• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Twitter users, blocked by Trump, cry censorship

Skeptic Bob said:
It certainly seems ridiculous but my guess is the lawyers will argue that it no longer serves as his personal account. They will likely argue he is using it in his official capacity as POTUS to communicate with the people. And that does appear to be how he is using it. They will probably argue that as POTUS he is preventing people who disagree with him from having the same level of access as those who do. They will say it gives a false impression of his level of support by preventing his opposition from participating in the conversation on Trump's preferred communications platform.

That's my guess. But I would also guess the courts will say Twitter is a private entity and can allow users to block people if they wish.
Click to expand...

And on that basis would win the case based on a cherry picked version of the 1st amendment. " the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.>|"

But i think the case would more revolve around the first part of the 1st. " Congress shall make no law" . Is banning someone from your account regardless of whether it is government public or personal private, creating a law?
 
Bucky said:
Twitter is not a government created public forum.
Click to expand...

Twitter as a whole isn't. But his own Twitter page might be.

It would be like Trump going on DP. Are you telling me if he blocked you, you would be able to cry censorship?
Click to expand...

If he was using it for official Presidential business, let most people speak their minds and responded to them, and then blocked me for political views? Then there's a chance that could be a public forum I guess.
 
Anagram said:
The main point of their argument isn't whether they can still view the tweets, but that it's no longer possible to respond to them, and that if his Twitter is found to be a public forum, that blocking them from responding is unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination in a public forum.
Click to expand...

Then none of us can block anybody ever. Right?

This is so stupid.
 
Erod said:
Then none of us can block anybody ever. Right?

This is so stupid.
Click to expand...

That's not what that means at all. It's only if the government has turned one account into a designated public forum. It has literally nothing to do with whether private accounts can block people.
 
soylentgreen said:
And on that basis would win the case based on a cherry picked version of the 1st amendment. " the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.>|"

But i think the case would more revolve around the first part of the 1st. " Congress shall make no law" . Is banning someone from your account regardless of whether it is government public or personal private, creating a law?
Click to expand...

Good points. However, the courts have interpreted "shall make no law" more broadly than the mere text. For example, public schools can't choose to endorse a particular religion, even though it doesn't amount to making a law.

Of course in those cases tax payer funds are used. It is highly unlikely taxpayer funds are used to support Trump's Twitter account.

I'm reasonably sure Trump would win, but it would be an interesting case.
 
Anagram said:
That's not what that means at all. It's only if the government has turned one account into a designated public forum. It has literally nothing to do with whether private accounts can block people.
Click to expand...

Trump uses his personal twitter, not the government one.
 
reinoe said:
Trump uses his personal twitter, not the government one.
Click to expand...

Exactly. As I mentioned in my first post, this is the biggest hurdle they'd have to overcome. But Trump does use the account to tweet as the president, and Spicer stated that the tweets should be considered official statements from the president. If he's using the account in an official manner, there is an argument there for a public forum.
 
Binary_Digit said:
The Constitution says what GOVERNMENT is allowed to do, not what CITIZENS are allowed to do. If government restricts the right to speak, that's a violation of the 1st. If private citizens restrict the right to speak, it's not.
Click to expand...

Did you read what I was responding too?

If not, it takes my statement out of context. You are right. People have the right to protest. However, I would be careful of the word restrict. You have not right to restrict me. I am free. If you detain me, you are violating my rights. In the sense of free speech. You can out shout the message and that is fine.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
Good points. However, the courts have interpreted "shall make no law" more broadly than the mere text. For example, public schools can't choose to endorse a particular religion, even though it doesn't amount to making a law.

Of course in those cases tax payer funds are used. It is highly unlikely taxpayer funds are used to support Trump's Twitter account.

I'm reasonably sure Trump would win, but it would be an interesting case.
Click to expand...

It is fair enough that public schools cannot endorse any one particular religion. If they teach any at all then all should be given time. It still stays within the spirit and letter of the first. Which is that they cannot promoter any one articular religion nor restrict any.

I seem to remember a few years back a prisoner sued the state because the prison refused to supply crunchy peanut butter for breakfast. America is famous for being able to take people to court over the most silliest of things.
 
Absentglare said:
LOL College kids try to block speakers, and you flip your ****ing ****. The President of the United States tries to block Americans, and you give a big "So what?"

What a partisan double standard. It really is too bad you hold all college students to a higher standard than the ****ing president.
Click to expand...

One of the most illogical things I have ever read here. Blocking speakers often with physical violence, is a lot different than blocking a user on a social media site.
 
Anagram said:
Twitter in this case is just a facilitator just as holding a public town hall meeting in a private convention center does not stop it from being treated as a public forum.
Click to expand...

It does stop it. Govt has no right to tell the convention center or twitter what its users can and cant do, or users on twitter what they can and cant do. Its a private space.
 
jonny5 said:
It does stop it. Govt has no right to tell the convention center or twitter what its users can and cant do, or users on twitter what they can and cant do. Its a private space.
Click to expand...

It's not the private users who can't do things in these scenarios it's the government. If the government rents out a convention center for the purpose of a public forum, the government cannot discriminate by viewpoint just because it's taking place on private property.
 
ajn678 said:
One of the most illogical things I have ever read here. Blocking speakers often with physical violence, is a lot different than blocking a user on a social media site.
Click to expand...

Well you could try working on reading comprehension, i didn't mention anything about violence.
 
Absentglare said:
Well you could try working on reading comprehension, i didn't mention anything about violence.
Click to expand...

I was commenting on your attempt to dishonestly compare the two issues.
 
Absentglare said:
No, you brought your own stupid strawman to beat on.
Click to expand...

Laughably false. You are not only dishonest in your approach, you fail miserably at creating anything but faulty statements.
 
Anagram said:
It's not the private users who can't do things in these scenarios it's the government. If the government rents out a convention center for the purpose of a public forum, the government cannot discriminate by viewpoint just because it's taking place on private property.
Click to expand...

NM, this was so frivolous an issue, I shouldnt have even waded in. Moving on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom