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

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

The judgement quite specifically states it refers to public officials blocking users.

Again, it specifically states President Trump cannot block users. It doesn't even mention AOC. That's because the only thing they were considering was the case before them, which named President Trump as the official blocking users. The court will not directly address anything beyond the specific case before them.

What matters is the reasoning behind their decision. That is the part that causes the ruling to apply to AOC. It is also what causes it to apply to Twitter. No court decision can apply to any single person without applying to everyone who fits the ruling. The reasoning was that Twitter is operating a public, government venue; ergo, the restrictions for operating a public government venue apply to Twitter.

TheRedneck

The judgement on Trump was because

"The First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilises 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."

Does not permit a public official.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

People use Twitter accounts. First amendment does not specify what medium is being used.

it doesn't need to; the courts do that.

TheRedneck

Point being government cant restrict one form of communication on the grounds that others exist.

a reply to: ScepticScot

The judgement on Trump was because

"The First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilises 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."

Does not permit a public official.

That is not exclusive. It does not say "but does permit an Internet platform."

If I say, "I do not allow dogs in my home," it does not mean I do allow snakes, robbers, uninvited intruders, or giraffes. It means that dogs are a category of things that I do not allow in my house.

If I say, "I do not allow dogs in my house because I am afraid they will make a mess," then it can be inferred that I would not want snakes or robbers or uninvited guests either. I do not grant these others the right to enter my home at will because I did not include them in a statement which was aimed specifically at dogs.

The phrase "The First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilises 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" implies that causing an inability to access the conversation would violate the rights of those the official blocked. That right is also violated no matter who blocks the individual. Twitter can also create the exact same rights violation that the government official can; ergo, what applies to one must apply to the other.

The whole big deal in this is that people, according to this ruling, have a right to access and post their views on social media accounts maintained as official by government officials. That establishes a right of access to Twitter which can only be removed by legal violation or reasonable and fair restrictions. "No hate speech" is not reasonable and fair when the term is used ambiguously or when it is defined specifically as inclusive of protected 1st Amendment rights.

I don't know how I can make this any clearer.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

The judgement on Trump was because

"The First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilises 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."

Does not permit a public official.

That is not exclusive. It does not say "but does permit an Internet platform."

If I say, "I do not allow dogs in my home," it does not mean I do allow snakes, robbers, uninvited intruders, or giraffes. It means that dogs are a category of things that I do not allow in my house.

If I say, "I do not allow dogs in my house because I am afraid they will make a mess," then it can be inferred that I would not want snakes or robbers or uninvited guests either. I do not grant these others the right to enter my home at will because I did not include them in a statement which was aimed specifically at dogs.

The phrase "The First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilises 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" implies that causing an inability to access the conversation would violate the rights of those the official blocked. That right is also violated no matter who blocks the individual. Twitter can also create the exact same rights violation that the government official can; ergo, what applies to one must apply to the other.

The whole big deal in this is that people, according to this ruling, have a right to access and post their views on social media accounts maintained as official by government officials. That establishes a right of access to Twitter which can only be removed by legal violation or reasonable and fair restrictions. "No hate speech" is not reasonable and fair when the term is used ambiguously or when it is defined specifically as inclusive of protected 1st Amendment rights.

I don't know how I can make this any clearer.

TheRedneck

The ruling specifically says public officials. That is pretty unambiguous and not sure how that could be any clearer.

Public officials can not by their actions prevent access dos not establish a general right of access even to those public officials.

If the ruling meant that people had a right of access it would have said people can't be blocked from access to public officials accounts. Instead it specifically states public officials can't block access.

a reply to: ScepticScot

If the ruling meant that people had a right of access it would have said people can't be blocked from access to public officials accounts. Instead it specifically states public officials can't block access.

Neither the court nor the law is dependent on someone choosing the exact wording you would prefer.

The mention of "public officials" is simply there because the ruling only applies to official government venues, not accounts of private individuals. As a private individual using a service, I have no right to free speech on that service. However, once the service is used for a government venue, my right to free speech must be upheld in that venue.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

If the ruling meant that people had a right of access it would have said people can't be blocked from access to public officials accounts. Instead it specifically states public officials can't block access.

Neither the court nor the law is dependent on someone choosing the exact wording you would prefer.

The mention of "public officials" is simply there because the ruling only applies to official government venues, not accounts of private individuals. As a private individual using a service, I have no right to free speech on that service. However, once the service is used for a government venue, my right to free speech must be upheld in that venue.

TheRedneck

It's not the wording I prefer, its the wording used which specifically states the public official. Nothing about an obligation on Twitter.

Again if your and the OP interpretation was correct it world be everywhere. Can you provide a single source to back up your view?

a reply to: ScepticScot

Again if your and the OP interpretation was correct it world be everywhere. Can you provide a single source to back up your view?

Why would I?

I don't get my opinions from the news. I get them from my own sense of right and wrong after looking at the facts surrounding an issue... in this case, legal precedent and the decision itself.

TheRedneck

It's been estimated that twitter spends almost half a billion a year on infrastructure.

I'm not sure why anyone feels entitled to use this infrastructure for free.

