The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
Shifting into serious mode, this is actually kind of an interesting legal argument, and one for which I'm not aware of any precedent. How often does a Constitutional issue arise which is also a case of first impression?
Presupposing that the content was related to the operation or structure of the US Government, does the POTUS blocking a user from commenting on his own Twitter feed constitute an infringement of the 1st?
Presupposing that the content was related to the operation or structure of the US Government, does the POTUS blocking a user from commenting on his own Twitter feed constitute an infringement of the 1st?
It's in regards to his @realDonaldTrump account not the @POTUS account. And to make it a little murkier legally, Sean Spicer is on record as saying the tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account should be considered "official" comments.
TBH, the 45th creates his own legal problems. IMO
So, anyone can "follow" him but "he" can block them, in effect not able to see posts. IMO, he's not taking any 1st amendment right away just putting up a fence so he doesn't have to listen. Just my $0.02 though.
Reply
0
0
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 34,402
Total Cats: 7,523
From: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Actually, the argument is more nuanced...
It's in regards to his @realDonaldTrump account not the @POTUS account. And to make it a little murkier legally, Sean Spicer is on record as saying the tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account should be considered "official" comments.
TBH, the 45th creates his own legal problems. IMO
So, anyone can "follow" him but "he" can block them, in effect not able to see posts. IMO, he's not taking any 1st amendment right away just putting up a fence so he doesn't have to listen. Just my $0.02 though.
It's in regards to his @realDonaldTrump account not the @POTUS account. And to make it a little murkier legally, Sean Spicer is on record as saying the tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account should be considered "official" comments.
TBH, the 45th creates his own legal problems. IMO
So, anyone can "follow" him but "he" can block them, in effect not able to see posts. IMO, he's not taking any 1st amendment right away just putting up a fence so he doesn't have to listen. Just my $0.02 though.
I don't know enough about Twitter to know whether "blocking" someone means that they literally cannot post comments on your posts for all to see. (That's how Facebook works when you really don't want someone around you.)
If so, then there is a grain of validity to this argument. Even prior to Spicer's opinion, the POTUS is tweeting about the affairs of the US government while employed by it. Historically, personal letters written by sitting presidents have been considered official communication, and Tweets are hardly "personal correspondence."
Oh, I don't care about the initial decision. I'm looking forward to the appeals and the scholarly analysis. If the plaintiffs are serious enough about this, they stand an excellent shot at making it to the Supremes, and even if they don't, their names are gonna be in the next edition of Constitutional Law: Principles and Policy.
Reply
0
0
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 80,552
Total Cats: 4,368
From: Chantilly, VA
Oh, I don't care about the initial decision. I'm looking forward to the appeals and the scholarly analysis. If the plaintiffs are serious enough about this, they stand an excellent shot at making it to the Supremes, and even if they don't, their names are gonna be in the next edition of Constitutional Law: Principles and Policy.
Reply
0
0
I don't know enough about Twitter to know whether "blocking" someone means that they literally cannot post comments on your posts for all to see. (That's how Facebook works when you really don't want someone around you.)
If so, then there is a grain of validity to this argument. Even prior to Spicer's opinion, the POTUS is tweeting about the affairs of the US government while employed by it. Historically, personal letters written by sitting presidents have been considered official communication, and Tweets are hardly "personal correspondence."
If so, then there is a grain of validity to this argument. Even prior to Spicer's opinion, the POTUS is tweeting about the affairs of the US government while employed by it. Historically, personal letters written by sitting presidents have been considered official communication, and Tweets are hardly "personal correspondence."
1. I "follow" you means I can read your tweets (which go out to the world).
2. You "block" me means you don't get (or obviously want) to see anything I tweet even though I want you too. For you to block me I'd need to follow you in the first place.
3. So it's like the guy on the corner spouting off on some view you're free to roll up the window and drive on without listening to it...
I guess.
Reply
0
0
Reply
0
0
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 80,552
Total Cats: 4,368
From: Chantilly, VA
fake news:
I first met then-President-Elect Trump on Friday, January 6 in a conference room at Trump Tower in New York. I was there with other Intelligence Community (IC) leaders to brief him and his new national security team on the findings of an IC assessment concerning Russian efforts to interfere in the election.
