That ship already sailed.
Graffiti Artists Awarded $6.7 Million for Destroyed 5Pointz Murals
The judge seemed to think the evidence was clear.
Posted on 05/23/2018 8:05:33 PM PDT by Trump20162020
So if this a-hole refused to answer every call and e-mail, she’s in violation of her pathetic argument.
Regulation over social media will very likely occur by the end of the Trump administration (2024). The humor here is that the Democrats are forced into the corner and must fight for the freedom of social media....rather than regulating it.
You’re fired !
Donald trump
Love how twits can’t ban him
So has the judge just declared that no “public forum” is allowed to block the free expression of anyone?
So no more newspaper or web site refusal to print views with which the owners are opposed? Newspapers would be forced to print EVERY letter to the editor they receive. Interesting...
It also must mean that the NAACP MUST allow Stormfront and other white supremacist groups to tweet on their timeline.
Mark
I was just posting how much fun it will be to watch Stormfront and other white supremacist groups posting on the NAACP, or Rainbow Push's twitter feeds, or for that matter, Westburough Baptist Church posting on every homosexual twitter feed.
I think the next thing this idiot judge will rule is that it's a violation of the First Amendment to clean graffiti off of buildings!
Mark
Simple. Trump starts a new twit account and there is a list of people not on it.
What I should do is wait until on computer with real keyboard instead of Siri, who doesn’t like me. My point is that Twitter, Youtube, and Facebook will likely have serious problems with this ruling as it establishes these sites as public forums, “designated” no less, with first amendment protections. That means we can’t block people, means they cannot either! Legal discourse is now protected. Think about it. That means they cannot stop discuss of guns, conservative voices, and more. These are all legal 1st amendment expressions.
followup to #33 -
the WaPo article I posted was the second one to be published, 4 hours after the one in this thread.
23 May at 6:19 PM: WaPo: No, Twitter still isn’t subject to the First Amendment — even if a judge said Trump’s account is
Seems by extension that it is. I am sure their are good attorneys out there that can connect the dots, especially since the judge declared it a “designated public forum”, much like a sidewalk, the public square, etc. This is a step toward forcing these social media sites to be hands off so long as content and discussions are legal.
I wonder how she would rule on shadow banning on twitter... seems to me that she would have to rule against twitter on this.
That ship already sailed.
Graffiti Artists Awarded $6.7 Million for Destroyed 5Pointz Murals
The judge seemed to think the evidence was clear.
This makes no sense. It’s akin to hanging up a phone, not reading a letter or putting your fingers in your ears. You’re not required to listen to anyone, including liberal idiots.
That would require Republicans in Congress to have a spine & the will / spirit to fight/stand for something.
So then Twitter’s violating a lot of people’s First Amendment rights when they block them for their political views correct?
I better take off my spam filter before she comes after me...I wonder how she would rule about protestors on public sidewalks outside abortion mills...
Idiot judge....don’t think it will stand if appealed!!!
Trump’s Twitter account is his, not the federal government, and he is on Twitter as a private citizen and has been since before becoming president.
Twitter is not a “public forum”, open to everyone all the time. You have to set up a Twitter account and in doing so make a private contract with Twitter - agreeing to Twitter’s terms of service.
Twitter itself is a private company, and Twitter makes its own rules about what a Twitter user can and cannot do.
People using Twitter are technically a private association that is representing only those individuals with a Twitter account.
Twitter rules, that all Twitter users have agreed to, allow a Twitter user to block other Twitter users from posting on their Twitter account threads - threads of comments they have initiated. The person making the legal complaint against Trump agreed to those rules when they agreed to Twitters terms of service which requires agreeing to whatever rules Twitter makes for using a Twitter account.
No one outside of the Twitter users - not “the public” - have participated directly in the saga of Trump blocking someone from making “Tweets” on posting threads citizen Trump has initiated. His act is not an official act of government, just his personally.
This circuit court judge ought to be impeached.
It does and you should.
Not an actual implication. You can block someone for being abusive or violating Twitter TOS, just like you can throw out hecklers.
This ruling only applies to people who politely express opposing opinions and it’s good news for us, too.
Or responds with derogatory pictures and comments about this judge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.