Public official != random joe, and this ruling does not give people that can't follow the rules carte blanche to use that platform as they see fit; millions of conservatives continue to use various forms of social media without issue afterall.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

Again if your and the OP interpretation was correct it world be everywhere. Can you provide a single source to back up your view?

Why would I?

I don't get my opinions from the news. I get them from my own sense of right and wrong after looking at the facts surrounding an issue... in this case, legal precedent and the decision itself.

TheRedneck

Because it's not really a matter of opinion it's a matter of law.

a reply to: AScrubWhoDied

It's been estimated that twitter spends almost half a billion a year on infrastructure.

I'm not sure why anyone feels entitled to use this infrastructure for free.

Because Twitter doesn't charge for its use?

I still don't use it.

TheRedneck

a reply to: ScepticScot

Exactly! So why do I care about someone else's opinion?

The only opinion that counts here is the opinion of the court, which is what my position (and that of the OP) is based on.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

Exactly! So why do I care about someone else's opinion?

The only opinion that counts here is the opinion of the court, which is what my position (and that of the OP) is based on.

TheRedneck

Only the opinion of the court doesn't say what you and OP are claiming, and if if did legal talking heads would be all over it yet I haven't seen a single report of this case making same claim.

The cable companies aren't allowed to cut off Emergency alerts to certain people's TVs because of something they said. If it's determined Twitter has become an official government channel, then Twitter can't refuse a government service. Right?

originally posted by: Starhooker
The cable companies aren't allowed to cut off Emergency alerts to certain people's TVs because of something they said. If it's determined Twitter has become an official government channel, then Twitter can't refuse a government service. Right?

This seems to be the confusion. It hasn't been determined that Twitter is an official government channel, it been determined Trump discussing it for official government business.

The ruling applies to public officials, not Twitter itself.

a reply to: ScepticScot
He's not allowed to block people though, because it's an official government channel? Easiest thing is for the government to stop using Twitter.

a reply to: ScepticScot

It hasn't been determined that Twitter is an official government channel, it been determined Trump discussing it for official government business.

Dude, read what you wrote.

"Twitter isn't an official government channel, but Twitter is being used as an official government channel."

If it is being used as an official government channel, then it is an official government channel. That's by definition. It may also have private uses, but it cannot use that fact to discriminate politically against people who wish to use the official government section.

That would be like the store where I vote deciding to ban all Republican voters so they could not vote. It's a private business, so why can't they, right? They can't because their store is being used for official government business on that one day. They are required by law to provide for that access, private business notwithstanding. Even if I were banned from that store, I could not be prevented from entering the store and voting. They can ban who they wish every other day, or they can choose to not host the polls, but they cannot be the voting place and ban people indiscriminately both.

Neither can Twitter be the home of President Donald Trump's official public forum and also ban users indiscriminately. they can ban users from any non-government accounts all they want, or they can simply ban government official business... but they cannot be the host for a government channel and also ban users indiscriminately from that channel.

The court found that Trump's Twitter account was an official government forum. That's what this is all predicated on.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Starhooker
a reply to: ScepticScot
He's not allowed to block people though, because it's an official government channel? Easiest thing is for the government to stop using Twitter.

Which might end up being the end result that public officials can't use Twitter for offical business.

Personally I think it would be a genuine loss if Trump did stop using it

a reply to: ScepticScot

He should start his own Twitter. Just like Twitter, but orangier. So if Twitter is an official government channel, then no one can be banned because that would restrict their access to government information? I don't want a biased company controlling whos voice gets heard by our government.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

It hasn't been determined that Twitter is an official government channel, it been determined Trump discussing it for official government business.

Dude, read what you wrote.

"Twitter isn't an official government channel, but Twitter is being used as an official government channel."

If it is being used as an official government channel, then it is an official government channel. That's by definition. It may also have private uses, but it cannot use that fact to discriminate politically against people who wish to use the official government section.

That would be like the store where I vote deciding to ban all Republican voters so they could not vote. It's a private business, so why can't they, right? They can't because their store is being used for official government business on that one day. They are required by law to provide for that access, private business notwithstanding. Even if I were banned from that store, I could not be prevented from entering the store and voting. They can ban who they wish every other day, or they can choose to not host the polls, but they cannot be the voting place and ban people indiscriminately both.

Neither can Twitter be the home of President Donald Trump's official public forum and also ban users indiscriminately. they can ban users from any non-government accounts all they want, or they can simply ban government official business... but they cannot be the host for a government channel and also ban users indiscriminately from that channel.

The court found that Trump's Twitter account was an official government forum. That's what this is all predicated on.

TheRedneck

It found that trumps use of Twitter was for official business. Not that Twitter it self is an official government channel.

Again the ruling applies to public officials, not Twitter. The government does not pay Twitter nor gave a contract with Twitter to provide government announcements.

originally posted by: Starhooker
a reply to: ScepticScot

He should start his own Twitter. Just like Twitter, but orangier. So if Twitter is an official government channel, then no one can be banned because that would restrict their access to government information? I don't want a biased company controlling whos voice gets heard but the our government.

Twitter isn't an official government channel. It's a private entity and the first amendment does not apply.