...
The IC leadership thought it important, for a variety of reasons, to alert the incoming President to the existence of this material, even though it was salacious and unverified. Among those reasons were: (1) we knew the media was about to publicly report the material and we believed the IC should not keep knowledge of the material and its imminent release from the President-Elect; and (2) to the extent there was some effort to compromise an incoming President, we could blunt any such effort with a defensive briefing.
...
The IC leadership thought it important, for a variety of reasons, to alert the incoming President to the existence of this material, even though it was salacious and unverified. Among those reasons were: (1) we knew the media was about to publicly report the material and we believed the IC should not keep knowledge of the material and its imminent release from the President-Elect; and (2) to the extent there was some effort to compromise an incoming President, we could blunt any such effort with a defensive briefing.
Reply
0
0
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 34,402
Total Cats: 7,523
From: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
In United States v. Wurie, the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals held that warrant-less searches of digital information on a cellphone count as "papers" for the purpose of being protected under the 4th amendment protection of "persons, houses, papers, and effects"
The US Supreme Court cited this case in overturning the California Supreme Court's decision in Riley v. California, where a man had been convicted of multiple firearms charges stemming from text messages found on Riley's phone.
In both cases, the courts have clearly stated that digital information stored on a moden smartphone is protected by the 4th Amendment. It seems quite reasonable, therefore, to extend the constitutional protection of the 1st Amendment to communications conducted via these same devices, be such communications considered speech, the press*, assembly, or petition for redress of grievances.
* = Yes, we in TV news actually have several applications on our phones specifically designed to allow a live feed from our phone to be taken directly to air in the event that we happen to witness breaking news. I used it once, about a year ago, when I was literally the closest thing to a "reporter" when a hi-rise fire broke out in Midtown Manhattan. I stayed there streaming it back to the control room until a proper ENG truck arrived. (Technically, this was a violation of the IBEW 1212 contract, but nobody has yet filed a union grievance in any such situation of which I'm aware.)
Thus, since TV News is considered to be a part of "the press" for 1st Amendment purposes, smartphones are now a direct part of "the press" when used in such a context.
Thus, since TV News is considered to be a part of "the press" for 1st Amendment purposes, smartphones are now a direct part of "the press" when used in such a context.
Reply
0
0
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 80,552
Total Cats: 4,368
From: Chantilly, VA
I'd say Morse v. Frederick, 2007 is somewhat of a good, recent, case to support Trump here, Joe.
school officials confiscated a banner a student displayed on the sidelines of an Olympic event. they also suspended him.
after the ninth circuit reserved the decision there was no 1st violation, not surprisingly, it went to the SC.
“School principals have a difficult job, and a vitally important one. When Frederick suddenly and unexpectedly unfurled his banner, Morse had to decide to act—or not act—on the spot. It was reasonable for her to conclude that the banner promoted illegal drug use—in violation of established school policy—and that failing to act would send a powerful message to the students in her charge, including Frederick, about how serious the school was about the dangers of illegal drug use. The First Amendment does not require schools to tolerate at school events student expression that contributes to those dangers.” by author of opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr.
school officials confiscated a banner a student displayed on the sidelines of an Olympic event. they also suspended him.
after the ninth circuit reserved the decision there was no 1st violation, not surprisingly, it went to the SC.
“School principals have a difficult job, and a vitally important one. When Frederick suddenly and unexpectedly unfurled his banner, Morse had to decide to act—or not act—on the spot. It was reasonable for her to conclude that the banner promoted illegal drug use—in violation of established school policy—and that failing to act would send a powerful message to the students in her charge, including Frederick, about how serious the school was about the dangers of illegal drug use. The First Amendment does not require schools to tolerate at school events student expression that contributes to those dangers.” by author of opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr.
Last edited by Braineack; Jun 8, 2017 at 07:51 AM.
Reply
0
0
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 80,552
Total Cats: 4,368
From: Chantilly, VA
and if this was the UK, they'd be more than just "blocked" -- they'd be arrested:
https://www.facebook.com/myiannopoulos/videos/932361900235039/
because, as we all know, being mean on the internet is much more imporant right now in the UK than preventing citizens from blowing up...
https://www.facebook.com/myiannopoulos/videos/932361900235039/
because, as we all know, being mean on the internet is much more imporant right now in the UK than preventing citizens from blowing up...
