The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
06-08-2017, 10:19 AM
#8982
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,026
Total Cats: 6,592
Weaker than what, and how / why?
Reply
0
0
06-08-2017, 10:22 AM
#8983
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.
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?
Reply
0
0
06-08-2017, 11:03 AM
#8988
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
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.
Reply
0
0
06-08-2017, 11:19 AM
#8989
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,026
Total Cats: 6,592
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.
Reply
0
0
06-08-2017, 11:46 AM
#8990
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
Reply
0
0
06-08-2017, 12:26 PM
#8991
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
in other news, im having 1st amendment issues of my own:
Gay Trump supporters denied entry into Charlotte Pride Parade - Story | WNYW
Gay Trump supporters denied entry into Charlotte Pride Parade - Story | WNYW
Reply
0
0
06-08-2017, 12:35 PM
#8992
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,026
Total Cats: 6,592
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.
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
If you care enough: Terms of Service
Reply
0
0
06-08-2017, 12:57 PM
#8995
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,026
Total Cats: 6,592
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.
Reply
0
0
06-08-2017, 01:11 PM
#8996
Not buying the Prior Restraint argument counselor...
Reply
0
0
06-08-2017, 01:19 PM
#8997
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,026
Total Cats: 6,592
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...
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.
Reply
0
0
06-08-2017, 01:42 PM
#8998
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
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.
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.
Reply
0
0
06-08-2017, 01:46 PM
#8999
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.
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.
Reply
0
0
06-08-2017, 01:48 PM
#9000
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
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.)
Reply
0
0
