matters he still should be required to keep it open to all.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

The trolling is fun regarding Trump but remember everything comes full circle. This will happen to a D too.
I’m not a legal expert so I’m going to avoid laws.
I will say if someone has nothing to contribute to a discussion it shouldn’t be required that others read it.

 

[cytg111]

Should be able to block anonymous accounts
Should not be able to block verified accounts.
A verified account could still be "anonymous" but behind the scenes ie. to twitter you have proven your identity with some form of government id.
I hate it, yet I hate the idea that freedom of speech being weaponized against us even more.
In the real world, if you go to a public place and yell out you are about to do some super evil shit, you will get locked up for psych eval... On the internet you are just a proxy away from no accountability at all.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

The trolling is fun regarding Trump but remember everything comes full circle. This will happen to a D too.
I’m not a legal expert so I’m going to avoid laws.
I will say if someone has nothing to contribute to a discussion it shouldn’t be required that others read it.

No one is forced to read it but the government, in this case Trump, should not be able to withdraw access to a growing (and now massive) method of addressing grievances to the government which is what they do by suppressing those opinions they do not like.

 

[Commodus]

It might not be too tricky to enforce. Twitter could reset Trump's blocks and insist that he file reports on users before he blocks them (to provide a justification for any move). That would require creating special-case behavior for politicians like Trump, but it's not impossible.

 

[hal2kilo]

He want to use Twitter as his official correspondence, then let the chips fall where they may. Such snowflakes this fascists.

 

[interchange]

What was the case that decided this? Someone would have to suffer damages for something for this to make it to court or this choice being relevant to a crime.

 

[FIVR]

blocking people is lame. if you can't handle what somebody else types on a computer then you have no business really doing anything of any importance because you are a snowflake

 

[Commodus]

blocking people is lame. if you can't handle what somebody else types on a computer then you have no business really doing anything of any importance because you are a snowflake

Blocking is fine -- when it's because someone is harassing, spamming or threatening you. When it's a sitting President who just objects to people who disagree with him, though? That's the definition of a snowflake.

 

[FIVR]

Blocking is fine -- when it's because someone is harassing, spamming or threatening you. When it's a sitting President who just objects to people who disagree with him, though? That's the definition of a snowflake.

If somebody is harassing or spamming you on the internet then they are expending energy in a useless pursuit that has no bearing on anything in reality unless you let it affect you. You can easily step away from the computer, or even simply go to a different social media (or whatever) site and use that while being "harassment free". Or you could just ignore it and let the person tire themselves out.


Letting things that have no bearing on reality upset you in real life is the definition of being a snowflake and thus, blocking people is a snowflake behavior.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What was the case that decided this? Someone would have to suffer damages for something for this to make it to court or this choice being relevant to a crime.

I think I misunderstood what's going on.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...k-critics-from-his-twitter-account-judge-says

The issue is based on First Amendment rights so HE can't keep US from seeing his tweets. As this is a public figure, an important politician, his taking such action would be tantamount to selective censorship in matters which are not classified and potentially relevant to the public.
Part of the article follows.

U.S. District Court Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald cited First Amendment principles in holding that the social media platform offered a forum in which people could not only consume information and opinion from public figures but offer feedback to elected officials — just as they have the right to do in newsprint or in person in public spaces.

Buchwald boiled down the case to two simple questions: Can a public official block someone from seeing her or his Twitter feed given First Amendment protections of free speech? And does it matter if that public official is the president?

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Block Trump's account, problem solved.

 

[Commodus]

If somebody is harassing or spamming you on the internet then they are expending energy in a useless pursuit that has no bearing on anything in reality unless you let it affect you. You can easily step away from the computer, or even simply go to a different social media (or whatever) site and use that while being "harassment free". Or you could just ignore it and let the person tire themselves out.

Letting things that have no bearing on reality upset you in real life is the definition of being a snowflake and thus, blocking people is a snowflake behavior.

Harassment isn't that simple, I'm afraid.

Let's say you're a woman daring to point out sexism in the game industry. You don't just get one or two people harassing you with multiple posts, you get hundreds or thousands; your social feeds effectively become useless because your mentions are full of nothing but sexist GG assholes. And that's not including threats. Blocking in cases like those is the only way to maintain some kind of sanity, because it's a lot easier to silence someone yourself than hope they'll go away.

And remember, many of the people who are targeted by harassment can't leave social networks. It's often their main presence, and you risk cutting them off from people they know. As despicable as Trump may be, I don't think he should be forced to tolerate systemic harassment as a matter of course. Criticism? Absolutely. Let him see what people really think of him. But if someone pings him many times with nothing more than crude insults and threats, that's another story. It doesn't help their cause and it's basically stooping to Trump's level.

 

[1prophet]

So does this mean privately owned twitter cannot ban any public official or any private person responding to them because of first amendment issues and how will this affect other private social media platforms like Facebook?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

So does this mean privately owned twitter cannot ban any public official or any private person responding to them because of first amendment issues and how will this affect other private social media platforms like Facebook?

No. You aren’t the government. Neither am I. Neither is a private company. Politicians are. The government can’t suppress speech.

 

[sdifox]

Unless it's an official government twitter account, I don't think blocking is an issue.

Now the people that he blocked should start a website called DonaldBlockedMe, screenscap Donald's tweet and reapond. And of course block the Donald on their own twitter accounts.

 

[Jhhnn]

I think I misunderstood what's going on.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...k-critics-from-his-twitter-account-judge-says

The issue is based on First Amendment rights so HE can't keep US from seeing his tweets. As this is a public figure, an important politician, his taking such action would be tantamount to selective censorship in matters which are not classified and potentially relevant to the public.
Part of the article follows.

U.S. District Court Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald cited First Amendment principles in holding that the social media platform offered a forum in which people could not only consume information and opinion from public figures but offer feedback to elected officials — just as they have the right to do in newsprint or in person in public spaces.

Buchwald boiled down the case to two simple questions: Can a public official block someone from seeing her or his Twitter feed given First Amendment protections of free speech? And does it matter if that public official is the president?

More importantly if you can't see the tweets you can't respond directly to them. Trump is the ultimate snowflake. He thinks all of life should be like one of his cabinet meetings where the other participants are fawning over his magnificence.

 

[Jaskalas]

The issue is based on First Amendment rights so HE can't keep US from seeing his tweets.

In that case, Trump should have no authority over FOIA. Everything not classified is public domain.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I'm fine with them (politicians) ignoring opinions they don't like and even promoting ones they prefer but they shouldn't be able to provide a platform to some and completely shut out others. That's the price you pay for using the personal account for government business.

This I agree with. This is definitely first amendment. No public official may censor someone's speech (with a few clearly defined exemptions).

And even if he didn't use it for government related matters he still should be required to keep it open to all.

This I disagree with. Public officials are still allowed a private life. But President Trump has is certainly using his twitter account as an public address system, he announces policy decisions on it!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

And as expected

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-ignor...twitter-president-thinks-hes-943315?piano_t=1

I understand that with a busy day of undermining the rule of law and working hard to make Kim appear as a sympathetic figure with his "Lebanon tactics" and unnecessary aggression he might not have time to comply immediately.

So I suggest with generosity the court allow him time to correct this, in a timely fashion of course, and then cite him for contempt if he is not responsive afterward.