Reply
0
0
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 34,402
Total Cats: 7,523
From: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Good citation, however the court's decision in Morse was:
A: very narrowly defined as applying to schools, wherein historically "the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings" (Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser), and
B: based party on the fact that the speech in question explicitly promoted an illegal activity (drug use), and that schools may "exercise editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities" (Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier)
In this case, the forum is not a school, and the speech in question does not condone illegal activity. Ergo, Morse does not apply.
B: based party on the fact that the speech in question explicitly promoted an illegal activity (drug use), and that schools may "exercise editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities" (Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier)
Reply
0
0
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 80,552
Total Cats: 4,368
From: Chantilly, VA
I'd like to make a note that a large number of 1st amendment cases the SC hears are about child ****...
couldn't really find another case that's similar, because most of the cases the SC hears actually have some sort of grievance -- like being fired from their jobs...
imo, the owner of the tweet feed matters little. it is constitutional for twitter to allow any user to block people from feeds or not. that's the only argument here.
couldn't really find another case that's similar, because most of the cases the SC hears actually have some sort of grievance -- like being fired from their jobs...
imo, the owner of the tweet feed matters little. it is constitutional for twitter to allow any user to block people from feeds or not. that's the only argument here.
Last edited by Braineack; Jun 8, 2017 at 09:02 AM.
Reply
0
0
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 80,552
Total Cats: 4,368
From: Chantilly, VA
Eichenwald’s tweet was one of many in a string of angry messages directed at Fox News host Tucker Carlson.
This was apparently prompted by Carlson name-dropping Eichenwald, whom he previously thoroughly roasted, on air Tuesday night.
“Apparently, @TuckerCarlson brought me up on his show last night,” wrote Eichenwald, who has a penchant for deleting old tweets. “I wouldn’t know. Like most people now, I don’t watch it.”
...
In a follow-up tweet, Eichenwald shared a photo of an anti-Semitic flyer he allegedly received and tweeted at Carlson, “since being on your show I get things like this a lot, most always from ppl mentioning u. Ur the Julius Streicher of Fox.”
After being accused of lying about the flyer, Eichenwald tweeted this photograph of him holding it in front of his computer.
This was apparently prompted by Carlson name-dropping Eichenwald, whom he previously thoroughly roasted, on air Tuesday night.
“Apparently, @TuckerCarlson brought me up on his show last night,” wrote Eichenwald, who has a penchant for deleting old tweets. “I wouldn’t know. Like most people now, I don’t watch it.”
...
In a follow-up tweet, Eichenwald shared a photo of an anti-Semitic flyer he allegedly received and tweeted at Carlson, “since being on your show I get things like this a lot, most always from ppl mentioning u. Ur the Julius Streicher of Fox.”
After being accused of lying about the flyer, Eichenwald tweeted this photograph of him holding it in front of his computer.
Reply
0
0
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 80,552
Total Cats: 4,368
From: Chantilly, VA
this is why liberals want to disarm Americans:
https://www.facebook.com/myiannopoulos/videos/932384083566154/
remember, conservatives are violent *****.
https://www.facebook.com/myiannopoulos/videos/932384083566154/
remember, conservatives are violent *****.
Reply
0
0
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 34,402
Total Cats: 7,523
From: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
The argument here hinges upon whether President Trump's twitter page constitutes an official forum.
The owner of a comedy club, for instance, can freely regulate who is allowed to get up on stage and perform (even during open-mic night), and can also silence members of the audience or eject them from the premises.
But consider the case in which the Federal government rents a private banquet hall for the evening, to use for a public forum. In this case, a much, much higher standard is required to remove a person from that forum on the basis of the content of their speech.
The argument being made is that the President's twitter page is comparable in the virtual world to the banquet hall in the physical one.
Reply
0
0
Comey drinking game has started. One drink for every time Comey answers with "It's classified", one drink for every "I can't talk about a current investigation", two drinks for every tweet Donald sends out during it.
Lets all get FUCKED UP.
Lets all get FUCKED UP.
Reply
0
0
