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.

 

Court decision against trump means Twitter can no longer kick off conservatives

page: 2
49
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 05:40 PM
link   
AOC is already getting sued, join in the fun kiddos

this is going to be an AWESOME 18 months, I have popcorn and banana liquer (45.5%)

Yeah for unintended consequences.

I was going to start a thread but it's already here.




posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: LordAhriman
From what I read, the decision was made because he attempts to use Twitter as a platform to conduct government business. So unless said conservatives are government officials, conducting government business, it won't help them in any way.


Incorrect

The reason that trump couldn’t block people was because it would keep them from seeing and discussing government business

If twitter kicks conservatives off, that also keeps them from seeing or discussing government business that trump or any other government official is discussing on twitter
edit on 9-7-2019 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa
The obvious solution fro Twitter to preserve it's protection as a private non-political platform is to ban all public figures in the political arena from using its service. No tweeting from government representatives...period. Once out of office, they can join, but not while IN office.

That would protect them from this ruling, legally.

Is it ideal? No, but it would solve their problem created by this stupid court ruling.



I thought of that and think you are correct

The problem for twitter would be this would open the road for a competitor that allowed government officials and doesn’t censor people for political ideology

That could make twitter obsolete real fast

Which I’d be fine with
edit on 9-7-2019 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: LordAhriman

I would imagine this applies to all government officials then, and all government run agencies. So I could in theory, go on any politicians Twitter, throw out any thing I want that doesn't violate the T&C of Twitter. If it's something they or whoever manages their media platform doesn't care for, and they block me, I can sue them. This could be anything from "I disagree with how you're handling illegal immigration" to "I disagree with your stance on abortion and here's why". All perfectly normal things that a politician will see on their Twitter, and they can do nothing to prevent it at the risk of legal action against themselves.




posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Former New York State Assemblyman Dov Hikind (D) is the one suing AOC!

Democrats eating their own


www.foxnews.com...



posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 06:15 PM
link   
If this does pass then will Reddit and FB have to follow suit?
HAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!



posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 06:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: jhn7537
a reply to: Grambler

Yup, Twitter banned me because i asked AOC if she was r*tarded. To be fair, i honestly believed it was a legitimate question... Now it looks like its time to appeal my ban again, lol


Spoiler Alert!

She is!



posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: jhn7537

Yup, Twitter has banned me because i asked AOC if she was r*tarded... Now it looks like its time to appeal my ban again, lol



Grambler
Don’t appeal

File a lawsuit


Former New York State Assemblyman Dov Hikind (D) wants to hear from you! twitter.com...
edit on 9-7-2019 by Gojira54 because: missed the first quote I was responding to

edit on 9-7-2019 by Gojira54 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Starcrossd

there is no pass, it's already set in stone and a court precedent.

and yes FB and Reddit have to comply as well.

or they can be sued in court.



posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Lets get that lawyer from infowars (What's his name?) to start looking for a sympathetic judge to file a class action lawsuit against all media...



posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Hypntick

you can go on twitter and ask Kamala Harris how she wants to pay reperations to the 129 slaves her family owned.

this is going to be sooo awesome, I want to get on twitter now..........



posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Looks like it's high time this ol' redneck stepped a foot into the 21st century. Easy money! Tell people how stoopid they are and they have to pay you (legal damages) to shut you up!

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 07:12 PM
link   
This is horrible for the politicians!

They might actually be exposed to the opinions of . . . *gasp*


. . . . . . . regular people.





posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 07:15 PM
link   
A way to stop all this stupid stuff would be to not ban anyone who is not trying to outright incite violence.
Tell people that if they don't like what someone posted then don't read it.
Remember ,every time you get offended and start to complain and state your own feelings you very well could be offending someone else.....it will always be that way.



posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Court decision against trump means Twitter can no longer kick off conservatives


It doesn't mean that at all.

What is does mean is that Trump, being a public official, and by using Twitter in an official capacity, cannot block critics.


The judges on the appeals court concluded that "the First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise-open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees."
Link

That has nothing to do with Twitter banning offensive (conservative) accounts or accounts that violate its TOS.



posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 07:21 PM
link   
U.S. Appeals Court Rules Trump Violated First Amendment By Blocking Twitter Followers

OP forgot the most important part of the decision.



In a 29-page ruling on Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld a lower court's decision that found that Trump violated the First Amendment when he blocked certain Twitter users, because he uses his Twitter account "to conduct official business and to interact with the public." By preventing critics from accessing his feed, the president is barring them from participating in what the judges deemed a public forum.

"[The] First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise-open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees," the judges wrote

edit on 9-7-2019 by D3M1G0D because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

The reason trump couldn’t block people is because it is doing government business in Twitter, and blocking people would mean that they couldn’t see or discuss that business

Ok got that?

Now if twitter blocks someone for ideological reasons, that means they also can’t see trumps government business

If trump can’t stop people from seeing this business and commenting on it, neither can twitter



posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 08:42 PM
link   
1/2 right.

twitter, as a private company, can still ban whomever they wish, even politicians, with or without cause/explanation.

politicians however, cannot block anyone from their tweets.

you do not have a right to twitter.

think of it this way. pick a politician and i are in a bar. i can not be thrown out of the bar, or in someway silenced, by the politician for disagreeing with them (an exception would be restraining orders or some other legal issue). i can heckle them as much or as little as i like and there is nothing the politician can do about it. however, the bar owner can kick me out for any reason whatsoever. a public conversation, even in a private establishment, is governed by the 1st amendment.



posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: stormson

No you are wrong

We are not talking about a bar

The court said trump was violating the first amendment because he posted in a public board

It specifically said had it been a private forum he would have every right to block people

So your bar analogy doesn’t work

The court is saying twitter is a public forum that everyone should have access to because government business is conducted in it

The harms of not allowing an individual participate in that government business applies to anyone, whether it be trump blocking it or twitter



posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

actually, the bar analogy holds.

if the owner were to charge a cover, it becomes a private event. if the politician were hosting the event, it would then be private, and they could kick whomever they wished out.

twitter is hosting a public event on a private site. twitter controls who they let in. the politician has no say.

if trump holds a rally, using private funds, he can keep whomever he likes out.
if trump is in a public area, he cannot have someone removed from that area (if they are following the law).
edit on 9-7-2019 by stormson because: edit to add




top topics



 
49
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join