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: 5
49
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

It’s a pretty ridiculous decision.

It is more a violation of the president’s free speech than it is a protection of someone else’s, and it also blurs the line between a real person and their Twitter account, essentially giving rights to the latter.




posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: BuckyWunderlick

this decision was made to hurt President Trump.

unintentionally, it hurts all the lefts platforms across the board

Opps!😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

ETA: My wife said that President Trump is either playing 4D chess or is one lucky S.O.B. often.
edit on 10-7-2019 by thedigirati because: playing the odds ♠♣♥♦



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wookiep
Why does Twitter have a "block" option then? This is really stupid. Let's force Trump to never block a-hole lefty's, meanwhile lawsuits will pile up against people like AOC etc...

What's next? Are the courts going to decide that Facebook users can't remove "friends" anymore if a lefty is constantly bashing them cause Trump is bad?

This is really, really getting out of hand.
And there you have it. There are die hard communists in the Democrat Party who really want to revive the communist revolution and who would resort to anything and justify it. The ends justify the means to them.



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Xcalibur254

You're arguing two sides of the same coin. Basically saying, AOC can't block people who point out her ridiculousness anymore, but twitter can ban them for her. That completely flies in the face of the purpose of this ruling, which is why the protection will extend to twitter/facebook/youtube.

Now, if you never comment on a public officials content then there is probably a loophole that could be exploited by twitter as you were never taking part in the public discourse on public business. However, once you've used their platform to take part in that you reach a new status of protection.


It's the other way round. The rulling applies to the public official not the platform.

If a public official uses an online platform to conduct official business, and that platform does not have open membership, then people would conceivable have a case against the official not the platform.



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot



It's the other way round.


Again, it's a nickel. Whether you look at it from the heads side or the tails side, it's a nickel. How is this difficult to comprehend? People cannot be prohibited from participating in the public discourse just because of their opinion. This isn't the UK.



If a public official uses an online platform to conduct official business, and that platform does not have open membership, then people would conceivable have a case against the official not the platform.


So, like a congressional whatsapp chat? I would have a case against my congress person for having used a tool I can't see??? I don't think you've thought this through.



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 02:41 PM
link   
You're confusing I think that this applies to government officials, not to twitter and regular citizens.

Twitter can still ban people for violating its ToS, this ruling doesn't change that.

Twitter can still "kick people off its platform" and people can still block others.

This doesn't change anything for anyone besides government officials.














edit on 10-7-2019 by ghaleon12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: ScepticScot



It's the other way round.


Again, it's a nickel. Whether you look at it from the heads side or the tails side, it's a nickel. How is this difficult to comprehend? People cannot be prohibited from participating in the public discourse just because of their opinion. This isn't the UK.



If a public official uses an online platform to conduct official business, and that platform does not have open membership, then people would conceivable have a case against the official not the platform.


So, like a congressional whatsapp chat? I would have a case against my congress person for having used a tool I can't see??? I don't think you've thought this through.


And individuals or companies can't be compelled to publish messages they disagree with.

We talking about public announcements, not internal government communications as well you know.



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot



And individuals or companies can't be compelled to publish messages they disagree with.


These aren't publishers. They are platforms.



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: ScepticScot



And individuals or companies can't be compelled to publish messages they disagree with.


These aren't publishers. They are platforms.


Exactly

Imagine the us government is giving disaster relief for a tornado at a Walmart

It’s illegal for the government to turn down people because they disagree with them

It would also be illegal for that Walmart to say “we don’t like republicans so they can’t get the relief”



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: ScepticScot



And individuals or companies can't be compelled to publish messages they disagree with.


These aren't publishers. They are platforms.


A distinctio without difference in this case, as a private company the are not covered by the 1st amendment and can not be forced to publish/host/facilitate or what ever word you prefer.

The ruling applies to public officials, not private companies.



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: ScepticScot



And individuals or companies can't be compelled to publish messages they disagree with.


These aren't publishers. They are platforms.


Exactly

Imagine the us government is giving disaster relief for a tornado at a Walmart

It’s illegal for the government to turn down people because they disagree with them

It would also be illegal for that Walmart to say “we don’t like republicans so they can’t get the relief”


We are not talking about disaster relief.

If the government decided to publish official documents though distributing them Wal-Mart you can't make Wal-Mart let you in if you are banned for shoplifting.

You can however take legal action against the government to stop them only distributing them only through Wal-Mart.



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot



A distinction without difference in this case, as a private company the are not covered by the 1st amendment and can not be forced to publish/host/facilitate or what ever word you prefer.


