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: 6
49
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot



A publicly listed company is still a private organisation.


If you mean they're not part of the government, then yes. Otherwise, that's simply false.



The first amendment does not apply and this was a first amendment case.


While true, I think you need to re-read the OP. Specifically this section:



This means it is against the first amendment to block people not only from reading government business in a public board, but more importantly by blocking people it keeps them from being part of the public debate on that messaging by not being allowed to comment




The 1st amendment can not be used to compel a private organisation to do anything.


Yes and no. Again, see TBS v. FCC. TBS was forced to comply with the must-carry rule because the benefit to the first amendment.




posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

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



The court ruling is Trump used it for official business so can't block people. The rullling is against him.

Put it this way, if your interpretation is correct it would be one of the most significant rullings in recent years and would be all over the media with legal talking heads on overtime.

Is that the case?



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

if i understand correctly, if an elected official uses social media as a platform from their office they can not block a citizen. is this correct?
if so, then i support this action.

if an elected official uses social media as a private citizen and not using it as a means to discuss their politics are they still not allowed to block people?

every citizen regardless of social status should be allowed to have private conversations without the general public peeking in. i'd bet all these accounts would be monitored by the social media web guy as well as some federal agencies. it's just a guess but it's all i got to work with at the moment.



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: ScepticScot



A publicly listed company is still a private organisation.


If you mean they're not part of the government, then yes. Otherwise, that's simply false.



The first amendment does not apply and this was a first amendment case.


While true, I think you need to re-read the OP. Specifically this section:



This means it is against the first amendment to block people not only from reading government business in a public board, but more importantly by blocking people it keeps them from being part of the public debate on that messaging by not being allowed to comment




The 1st amendment can not be used to compel a private organisation to do anything.


Yes and no. Again, see TBS v. FCC. TBS was forced to comply with the must-carry rule because the benefit to the first amendment.


Public as in state owned/run v private. Public listed companies are private entities for the purpose of the constitution.

The rulling specifically states that Trump as a public official can't block people. Not that people are constitutionally entitled to a Twitter account.

From reading the summary of the TBS v FCC it suggests that the 1st amendment did not make the legislation illegal. Not that the 1st amendment compelled them to do anything.



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

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



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot



Public as in state owned/run v private. Public listed companies are private entities for the purpose of the constitution.


Sure, but not the same in duties to the public.



The rulling specifically states that Trump as a public official can't block people. Not that people are constitutionally entitled to a Twitter account.


The opinion of the ruling is that trump can't block people. The justification for that may very well constitutionally entitle people to a twitter account (the justification being that everyone has a right to be part of the public discourse). Of course, we agree that people don't have a constitutional right to a twitter account. Which means upon review this justification will probably be found to be wrong which will in turn, overturn the ruling.



Put it this way, if your interpretation is correct it would be one of the most significant rullings in recent years and would be all over the media with legal talking heads on overtime.


It's just an appeals court ruling, so that's not really true. If the supreme court had done this, then I think that would probably be going on, but they know this is headed to SCOTUS.
edit on 10-7-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: ScepticScot



Public as in state owned/run v private. Public listed companies are private entities for the purpose of the constitution.


Sure, but not the same in duties to the public.



The rulling specifically states that Trump as a public official can't block people. Not that people are constitutionally entitled to a Twitter account.


The opinion of the ruling is that trump can't block people. The justification for that may very well constitutionally entitle people to a twitter account (the justification being that everyone has a right to be part of the public discourse). Of course, we agree that people don't have a constitutional right to a twitter account. Which means upon review this justification will probably be found to be wrong which will in turn, overturn the ruling.



Put it this way, if your interpretation is correct it would be one of the most significant rullings in recent years and would be all over the media with legal talking heads on overtime.


It's just an appeals court ruling, so that's not really true. If the supreme court had done this, then I think that would probably be going on, but they know this is headed to SCOTUS.


Operate under different regulations but largely the same in terms of how they deal with the public. In this case ownership of Twitter makes no difference as long as they are not owned by the government.

The rulling specificallystates public officials, using their account for official business can't block users. Nothing about Twitter itself.

The case has attracted a lot of coverage, I haven't seen any coverage that backs up the OPs assertion. If OP was correct I think that would far more significant than Trump not being able to block people.



