|
|
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1420511)
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.
|
Originally Posted by shuiend
(Post 1420512)
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.
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1420513)
if that's the argument, then the case got weaker...
|
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1420511)
Under normal circumstances, yes.
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. Does it really matter who the "users" are? |
Originally Posted by bahurd
(Post 1420515)
Does it really matter who the "users" are?
|
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1420514)
Weaker than what, and how / why?
|
|
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1420518)
because as a banquet hall, you can control rowdy guests from inside closed door and force them to stand outside to protest (ie being banned from the feed, but still able to post on their own/others')
The original complaint was that @realDonaldTrump is blocking the other person from appearing in his feed. I'm not a fan of the guy at all but I support his choice of who he wants to listen to or not. I don't have to like it... |
During his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee this morning, former FBI Director James Comey has confirmed that President Donald Trump did not ask him to stop the FBI’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. |
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1420518)
because as a banquet hall, you can control rowdy guests from inside closed door and force them to stand outside to protest (ie being banned from the feed, but still able to post on their own/others')
If the hall is being used, as I said, by the government to conduct a public forum, then members of the government MAY limit the access of those who are being disorderly, but they may NOT eject people who, while showing good decorum, ask questions / make statements which the leadership of the government find objectionable on political grounds. That's kind of what the last part of the First Amendment means. So, is Twitter a "public forum*," and does Trump speak as the President when he posts on Twitter? * = Meaning open to the public, not publicly-owned. |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1420533)
So, is Twitter a "public forum*," and does Trump speak as the President when he posts on Twitter?
* = Meaning open to the public, not publicly-owned. In the Twitter case, the "public" is free to use the services, without payment, only after they agree to the Twitter Terms of Service. I haven't taken the time to work through the legalese but no doubt it says something to the effect of "however we chose to implement things you agree to them" If you care enough: Terms of Service |
in other news, im having 1st amendment issues of my own:
Gay Trump supporters denied entry into Charlotte Pride Parade - Story | WNYW |
Originally Posted by bahurd
(Post 1420540)
How is this different from the religious liberty debates insofar as it relates to a business having the choice to bake a cake for a gay couple? Not to change the subject...
The government isn't discriminating against anyone, nor are they infringing upon the baker's right to practice her religion. The Catholic Church (any many related faiths) command their adherents not to *be* gay, but are silent on the matter of engaging in commerce with gay people. Ergo, the 1st doesn't apply, just like it didn't when the owners of a Cafe were forced to serve food to negroes.
Originally Posted by bahurd
(Post 1420540)
In the Twitter case, the "public" is free to use the services, without payment, only after they agree to the Twitter Terms of Service. I haven't taken the time to work through the legalese but no doubt it says something to the effect of "however we chose to implement things you agree to them"
If you care enough: Terms of Service |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1420554)
The First Amendment does not apply to the behavior of private individuals and companies, only to the government.
|
I prefer not to comment on these things in an open setting.
|
Originally Posted by bahurd
(Post 1420556)
So cite examples where the 1st amendment forces the government to read or listen too, what I write or say.
|
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1420559)
It doesn't. But they can't prevent you from saying it, which is what blocking someone from your Twitter feed accomplishes. It's a form of Prior Restraint, which is very much frowned upon by the courts.
Not buying the Prior Restraint argument counselor... |
Originally Posted by bahurd
(Post 1420563)
Nobody is prevented from "saying it". Anyone who happens to follow you would know you said it. If the POTUS chose to wear heavy ear muffs while standing in a room preventing him (the government) from hearing you speak is that somehow restricting you right to express your view (other than looking stupid and being downright rude). Everyone else in the room would hear you.
Not buying the Prior Restraint argument counselor... If you are blocked by @RealDonaldTrump, then you can neither view his tweets nor comment upon them. Thus, to the point of your analogy above, POTUS blocking someone isn't equivalent to him putting on heavy earmuffs, it's equivalent to putting duct tape across the mouth of the speaker for so long as they are standing in the room. (The duct tape magically vanishes as soon as they leave the room.) I'd be willing to do a test here. My Twitter handle is Thraddax. I made one tweet in 2011. Here's a link: https://twitter.com/Thraddax Comment on my Tweet. Then I'm going to block you. Then try to comment on it again. |
joe, your best bet will be to follow all these stories: Indiana Police Department Sued Over Removing Facebook Comments
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/12959/HPD-Ordered-to-Pay-31K-over-Censored-Facebook-Comments.aspx i came across these regularly when i was on my bad cop no donut phase. |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1420565)
I think you may be misunderstanding how Twitter works.
If you are blocked by @RealDonaldTrump, then you can neither view his tweets nor comment upon them. Thus, to the point of your analogy above, POTUS blocking someone isn't equivalent to him putting on heavy earmuffs, it's equivalent to putting duct tape across the mouth of the speaker for so long as they are standing in the room. (The duct tape magically vanishes as soon as they leave the room.) I'd be willing to do a test here. My Twitter handle is Thraddax. I made one tweet in 2011. Here's a link: https://twitter.com/Thraddax Comment on my Tweet. Then I'm going to block you. Then try to comment on it again. |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1420565)
If you are blocked by @RealDonaldTrump, then you can neither view his tweets nor comment upon them. Thus, to the point of your analogy above, POTUS blocking someone isn't equivalent to him putting on heavy earmuffs, it's equivalent to putting duct tape across the mouth of the speaker for so long as they are standing in the room. (The duct tape magically vanishes as soon as they leave the room.)
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:05 AM. |
|
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands