Posted on 05/26/2018 5:41:55 AM PDT by Kaslin
In a war the left will lose.
Yeah, I often wished FR had a ignore button like a certain chatroom has that I frequent. You should see my list. LOL
WELL... The COURTROOM is a public venue.
People should now be allowed to PROTEST in this judge’s COURTROOM without the worry of being jailed or fined for contempt of court.
“Cyberspace needs its own set of property rules that uniquely address all the special situations that exist in cyberspace and do not exist in the real world. Trying to adapt brick and mortar rules is impossible unless they are applied unfairly. This is what is happening here.”
Yup. Cyberspace is informational territory. You could even carve out a virtual nation. New rules coming like it or not.
>>You could even carve out a virtual nation. New rules coming like it or not.
Agreed!
I laugh right back at your laughing. But I’m laughing much harder, because that’s a great way of disrespecting another person’s thoughts.
Tommy Robinson has no conservative label tattooed on him. He was banned on Twitter, now arrested for livestreaming. The lines between cyberspace and the town square are exceptionally blurred.
No - the judge specifically said that Trump couldn’t block users on his account because it denied the followers the right to speak to him.
The judge based this on Trumps use of Twitter to make official statements of policy declaring it a public forum.
This means that Twitter can’t ban people otherwise they deny the people the right to talk to the President.
But like a good lib you want It only to apply to Republicans while Democrats are free to block whenever they want
Yup. I have about ten people (2-3 who troll me) here I’d like to block. Life on FR would be much more sane.
Well than don’t wear no clothing items that identifies your political position. Besides it’s no ones business. And if they don’t like it I would refuse to go there, and shop there.
I did, to no avail. Articles from the Federalist are not banned btw, as I have posted some before.
“As Twitter has now been officially declared a public forum it can no longer ban people based on their political speech as it denies those being banned from interacting with government officials.”
Read again.
You read - the court found Trumps chat (and ergo any government officials’ tweet chats) as a public forum.
That, the judge ruled, is the reasoning why Trump can’t block followers.
ERGO - Twitter can’t ban twitter users for political speech in general because they’re denying them access to the President.
"Fair" is in the eye of the beholder. I agree that there may be incredible inefficiencies in applying millenia-old rules of property to the decades-old internet. Yes, we currently lack a sizable competitor to FB or Twitter and until such a time, they are the market leaders. I personally don't like all the things people give up when they sign the Apple "Privacy" policy.
However, nobody is FORCING ANYONE to use FB or Twitter or Apple. And I suspect over time, just like in your Wal-Mart example where customers would likely flee to competitors, a viable competitor to FB and Twitter WILL emerge. Indeed, remember Netscape and Altavista and the Betamax?
The key to this process is to avoid government meddling. The private sector is best at sorting out these things..it may not be fast enough for many of us, but it's preferable to Leviathan. Throwing away the irreducible primary of "it's mine and I can do what I want with it" because of the Internet is something I'm not willing to embrace, nor do I suspect are you. Where we seemingly disagree is the threat potential while we wait, and the extent to which government can move things along. Perhaps I am naive in my thinking, but it's worked for me (and scores of others) over thousands of years. Thanks for listening.
Well, Twitter accounts don't cost anything but you and I pay Dan Scovino to administer the account and he often posts thing there that were obviously not written by DJT.
Trump is free to have a purely private account where he can block anyone he wants, but he can't use it for official US business.
I’ll concede your point on paying for the account, as I am not a Twitter user.
WRT the use of his own account, I would like to know why he can’t use it to make announcements to the public. This all revolves around a central question: does a person who is elected to be President of the United States lose their right to free speech or freedom of association? I would say that the answer MUST be “no.” Again, this is Trump’s own personal account, which was set up years before he declared his candidacy, won the election, or was inaugurated. He should have as much right as you, I or any other person to decide whether or not to ban particular people from commenting on his Twitter feed. He simply cannot lose his rights because he was elected to serve the people. None of these people are prohibited from commenting elsewhere (like, for example, their OWN Twitter accounts), and most certainly not by government edict. This is not censorship in any form whatsoever. This court decision was 100% wrong, and I am confident that if it is appealed (and it should be), it will be overturned. As I alluded to in my first post, this is his personal property, and having control of it taken away from him is likely and unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment.
No, the censorship standards must focus on foul language, not on viewpoint.
There’s nothing stopping Trump from having a personal account where he can say what he wants and block whomever he wants.
The problem is his @realDonaldTrump account became more than his personal account when his tweets became official government statements and he started to use taxpayer funded employees to maintain the account and tweet on his behalf.
>>Perhaps I am naive in my thinking, but it’s worked for me (and scores of others) over thousands of years.
I am not disputing thousands of years of physical property rights. I am talking about something that is uniquely 21st century at this point in human history. “Fair” is not just in the eye of the beholder. “Fair use” is a real thing in law. the lines over property blur as I put my intellectual property up on someone else’s intellectual property and both are hosted on someone else’s physical property which operates on someone else’s intellectual property. By the property rights of the past, the owner of the server now owns it all.
But, IP rights have protected the OS owner’s rights. It protects the service owner’s rights. But it has not evolved enough to protect the individual IP rights of the poster. Using the old property rights of physical property, the rights of the individual in cyberspace are nil. Is that freedom to you? Especially now that it is finally possible to have a conversation with literally anyone anywhere and to make your own voice heard! You would nail that capability to the old concepts of rights that determines who owns the strip of ground where a fence sits??
Yes, everyone can opt out of cyberspace.
But, no they can’t. It is a part of our lives now. People in third world countries who can’t figure out how to drill a water well get cell phones and join the global hive mind. You cheapen your argument by simply saying that, “If you don’t like your IP being owned by the guy who has the keys to the server, then you should unplug your life from the world around you.”
If this Trump twitter account is his personal account, i.e., paid by him, no court has jurisdiction to not allow him to do this. Was this judge an Clinton or Obama appointee?
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.