• 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!

Trump’s Blocking of Twitter Users Is Unconstitutional, Judge Says

Helix said:
this is an incorrect decision. hopefully it will be overturned by another judge.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter where the President holds a press conference, he doesn't get to exclude participants.
 
Helix said:
this is an incorrect decision. hopefully it will be overturned by another judge.
Click to expand...

So you advocate our president taking away our First Amendment right?
 
Helix said:
i don't do strawman arguments. peace.
Click to expand...

That's your argument actually. You want the decision reversed, thus allowing our president to ban anyone he wants out of the government forum.
 
Helix said:
please read my posts in the thread, see that i have already addressed this, and then pretend that i haven't. i'm done repeating myself.
Click to expand...

I've gone back an re-read every single one of your posts. I then did it again to make sure, because I have massive respect for you and you're one of my favorite posters on this board. However, I do not think you have actually addressed my point.

You've mentioned three times that a private entity might have to facilitate Trump's speech. This ruling does not require that. Twitter can terminate Trump's account tomorrow.

You've mentioned three times that Twitter might have to moderate, control, or manage his block/ignore lists. The ruling does not require that, nor Twitter to do anything. This is strictly about government action.

You've mentioned seven times that no one should have a constitutional right to read/respond to something on Twitter. Again, the ruling doesn't say anything of the sort. This is not about anyone's constitutional right to do anything. The government simply cannot open up a forum to the public, like Twitter is, and then discriminate against certain people based on their viewpoint. It is the government's actions that are being curtailed here. It is hoisting no new obligations or responsibilities on Twitter or any other private entity.

And that is something I just don't see recognized in any of your posts. I don't see anything addressing the fact that there are no constitutional rights at issue here, that there was not anything in the ruling giving anyone the right to access Twitter, whether to read or to post. The only thing addressed is the government action.
 
Bullseye said:
So, then, can we assume Twitter accounts of other public officials fall under the same ruling? AOC is notorious for blocking critics, for instance.
Click to expand...

It depends on how they use their Twitter accounts. Trump's account was ruled an official forum for several reasons, from the account's header showing the president engaging in his official duties, to the president and administration members describing the account as official, to engaging with foreign leaders, to announcing official policies, and the National Archives' decision to preserve the tweets as official presidential records.

If AOC uses her account anything like that, the same analysis could very well apply. If she only uses it to tweet out lasagna recipes, it almost certainly wouldn't.
 
Anagram said:
I've gone back an re-read every single one of your posts. I then did it again to make sure, because I have massive respect for you and you're one of my favorite posters on this board. However, I do not think you have actually addressed my point.

You've mentioned three times that a private entity might have to facilitate Trump's speech. This ruling does not require that. Twitter can terminate Trump's account tomorrow.

You've mentioned three times that Twitter might have to moderate, control, or manage his block/ignore lists. The ruling does not require that, nor Twitter to do anything. This is strictly about government action.

You've mentioned seven times that no one should have a constitutional right to read/respond to something on Twitter. Again, the ruling doesn't say anything of the sort. This is not about anyone's constitutional right to do anything. The government simply cannot open up a forum to the public, like Twitter is, and then discriminate against certain people based on their viewpoint. It is the government's actions that are being curtailed here. It is hoisting no new obligations or responsibilities on Twitter or any other private entity.

And that is something I just don't see recognized in any of your posts. I don't see anything addressing the fact that there are no constitutional rights at issue here, that there was not anything in the ruling giving anyone the right to access Twitter, whether to read or to post. The only thing addressed is the government action.
Click to expand...

Twitter is a non-government owned message board on steroids, not a government forum. no one has a constitutional right to do anything on a non-government owned forum even if the idiot in chief decides to vomit half-literate decrees on those private message boards. hopefully another court will decide this issue correctly. while i don't understand how this could be unclear, if it is, we'll just have to leave it that way and agree to disagree.
 
Helix said:
Twitter is a non-government owned message board on steroids, not a government forum. no one has a constitutional right to do anything on a non-government owned forum even if the idiot in chief decides to vomit half-literate decrees on those private message boards. hopefully another court will decide this issue correctly. while i don't understand how this could be unclear, if it is, we'll just have to leave it that way and agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

What do you suggest then? Maybe a government (public) owned forum?
 
Helix said:
Twitter is a non-government owned message board on steroids, not a government forum. no one has a constitutional right to do anything on a non-government owned forum even if the idiot in chief decides to vomit half-literate decrees on those private message boards. hopefully another court will decide this issue correctly. while i don't understand how this could be unclear, if it is, we'll just have to leave it that way and agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

See the reason why I keep responding and not leaving it there is because you keep saying that this ruling gives people the constitutional right to do something. And that's just not what the ruling is. If you would just address that, I'd be much more comfortable agreeing to disagree.

I'd also point out that the court did not rule that Twitter itself was a government forum.
 
Our President should be able to block certain users. Those who hurl insensitive comments.
 
