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: 3
49
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: stormson



The bar analogy is nonsensical

Say trump wants a guy out of the bar

You say he can’t do that.

So then say trump tells the bar, “kick this guy out”

It’s still not legal for the bar owner to kick them out

It’s a dumb analogy because a bar isn’t a public forum where government business is being conducted by many government officials

Show me one example ever of the court telling a politician they could t kick a person out of their event, but the owner of a venue could



Trump can’t buddy up to Jack Dorsey and say, hey jack, kick all of these people I blocked off Twitter

That’s still according to the court blocking people from rowing and discussing government business in a public forum




posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Obviously the ruling does not apply to bots.

The ruling also does not apply to non-US citizens.

Interesting fun times ahead.

So using a bot or non US Citizens to alter the perception of We The People should by extension be considered a crime?

P



posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 09:45 PM
link   
It should add somewhere that Twitter must prove who is a real person and who is not, then remove those who are not.
Trump cant be forced to allow 'bots' and computer programs to be manipulating public opinion.

Its people, people only!



posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 09:46 PM
link   
After that big and tacky show of de-platforming people, It would be hilarious if they had to pay Alex Jones* for lost revenue.

*not a fan, i just hate social media.



posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

As soon as I started following anything political, starting with POTUS (and seeing people's replies), I decided people on social media who comment on politics are too idiotic to bother paying attention to.

Nearly all of them, "left", "right" or other are just noise repeaters. Its creepy, as if nearly everyone has fallen in line under the same talking points and buzzwords. If I wasn't aware that plenty of people do NOT actually fall within either of the standard political zombie states, I would be packing up and heading for the hills.

What IS frightening is that as this right/left crap continues to fever pitch, more and more people are joining the two zombie hordes. Every year, there are less and less thinking Americans and more and more left/right mindless pawns.

As another poster said, I hope Twitter and Facebook fail completely. These massive social media corporations, who could actually be the true voice of the People and nullify some of the power of the controlled media...are controlled media themselves. If only someone WITHOUT a political agenda - a true champion of Freedom of Speech, would step up and launch a successful alternative. Not one for the right, or the left, just a completely open version where thoughts and ideas could be shared, debated, fought out, etc. If there was, it would be infiltrated, and become another tool of division.

...Like the infiltration and ruining of the Tea Party movement, I feel like the same thing has happened to the social media platforms which COULD HAVE been real Power to the People tools. Oh well ::kicks can::




posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 10:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: lordcomac
Rules don't apply to democrats, though.
They believe it, through and through.

So by that logic, democrats can ban conservatives from doing exactly what democrats do, but not vice versa.

I honestly hope to see the end of twitter/facebook over this sort of stuff.
Sooner or later the adults will have to step and and spank the children.


I left Facebook last Thanksgiving-ish.
Never was on twitter.
I don’t miss either.

I used to go see every movie that was put out, or rent them.

I haven’t been in a movie theater for 15 years, this September.



posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 10:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Oaktree

Very similar for me. No more Nike as well. Just keep my head down. Stay ahead of the economy and maximize my income and assets. Narrowed my focus down to immediate family and the voting booth.



posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 11:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

actually, it is legal for the bar owner to kick the person out, whether trump told them or not. they own the bar.

a "public forum" is anyplace open to the public. however, the owner of the area can refuse service and have people removed.

your request for examples is nonsense. if the politician is hosting the event, they can kick out whomever they want. it all comes down to the host.

that seems to be your stumbling block. the host can do as they like.



posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: stormson


a "public forum" is anyplace open to the public. however, the owner of the area can refuse service and have people removed.

That's not the legal definition of a public forum.

A public forum is not owned by any one owner in that sense. Only the police (a government entity) can have people removed from a public forum, and only for violating the law. Someone may own the venue, but by making it into a public forum they forego the right to kick people out.

A Trump rally is a private forum if it is paid for by the Trump campaign; Donald Trump can have anyone removed at any time for any reason. A Trump rally is a public forum if it is paid for using public funds. The only way someone can be kicked out is if they violate the law and are kicked out by the police.

It gets more complicated with services. The electric utility is a public utility; yet it is owned by private interests. It cannot refuse to sell power to someone over political ideology (or any other reason for that matter) short of public safety (as in dangerous wiring) or failure to pay. The same with the gas company, the water authority... any utility that serves the public with a critical product under monopolistic conditions.