Incorrect. First of all, they're not a private company, twitter is a public company. I can go buy shares right now if I want to. Same goes for google and Facebook.

Second, publishers are liable for what is posted on their site and therefore liable for lawsuits based on that content (if it incites violence or other such illicit activity). Ask prodigy who was sued and lost based on exactly this, because they heavily moderated their message boards.

Platforms are not liable for what is posted on their site. You only qualify for platform status if you aren't heavy handed in your "moderation."

Then there is TBS v. FCC, in which the supreme court held:



The First Amendment's command that government not impede the freedom of speech does not disable the government from taking steps to ensure that private interests not restrict, through physical control of a critical pathway of communication, the free flow of information and ideas.


After the prodigy lawsuit congress acted so that companies could moderate grotesque or violent speech while still being protected as platforms instead of publishers.

We can take a look at the regulation that protects these companies from lawsuits due to moderation. It's section 230 of the communications decency act. It says that moderation should be used to remove content that is: “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.”

Now before you latch onto 'otherwise objectionable' realize that courts have time and again held that otherwise objectionable 'content must, at a minimum, involve or be similar to obscenity, violence, or harassment. '

Now extend this to twitter. Twitter does not remove pornography. They do not remove obscenity. They rarely remove harassment or violence either. What they do remove are conservative ideas or anti-leftist ideas. So they're not using moderation as laid out by section 230, which makes them a publisher and liable for what is posted on their site.

So either:
A) twitter accepts this liability, continues removing conservative ideas and can be sued into oblivion by anyone affected by content posted on their site.

B) twitter backs off the conservative bans and qualifies for this protection based on free speech.



The ruling applies to public officials, not private companies.


I'm sure the court wishes that were true, however their ruling makes it clear that there can be no interference in the public discussing the public's business (AKA politics). If all it takes to get around this ruling is for trump to lean on twitter so they ban people who disagree with him, this ruling is meaningless. Unfortunately, it's not meaningless.
edit on 10-7-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot



If the government decided to publish official documents though distributing them Wal-Mart you can't make Wal-Mart let you in if you are banned for shoplifting.


That wasn't what grambler contended. He contended they couldn't ban you for your political ideas, from taking part in receiving those official documents.

But lets make the analogy more equal to what we're seeing with twitter.

Imagine walmart listens to every word you say while in or around their stores.
Let's also assume trump has chosen walmart as the place where he will hold all of his campaign rallies and deliver all of his official speeches.
Walmart grows tired of trump and wants to hurt his cause and starts banning people from their stores based on the opinions they hold.
Can walmart ban people from entering their stores based on those people's political opinion? Should they be able to?

Before you run off into the woods screaming that trump should be sued for it, realize that in this hypothetical his speeches and rallies are all posted on the whitehouse website. Just like his tweets are saved by the national archives.

There is also another flaw in your reasoning. Trump blocking people does not mean they cannot see his tweets, it just means they cannot comment on them, to him. All one hast to do is log out and go to twitter.com/realdonaldtrump and there are all of his tweets. So again, access to the information is not what this supreme court ruling is about, it's about free speech and the ability to participate in the public debate. If twitter is hindering that, then they are in violation of this court ruling.



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: ScepticScot



A distinction without difference in this case, as a private company the are not covered by the 1st amendment and can not be forced to publish/host/facilitate or what ever word you prefer.


Incorrect. First of all, they're not a private company, twitter is a public company. I can go buy shares right now if I want to. Same goes for google and Facebook.

Second, publishers are liable for what is posted on their site and therefore liable for lawsuits based on that content (if it incites violence or other such illicit activity). Ask prodigy who was sued and lost based on exactly this, because they heavily moderated their message boards.

Platforms are not liable for what is posted on their site. You only qualify for platform status if you aren't heavy handed in your "moderation."

The there is TBS v. FCC, in which the supreme court held that while the first amendment doesn't necessarily apply directly to private companies, but "it does not disable the government from taking steps to ensure that private interests not restrict the free flow of information and ideas."

After the prodigy lawsuit congress acted so that companies could moderate grotesque or violent speech while still being protected as platforms instead of publishers.

We can take a look at the regulation that protects these companies from lawsuits due to moderation. It's section 230 of the communications decency act. It says that moderation should be used to remove content that is: “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.”

