- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Judge rules Trump can't block users on Twitter - Say it Unconstitutional
Posted on 5/23/18 at 3:27 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
Posted on 5/23/18 at 3:27 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
Bernie Sanders blocked me on Facebook. I emailed his office with a link to the previous ruling and told him that he would be sued if he didn't unblock me.
I think the bigger story here is that you would actually take the time, money and effort to sue a politician over blocking you on social media.
Like what harm did it have on your life? So goddamn pathetic.
I've been blocked by liberal politicians before on social media. Zero fricks given and went on with my life.
0
Posted on 5/23/18 at 3:27 pm to CarRamrod
(no message)
This post was edited on 5/27/23 at 8:16 am
Posted on 5/23/18 at 3:29 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:FOIA laws???
Amazing that you dumb shits are suddenly against FOIA laws.
What did you do . . . search for an acronym associated with "information" and toss it out there?
Posted on 5/23/18 at 3:41 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
Once again this ruling, and the one before it, doesn't mean Twitter can't ban those accounts from having access or outright ban the bots , or misbehaving people, altogether. ALL it means is that government officials can't pick and choose who they allow to see and respond on their social media sites IF they use those sites for any sort of "official" reason. Meaning if you're a local school board member and you never discuss the school board or the school on your private Facebook page, for example, no one can force you to let them post on your page . It's a strictly private page.
Not sure about this part. It would allow Twitter to censor people for politicians it likes and it can't do that because the effect on 1A is the same. This excludes terms of service issues. But if Trump can't block people he disagrees with, then Twitter can't mess with his account either, on his behalf.
I think an interesting sidebar to this is that someone may now step forward and claim that Twitter does manipulate Trump's account and that may be a 1A violation.
Posted on 5/23/18 at 3:41 pm to Breesus
quote:
So I can go call Hillary Clinton a rapist defending traitorous piece of shite every day and she cannot block me?
I believe that's a little different since she has no governmental role to my knowledge.
If she was president and using her Twitter account in that capacity, sure, go ahead.
Posted on 5/23/18 at 3:45 pm to slackster
quote:
I believe that's a little different since she has no governmental role to my knowledge.
OK. LaToya Cantrell then.
Posted on 5/23/18 at 3:45 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
No it won't this judge ruled based on precedent and the preceding case was appealed and the higher court remanded and let the lower court ruling stand.
Amazing that you dumb shits are suddenly against FOIA laws.
Just read the decision. There are lots of jumps in logic especially concerning the "government-control" requirement. For instance, this case is unique in that even if we say that the White House "controls" the account, that control is limited and superceded by private control - namely Twitter. Second, the Court simply skips by the "state action" argument made by the executive without any counter to their reasonable argument that "blocking" on twitter does not constitute a state enforcement action.
Finally, the FOIA argument seems off point. While Trump's tweets are being reserved as government production, nothing about "blocking" a follower prevents the production of that document.
I still see this being overturned. The precedent cited by the Court is not on point.
Posted on 5/23/18 at 3:50 pm to Breesus
quote:
OK. LaToya Cantrell then.
Based on the way I understand the interpretation, yeah, she's fair game, assuming she uses her Twitter account in her role as a public servant.
Posted on 5/23/18 at 4:00 pm to EKG
quote:
You’re literally making this up.
You don’t know any more about this than does anyone else.
Just bc you want it to be a certain way, doesn’t make it so.
yeah you dont pay attention to the news do you..
a year ago, the White house had to issue a decree stating that the President's twitter feed of @real was official US policy.
trump has been asked to use the official President twitter feed and refused citing his loss of followers.
Trump started blocking critics on his twitter feed, which again, is official US policy making his attempts to prevent people from replying to it a first amendment issue, hence the lawsuit.
when he leaves office that no longer is the case.
now you can stfu because that IS what happened and will be the case when he is gone from the office.
Posted on 5/23/18 at 4:01 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
the Court simply skips by the "state action" argument made by the executive without any counter to their reasonable argument that "blocking" on twitter does not constitute a state enforcement action.
Like what irreparable harm has occurred to your life and daily living if you get blocked on twitter by a politician? What did you lose that cannot be replaced?
I've been blocked before by liberal politicians and I just laughed my arse off and went on living my life of going to work, paying my bills and doing fun shite with friends and family.
This post was edited on 5/23/18 at 4:03 pm
Posted on 5/23/18 at 4:02 pm to AUstar
quote:
Exactly. It's going to open a can of worms. If the Internet is now governed by the 1st, then Google, YouTube, FB are going to be in a world of hurt. They're going to have to scrap all censorship and shadow banning algorithms, etc.
I dont think you quite understand government vs privately owned twitter feeds
Posted on 5/23/18 at 4:03 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:
I dont think you quite understand government vs privately owned twitter feeds
The Government didn't create @realdonaldtrump.
Posted on 5/23/18 at 4:04 pm to rds dc
I am amused that the left is suddenly interested in veiwpoint diversity.
Posted on 5/23/18 at 4:06 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:The what?
asked to use the official President twitter feed
"The official President twitter feed"?
Now THAT would qualify as a public forum.
Has DJT blocked anyone from that forum?
No?
Then STFU until he does.
This post was edited on 5/23/18 at 4:07 pm
Posted on 5/23/18 at 4:07 pm to NC_Tigah
(no message)
This post was edited on 5/27/23 at 8:16 am
Posted on 5/23/18 at 4:07 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:
I dont think you quite understand government vs privately owned twitter feeds
Is "owned" the appropriate word here?
Posted on 5/23/18 at 4:08 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
Is "owned" the appropriate word here?
no not really but i couldnt think of a word that cover sources of government 'policy' vs those of private companies
Posted on 5/23/18 at 4:09 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
No?
Then STFU until he does.
well you would be right if the whitehouse didnt come out and say @real is official United States policy forum there snowflake melty mcface
Posted on 5/23/18 at 4:12 pm to Sentrius
quote:
The Government didn't create @realdonaldtrump.
psst...the government absconded with it when they announced it was indeed an official policy forum....
again Trump can suck it up and learn to deal with criticism or shut it down and use the official Presidential twitter feed where he cant block there either.
This post was edited on 5/23/18 at 4:13 pm
Posted on 5/23/18 at 4:16 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:
they announced it was indeed an official policy forum....
Is that statement legally binding and endorsed by the DOJ in legal briefs?
Page 7 of 8
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News