Twitter serves the public by giving politicians a place to communicate with their constituency. The Internet has become a critical product, and Twitter holds a de facto monopoly on that communication. Ergo, Twitter should be considered a public utility. The court decision we are discussing has agreed that Twitter is a public utility by placing public restrictions on political users, thereby removing Twitter's right to ban anyone over ideology. The fact that they own the servers is irrelevant. They have the option of shutting down or staying open under the restrictions of being a public utility... no more, no less.

Despite being a public utility, Twitter can establish site rules as long as those site rules are not discriminatory toward anyone based on political position and as long as those rules withstand government scrutiny. That's the same thing the power company does in establishing rates; all rates must be approved by the government, and they cannot charge a conservative one rate and a liberal another rate.

According to the court, Twitter's platform is an essential utility due to the use of the platform by politicians. Therefore, banning a user based on political position is akin to preventing that individual from engaging in a public forum, which is a violation of that individual's right to free speech. That means anyone who is banned for political ideology has just as much right to sue Twitter as someone who the power company refuses to sell power to because they hold a political position.

This ruling also applies to all politicians. AOC, Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Shumer cannot ban anyone from their tweets as well, if they use tweets to communicate their official positions (which they all do).

This is not Ethiopia. We in the United States do not have laws for one group and other laws for another. The law is the law, and it applies to everyone, or to no one. The smartest thing Twitter can do now is remove the blocking option from all accounts held by politicians. Otherwise, they are going to be et up with all the lawsuits naming them as co-conspirators when a politician blocks a user.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 12:08 AM
link   
If people can't be prevented from accessing public officials Twitter feed because public official conducts official government business over it which is more likely.

1. Court rules that a private company isn't allowed to have any t&cs for membership at all, ever, because it would violate the first and amendment rights. Violating said company's own first amendment rights.

2. Court rules public officials can't use a private company, which can and does have membership t&cs, for official government business. IE applying law to those those the 1st amendment is directed at.



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 01:25 AM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

This only applies to politicians blocking the general public. Twitter will simply block the users itself by saying that they are violating hate speech rules. Liberals of course won't be effected because Twitter won't recognize liberal hate speech for what it is.



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 01:36 AM
link   
You are being a bit inaccurate. Trump himself can't block people from commenting on his Twitter because he is using it as a public official (President, no less) to engage in political discourse with the nation. It doesn't have to do with Twitter or the average Joe's personal account - note that both of these entities can still moderate the content they interact with.

It does mean that a Democrat president will not be able to block their followers or whoever from commenting. However, Twitter could still moderate the content if the followers of either a Democrat or Republican president were violating Twitter's TOS - for example, with death threats.



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 01:41 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I would assume that removing the blocking option from all politicians, coupled with Twitter enforcing its own TOS to prevent harassment and the like, would be a good idea.



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 03:59 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Exactly

Here’s an example, though it’s not perfect

There are governmental emergency warning services that can be sent out by phone

“There is a weather warning” or maybe even “this is an amber alert for a missing child”

At t or whatever company that is a phone service can not prevent you from getting that message because you say there are only two genders and men can’t be women

Twitter does exactly that

It is now illegal for twitter to do that because it’s a public forum on which governmental business is conducted



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 05:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler




This means that twitter can not kick people off its platform, particularly for ideological reasons

As if they ever did.



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 05:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

They kicked me off for ideological reasons.

As always, Silly is dead wrong



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 05:55 AM
link   
You're forgetting the fact that when you sign up for Twitter you sign a contract with them that says they can ban you if you don't follow the rules of the contract. You're voluntarily giving up your First Amendment rights to Twitter.

This ruling specifically applies to Trump, and theoretically other politicians on Twitter. It does remove Twitter's right to moderate their site as they see fit. A right that has been given to them by their users.



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 05:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

They kicked me off for ideological reasons.

As always, Silly is dead wrong



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 06:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Yet they have banned people for ideological reasons.

I am just one of many who were banned from Twitter for ideological reasons.

As always, Silly is dead wrong.



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 06:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: TheRedneck

Exactly

Here’s an example, though it’s not perfect

There are governmental emergency warning services that can be sent out by phone

“There is a weather warning” or maybe even “this is an amber alert for a missing child”

At t or whatever company that is a phone service can not prevent you from getting that message because you say there are only two genders and men can’t be women

Twitter does exactly that

It is now illegal for twitter to do that because it’s a public forum on which governmental business is conducted


Extremely unlikely.

It might make it illegal to conduct public business over Twitter, but not make it illegal for moderate content or ban users.



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join