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot



The rulling specificallystates public officials, using their account for official business can't block users. Nothing about Twitter itself.


Yes, but that's not what any of us are talking about here. The logic behind the ruling makes a twitter account very close to a constitutional right. If the court is illogical in their rulings, they get overturned or they deal with the effects of that lack of logic.



The case has attracted a lot of coverage, I haven't seen any coverage that backs up the OPs assertion. If OP was correct I think that would far more significant than Trump not being able to block people.


You have to understand the media. It is get trump all of the time. They have had their asses handed to them by trump over and over and over again. They can't focus on anything but him now. Especially if they perceive a loss for him.

One other thing, the SCOTUS has actually ruled (8-0) that twitter/social media use is a constitutional right, link.

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



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: ScepticScot



The rulling specificallystates public officials, using their account for official business can't block users. Nothing about Twitter itself.


Yes, but that's not what any of us are talking about here. The logic behind the ruling makes a twitter account very close to a constitutional right. If the court is illogical in their rulings, they get overturned or they deal with the effects of that lack of logic.



The case has attracted a lot of coverage, I haven't seen any coverage that backs up the OPs assertion. If OP was correct I think that would far more significant than Trump not being able to block people.


You have to understand the media. It is get trump all of the time. They have had their asses handed to them by trump over and over and over again. They can't focus on anything but him now. Especially if they perceive a loss for him.

One other thing, the SCOTUS has actually ruled (8-0) that twitter/social media use is a constitutional right, link.


If the rulling prevented Twitter, even in theory, from banning users it would all over the media. The fact it isn't indicates the OP is fundamentally wrong.

SCOTUS has ruled that government can't ban someone from using social media. Again this does not affect the ability of social media companies to ban individuals.



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Perhaps it's not being talked about in the media 24/7 because it doesn't fit the agenda to rile up the countless people, on both sides of the political spectrum, who have been blocked or banned from a politician's social media sites for simply disagreeing with a policy or calling them out for flat out lying.

Talking about this on the news may just get people to think... and they simply cannot have that now, can they?



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gojira54
a reply to: ScepticScot

Perhaps it's not being talked about in the media 24/7 because it doesn't fit the agenda to rile up the countless people, on both sides of the political spectrum, who have been blocked or banned from a politician's social media sites for simply disagreeing with a policy or calling them out for flat out lying.

Talking about this on the news may just get people to think... and they simply cannot have that now, can they?


Or perhaps It's not getting talked about because it's not even remotely true.



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

It's kind of funny having watched the scripts flipped. For years and years the left told the right: "corporations are evil they're going to take away all of your rights"
Meanwhile the right said: "nah man, you're crazy they aren't ideological they're just out there to earn money."
Now the right is saying: "Hey guys, you were right they really are trying to take away all of our rights and they don't even care much about money anymore."
And the left replies: "they're just private companies they can do whatever they want."

It's like the left exists to simply antagonize the right. They warned and warned this was going to happen and we didn't believe it. Now that it's happening the left is just like, meh, whatever guys.

It's kind of the same story on tarriff's. The dems said they'd work the reps said they wouldn't. Turns out they do. Now the dems oppose them harder than the right ever did.
edit on 10-7-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: ScepticScot

It's kind of funny having watched the scripts flipped. For years and years the left told the right: "corporations are evil they're going to take away all of your rights"
Meanwhile the right said: "nah man, you're crazy they aren't ideological they're just out there to earn money."
Now the right is saying: "Hey guys, you were right they really are trying to take away all of our rights and they don't even care much about money anymore."
And the left replies: "they're just private companies they can do whatever they want."

It's like the left exists to simply antagonize the right. They warned and warned this was going to happen and we denied it. Now that it's happening the left is just like, meh, whatever guys.


It's not a left/right issue. It's did this rulling do what the OP claimed. Simple answer is no.