AProudLefty said:
What do you suggest then? Maybe a government (public) owned forum?
Click to expand...

a government site would be a good place for him to post his random lunacy and word salads, IMO. he signed up to Twitter, agreed to the TOS, and so did everyone else. Twitter includes a block feature, and that should apply equally to every poster there.
 
Anagram said:
See the reason why I keep responding and not leaving it there is because you keep saying that this ruling gives people the constitutional right to do something. And that's just not what the ruling is. If you would just address that, I'd be much more comfortable agreeing to disagree.

I'd also point out that the court did not rule that Twitter itself was a government forum.
Click to expand...

there is no constitutional right to post on a private message board even if one is following the idiot in chief's account on one.
 
Helix said:
a government site would be a good place for him to post his random lunacy and word salads, IMO. he signed up to Twitter, agreed to the TOS, and so did everyone else. Twitter includes a block feature, and that should apply equally to every poster there.
Click to expand...

Then I would agree with you about a judge ruling for our president to use a government site as an official message board.
 
Helix said:
there is no constitutional right to post on a private message board even if one is following the idiot in chief's account on one.
Click to expand...

Exactly. There is none. And the court didn't rule that there was one. It's that disconnect that I'm seeing as the problem.
 
AProudLefty said:
Then I would agree with you about a judge ruling for our president to use a government site as an official message board.
Click to expand...

i don't care if he uses twitter, as i can choose not to. however, a judge shouldn't be making a special ruleset concerning the terms of service for a private website because one idiot wants to pretend it's an official government site. sometimes i think of the chaos that it would potentially cause if he showed up here.
 
Helix said:
i don't care if he uses twitter, as i can choose not to. however, a judge shouldn't be making a special ruleset concerning the terms of service for a private website because one idiot wants to pretend it's an official government site. sometimes i think of the chaos that it would potentially cause if he showed up here.
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure Twitter will ban users for breaking ToS regardless.
 
Helix said:
i don't care if he uses twitter, as i can choose not to. however, a judge shouldn't be making a special ruleset concerning the terms of service for a private website because one idiot wants to pretend it's an official government site. sometimes i think of the chaos that it would potentially cause if he showed up here.
Click to expand...

It would cause absolutely no chaos, (outside of the people that would flock here because the President started posting here). But this ruling would ultimately not have any effect. First, he would have to have some part of his profile treated like a public forum. Maybe if he started announcing official policies on his visitor messages or something. But there’s no block feature on this board. Adding people to the ignore list wouldn’t qualify here. There’s no requirement for the government to read posts in a public forum and the ignore list doesn’t stop people from accessing or responding to him or others.
 
Anagram said:
It would cause absolutely no chaos, (outside of the people that would flock here because the President started posting here). But this ruling would ultimately not have any effect. First, he would have to have some part of his profile treated like a public forum. Maybe if he started announcing official policies on his visitor messages or something. But there’s no block feature on this board. Adding people to the ignore list wouldn’t qualify here. There’s no requirement for the government to read posts in a public forum and the ignore list doesn’t stop people from accessing or responding to him or others.
Click to expand...

so your argument is that if he joins here, the site could add a block feature for everyone else but him? no thanks.
 
Helix said:
so your argument is that if he joins here, the site could add a block feature for everyone else but him? no thanks.
Click to expand...

Twitter is not obligated to do anything. This forum would not be obligated to do anything. The President, acting in capacity, is obligated to not block anyone, and the FBI is responsible for enforcement.
 
Helix said:
so your argument is that if he joins here, the site could add a block feature for everyone else but him? no thanks.
Click to expand...

Not at all what my argument is.

First: The public forum doctrine only applies to a government controlled forum. President Trump simply joining a message board does not by itself even come close to creating that. His Twitter account only qualifies because he uses it for many official purposes, holds it out that way, has the National Archives preserving his tweets as national presidential records, and he uses it to interact with the public among several other reasons contained in the opinion.

Second: As I've said before, the Court did not rule here that Trump could not use the block feature. The official government controlled public forum simply cannot discriminate against people based on their viewpoint. So if Trump did somehow set up a public forum on this message board, (and with the parameters established in the ruling I'm not sure that could even apply to a message board account), this forum could still give him a block feature.

Third: This ruling does not affect private parties in any way at all. Not in any way. Not even a little. The idea that this ruling would somehow prevent this website from giving whoever it wanted a block feature. This ruling ONLY affects government action. Forgive me, but it still seems like you are arguing as if this ruling somehow impacts the rights and responsibilities of Twitter, which it doesn't at all.
 
Anagram said:
It depends on how they use their Twitter accounts. Trump's account was ruled an official forum for several reasons, from the account's header showing the president engaging in his official duties, to the president and administration members describing the account as official, to engaging with foreign leaders, to announcing official policies, and the National Archives' decision to preserve the tweets as official presidential records.

If AOC uses her account anything like that, the same analysis could very well apply. If she only uses it to tweet out lasagna recipes, it almost certainly wouldn't.
Click to expand...
Well, she uses it to attack Pelosi so it isn't all bad. :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom