Twitter users sue Donald Trump for blocking them over critical comments

a reply to: 3daysgone

I don't think replying to the President's posts automatically means the poster hates the President.

They disagree with the President. That is the correct deduction. The President is blocking those who disagree with his Twitter posts.

Do you too believe that Twitter is at fault and it is they who should be sued for providing a block function?

a reply to: antoinemarionette

It isn't censorship, pure and simple. He's simply ignoring them.

a reply to: TruMcCarthy

Yes, but remember, Donald Trump has chosen Twitter to be used to make official White House statements.

He said that himself. No one told him to do that. It was his choice.

Trump Statements Official

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

So when this material is all archived by twitter for future generations to reference, will the troll storms be archived as well, or just the tweets themselves?

I've seen a lot of trolling in my day, ,but NOTHING compares to what goes on in each and every one of his posts.

It's amusing and sad at the same time I guess, I hope their lawsuit does not succeed, you should be able to block whoever you want on twitter, be you the president or a peasant.

originally posted by: antoinemarionette
a reply to: TruMcCarthy

Yes, but remember, Donald Trump has chosen Twitter to be used to make official White House statements.

He said that himself. No one told him to do that. It was his choice.

Trump Statements Official

The 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech"

What law was passed? There is just no way to make this a 1st Amendment issue, not if we are going by The Constitution.

a reply to: antoinemarionette

I'm confused. He didn't block them from twitter, right? He blocked them from appearing in things he can see? They still have their audience, they still have the ability to comment on things they want to, they have simply been removed from his twitter feed?

Uhhh, if I stand in the middle of a crowd and put my fingers in my ears, I am in no way preventing others from speaking.

Bloody nora the left has lost the plot entirely.

"Listen to me Listen to me, You're not listening, I'm gonna cry !!"

far out.

a reply to: seeker1963

I deduce from your statement that you think that Twitter does not support free speech.

Is that correct?

a reply to: badw0lf

Haha. I like that.

originally posted by: antoinemarionette
a reply to: seeker1963

I deduce from your statement that you think that Twitter does not support free speech.

Is that correct?

Yep!

FACT! Jack Dorsey suppresses positive support for President Trump and pushes the negative Marxist responses.

Any questions?

originally posted by: antoinemarionette
a reply to: seeker1963

Haha. You sound angry! Why is that?

Just a simple question. Why don't you answer it?

Trump blocks users on his account, and the users sue... what do you think about that, specifically.

As much as someone you are replying to not responding to your post and then you calling a moderator to ban them?

It's the exact same.

After reading through this thread I see that its everyone's right to instigate a law suit. For whatever frivolous reasons. But as has been pointed out there will be a lot of losers and perhaps some winners.

Winners will be the lawyers as aforementioned but I'd be unsurprised if there was an individual running a book, gaining the income from the givers and living off the interest in the background. Untouchable. A popular sort of person who can pull at the heart strings.

Cheers

bally

originally posted by: antoinemarionette
a reply to: Metallicus

I think that is a very interesting perspective... it's Twitter at fault for providing such a function, and it is they that should be sued... anybody else agree?

No one should be sued. What a silly stance.

Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction.

originally posted by: antoinemarionette
a reply to: TruMcCarthy

Yes, but remember, Donald Trump has chosen Twitter to be used to make official White House statements.

He said that himself. No one told him to do that. It was his choice.

Trump Statements Official

It is HIS PERSONAL twitter account, he can do what he pleases with it. His official Presidential twitter is not at issue.

grudge much?

a reply to: badw0lf

You better answer my phone call, listen to my tweets, and hear me when I speak to you. Please do not ignore this post.

a reply to: badw0lf

President Donald Trump’s tweets “are considered official statements by the President of the United States,” because “the president is the President of the United States,” White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer explained patiently at Tuesday’s briefing.

If the tweets are official statements, then frankly, they should be viewed as such by all. Wouldn't you agree?

Yet there is no explanation or protocol for replies to Tweets. Any suggestions?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Well I'm not clued up on Twitter....

from the link

Since Twitter users who have been blocked cannot read or respond to Trump’s tweets, the suit argues, blocking users for their political beliefs “imposes a viewpoint-based restriction on ... participation in a public forum” and violates the first amendment.

It would be analogous to a town hall meeting where certain people where expelled so others within the meeting were not able to hear opposing viewpoint.

I understand Twitter is a private company and they have their own rules but I suspect the argument would be - you hire your hall for a political rally open to all and then the landlord gets to be sued for having a door to the hall.

I think the White House may have an interesting battle on its hands.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Well I'm not clued up on Twitter....

from the link

Since Twitter users who have been blocked cannot read or respond to Trump’s tweets, the suit argues, blocking users for their political beliefs “imposes a viewpoint-based restriction on ... participation in a public forum” and violates the first amendment.

It would be analogous to a town hall meeting where certain people where expelled so others within the meeting were not able to hear opposing viewpoint.

I understand Twitter is a private company and they have their own rules but I suspect the argument would be - you hire your hall for a political rally open to all and then the landlord gets to be sued for having a door to the hall.

I think the White House may have an interesting battle on its hands.

They don't have to log in to twitter though to read the tweets! I don't have a twitter account yet I can read the tweets! I just can't troll! This is a nothing burger.

Go to Bing and type "Trump Twitter" it will show you the link to his twitter account, and you can click and read every damn tweet he makes. Just can't troll him.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Nah. Twitter is social media. The block button is there for a reason. This case will go nowhere.

a reply to: seeker1963

Ah I see. So it would be like someone else said in this thread - akin to being at a rally and having the opportunity to put your fingers in your ears, a nothing burger.

Thanks