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

It can be both you know. This thread is about the ruling (and you're still wrong, btw, your appeal to news reporting notwithstanding). The overarching issue is whether monopolistic companies can censor people based on political ideology. The left says absolutely they can and should (likely because they're not the victims of it). The right is struggling to decide how to approach it because what is happening is absolutely wrong but they can't understand how corporations can pass on dollars for political ideology.
edit on 10-7-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: ScepticScot

It's kind of funny having watched the scripts flipped. For years and years the left told the right: "corporations are evil they're going to take away all of your rights"
Meanwhile the right said: "nah man, you're crazy they aren't ideological they're just out there to earn money."
Now the right is saying: "Hey guys, you were right they really are trying to take away all of our rights and they don't even care much about money anymore."
And the left replies: "they're just private companies they can do whatever they want."

It's like the left exists to simply antagonize the right. They warned and warned this was going to happen and we denied it. Now that it's happening the left is just like, meh, whatever guys.


It's not a left/right issue. It's did this rulling do what the OP claimed. Simple answer is no.





I love the constant appeals to authority you make

You can’t dispute the op, so ow you fall back to if the media isn’t talking about it it must not be true

Sad really



posted on Jul, 11 2019 @ 12:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake
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.


Even though I HATE we are even having this discussion cause... Pffft yeah.... Fake distopia anyone???

Anyway. Yeah. No-one is talking about the BLOCK OPTION, built right within Twitter's software. So WHY the # is Trump, or anyone else on either side of this issue being held responsible? Anyone?

This is not a good thing. Not for Trump, not for anyone. Even if we remove the ability to allow Trump or AOC the ability to block someone. "Harassment" could easily be re-defined. As in cases of " officials can only block on the basis of harassment". Which would be defined by the social media corporation. Total crap! This is not going to end up a good thing.


edit on 11-7-2019 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2019 @ 12:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: ScepticScot

It can be both you know. This thread is about the ruling (and you're still wrong, btw, your appeal to news reporting notwithstanding). The overarching issue is whether monopolistic companies can censor people based on political ideology. The left says absolutely they can and should (likely because they're not the victims of it). The right is struggling to decide how to approach it because what is happening is absolutely wrong but they can't understand how corporations can pass on dollars for political ideology.


Twitter Facebook etc in my view absolutely have become too powerful.

The way to deal with that is to deal with their monopoly status. Not by legislating that private organisations have to carry views they disagree with. The free speech implications of that are are fairly horrifying.

If the OP was accurate it would be a hugely significant ruling, the fact it was it isn't being covered should be a fairly clear indicator that it doesn't mean what is claimed.



posted on Jul, 11 2019 @ 12:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake
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.


Yeah full-blown authoritarian is the way to go.

You'll sleep better 😆



posted on Jul, 11 2019 @ 12:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: ScepticScot

It's kind of funny having watched the scripts flipped. For years and years the left told the right: "corporations are evil they're going to take away all of your rights"
Meanwhile the right said: "nah man, you're crazy they aren't ideological they're just out there to earn money."
Now the right is saying: "Hey guys, you were right they really are trying to take away all of our rights and they don't even care much about money anymore."
And the left replies: "they're just private companies they can do whatever they want."

It's like the left exists to simply antagonize the right. They warned and warned this was going to happen and we denied it. Now that it's happening the left is just like, meh, whatever guys.


It's not a left/right issue. It's did this rulling do what the OP claimed. Simple answer is no.





I love the constant appeals to authority you make

You can’t dispute the op, so ow you fall back to if the media isn’t talking about it it must not be true

Sad really


I have disputed the OP by pointing out the drilling simply doesn't say what you claim and that the first amendment doesn't apply to private groups.

Pointing out that media is not covering, what would be a hugely significant part of the ruling if you were correct, just backs that up.

What is sad is your continual resorting to insults and accusations when people disagree with you.



posted on Jul, 11 2019 @ 12:57 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Saying you appeal to authority and it’s sad isn’t an insult.

I outlined exactly what the decision says and it’s implications, you said it can’t be true cause the media didn’t report it.

That doesn’t prove anything

Ten court said trumps tweets are governmental business that everyone has the right to read and discuss

Private businesses, even ones facilitating government business, can not keep people from participating in government business for ideological reasons



posted on Jul, 11 2019 @ 01:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Screw the weirdos. We need to talk about the "block option" Twitter provides, and the implications of this recent ruling.

Would you be so kind as to address your thoughts on my reply to "darkbake", as I passionately feel there is a much bigger issue here at stake. For some reason, everyone is ignoring it. It's strange. Not surprising tho.




top topics



 
49
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join