It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
“This case requires us to consider whether a public official may, consistent with the First Amendment, “block” a person from his Twitter account in response to the political views that person has expressed, and whether the analysis differs because that public official is the President of the United States. The answer to both questions is no.”
“When a user is signed in to a Twitter account that has been blocked, the blocked user cannot see or reply to the blocking user’s tweets, view the blocking user’s list of followers or followed accounts, or use the Twitter platform to search for the blocking user’s tweets.”
However, if the President chooses to use his private account to share news and make statements that affect every single American, then it needs to be available to be read by every single American -- simple as that.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Kharron
However, if the President chooses to use his private account to share news and make statements that affect every single American, then it needs to be available to be read by every single American -- simple as that.
It is available to every single American—simple as that.
Except those that are blocked? Which by definition is not everyone.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Kharron
Except those that are blocked? Which by definition is not everyone.
Again, the accounts are blocked, not the user. People are not their twitter accounts. They can log out of their accounts and have the exact same access as everyone else.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Kharron
Except those that are blocked? Which by definition is not everyone.
Again, the accounts are blocked, not the user. People are not their twitter accounts. They can log out of their accounts and have the exact same access as everyone else.
originally posted by: Kharron
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Kharron
Except those that are blocked? Which by definition is not everyone.
Again, the accounts are blocked, not the user. People are not their twitter accounts. They can log out of their accounts and have the exact same access as everyone else.
Ok, let's backtrack then.
If a person made a threat to the President's life over a Twitter account, you would be arguing the person cannot be held accountable and the FBI cannot break down their door because they are not the account? Apply this to threats of school bombings over Facebook, or a threat to bomb a federal building, or anything else.
I don't think you could find a single example where a court ruled those people were not held liable and only the account was. I will be very surprised if you find an example. However, I am not surprised, as you are, that the defense didn't even bring this up.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
originally posted by: Kharron
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Kharron
Except those that are blocked? Which by definition is not everyone.
Again, the accounts are blocked, not the user. People are not their twitter accounts. They can log out of their accounts and have the exact same access as everyone else.
Ok, let's backtrack then.
If a person made a threat to the President's life over a Twitter account, you would be arguing the person cannot be held accountable and the FBI cannot break down their door because they are not the account? Apply this to threats of school bombings over Facebook, or a threat to bomb a federal building, or anything else.
I don't think you could find a single example where a court ruled those people were not held liable and only the account was. I will be very surprised if you find an example. However, I am not surprised, as you are, that the defense didn't even bring this up.
I wouldn't argue that at all. I'm arguing that people are not their twitter accounts. People, not twitter accounts, make threats. In your example, and according to the judge's logic, the FBI could jail the Twitter account and it would be the same as jailing the user.
originally posted by: seeker1963
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Kharron
Except those that are blocked? Which by definition is not everyone.
Again, the accounts are blocked, not the user. People are not their twitter accounts. They can log out of their accounts and have the exact same access as everyone else.
Yep!
I don't nor will I ever have a Twitter account. Yet I at anytime can jump on and read what Trump or anyone else is saying. I just can't correspond or TROLL them. That is what this is all about. I butt hurt Prog not being allowed to troll.
However, if the President chooses to use his private account to share news and make statements that affect every single American, then it needs to be available to be read by every single American -- simple as that. The President is the government; he needs to make sure he doesn't discriminate in his communication with the People.
originally posted by: Kharron
However, if the President chooses to use his private account to share news and make statements that affect every single American, then it needs to be available to be read by every single American -- simple as that. The President is the government; he needs to make sure he doesn't discriminate in his communication with the People.
Thank you, that's my point exactly -- you can't jail the account, that would be silly, right? Therefore in the eyes of the law, the account is the person. Every case I've ever heard treats it this way -- if they didn't numerous potential bombers wouldn't have been caught and tried, numerous online sexual predators wouldn't be behind bars, etc...
Once again, I'm not surprised it wasn't brought up in court. There are many precedents for it, and they're pretty axiomatic in our law.
originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Kharron
However, if the President chooses to use his private account to share news and make statements that affect every single American, then it needs to be available to be read by every single American -- simple as that. The President is the government; he needs to make sure he doesn't discriminate in his communication with the People.
As Les Mis has mentioned, if one logs out of twitter, each and every single tweet the president has made is still accessible. I am currently browsing his feed and am looking for one example of a policy announcement or other such broadly affecting event that is solely discussed on his personal twitter feed. I am not logged in and every tweet he ever posted is available as far back as I care to scroll.
You do know there is an official POTUS twitter account as well, right?
Both accounts are visible and I am not logged in, so any news or statement is available to, "every single American."
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Kharron
Thank you, that's my point exactly -- you can't jail the account, that would be silly, right? Therefore in the eyes of the law, the account is the person. Every case I've ever heard treats it this way -- if they didn't numerous potential bombers wouldn't have been caught and tried, numerous online sexual predators wouldn't be behind bars, etc...
Once again, I'm not surprised it wasn't brought up in court. There are many precedents for it, and they're pretty axiomatic in our law.
That is not the case, and is in fact silly. The user makes the threat, not the account. The account, and twitter, is the medium through which he does it. That's like saying someone making threats by mail is the same as the paper he wrote it on.
You're making my point exactly and I'm trying to explain this.
"The user makes the threat, not the account."
I agree, and you just validated the judge's decision. The account is immaterial, it has no rights, it is the user that matters. In the case of discrimination, it needs to be applied equally, the account has no rights, it's the user that matters.