Now before you latch onto 'otherwise objectionable' realize that courts have time and again held that 'content must, at a minimum, involve or be similar to obscenity, violence, or harassment. '

Now extend this to twitter. Twitter does not remove pornography. They do not remove obscenity. They rarely remove harassment or violence either. What they do remove are conservative ideas or anti-leftist ideas. So they're not using moderation as laid out by section 230, which makes them a publisher and liable for what is posted on their site.

So either:
A) twitter accepts this liability, continues removing conservative ideas and can be sued into oblivion by anyone affected by content posted on their site.

B) twitter backs off the conservative bans and qualifies for this protection based on free speech.



The ruling applies to public officials, not private companies.


I'm sure the court wishes that were true, however their ruling makes it clear that there can be no interference in the public discussing the public's business (AKA politics). If all it takes to get around this ruling is for trump to lean on twitter so they ban people who disagree with him, this ruling is meaningless. Unfortunately, it's not meaningless.


A publicly listed company is still a private organisation. The first amendment does not apply and this was a first amendment case.

The distinction between platform and publisher might be an interesting topic and certainly Twitter and other social media are very keen to.maintain their current status. However It's entirely irrelevant to the claims of this thread.

The 1st amendment can not be used to compel a private organisation to do anything. The ruling applies public officials using Twitter. If Trump (or whoever) attempted lean on Twitter to have then ban individuals who disagree with then again.that would be a case against them, not Twitter.



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

But Walmart banning me would be for a crime

Walmart couldn’t say I am banned from government services that occur on their premise because I believe there are only two genders



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: ScepticScot



If the government decided to publish official documents though distributing them Wal-Mart you can't make Wal-Mart let you in if you are banned for shoplifting.


That wasn't what grambler contended. He contended they couldn't ban you for your political ideas, from taking part in receiving those official documents.

But lets make the analogy more equal to what we're seeing with twitter.

Imagine walmart listens to every word you say while in or around their stores.
Let's also assume trump has chosen walmart as the place where he will hold all of his campaign rallies and deliver all of his official speeches.
Walmart grows tired of trump and wants to hurt his cause and starts banning people from their stores based on the opinions they hold.
Can walmart ban people from entering their stores based on those people's political opinion? Should they be able to?

Before you run off into the woods screaming that trump should be sued for it, realize that in this hypothetical his speeches and rallies are all posted on the whitehouse website. Just like his tweets are saved by the national archives.

There is also another flaw in your reasoning. Trump blocking people does not mean they cannot see his tweets, it just means they cannot comment on them, to him. All one hast to do is log out and go to twitter.com/realdonaldtrump and there are all of his tweets. So again, access to the information is not what this supreme court ruling is about, it's about free speech and the ability to participate in the public debate. If twitter is hindering that, then they are in violation of this court ruling.


To the best of my knowledge Wal-Mart absolutely can ban someone for their political views, the should they be able to is a different matter.

To clarify I don't agree with the rulling, I just also don't agree with the OPs assessment of what it means.

The rulling means Trump as a public official can't take actions to restrict people's free speech. There is nothing in it that applies to Twitter themselves, as again, they are a private company.



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: ScepticScot

But Walmart banning me would be for a crime

Walmart couldn’t say I am banned from government services that occur on their premise because I believe there are only two genders


Wal-Mart can ban you from their stores for any reason they like that doesn't breech anti discrimination laws.



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: ScepticScot

But Walmart banning me would be for a crime

Walmart couldn’t say I am banned from government services that occur on their premise because I believe there are only two genders


Wal-Mart can ban you from their stores for any reason they like that doesn't breech anti discrimination laws.



Not if they are acting as a governmental service



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: ScepticScot

But Walmart banning me would be for a crime

Walmart couldn’t say I am banned from government services that occur on their premise because I believe there are only two genders


Wal-Mart can ban you from their stores for any reason they like that doesn't breech anti discrimination laws.



Not if they are acting as a governmental service



If they taking money from the government, or has a contract to provide a service then constitutional provisions may apply.

I don't believe Twitter is paid by the U.S. government to host Trumps tweets.



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: ScepticScot

But Walmart banning me would be for a crime

Walmart couldn’t say I am banned from government services that occur on their premise because I believe there are only two genders


Wal-Mart can ban you from their stores for any reason they like that doesn't breech anti discrimination laws.



Not if they are acting as a governmental service



If they taking money from the government, or has a contract to provide a service then constitutional provisions may apply.

I don't believe Twitter is paid by the U.S. government to host Trumps tweets.


The court just ruled it is acting as a platform of governmental business

Money is irrelevant




top topics



 
49
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join