| A New York judge rules @realDonaldTrump is a presidential, not personal, account and blocking violates the first amendment A district court in New York has ruled that Donald Trump cannot block people on Twitter, because it violates their first amendment rights to participate in a “public forum”. In ruling against Trump, the court pointed to past White House assurances that the president’s Twitter account is an official political channel. In her 75-page opinion, the United States district judge Naomi Reice Buchwald wrote: “The president presents the @realDonaldTrump account as being a presidential account as opposed to a personal account and, more importantly, uses the account to take actions that can be taken only by the president as president.” https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/23/trump-twitter-block-ruling-court-public-forum-account lol well he is using that personal account for presidential reasons anyway |
| I don't think anyone has used a twitter account quite like Trump. |
| I can see this not ending well. Since Donald Trump can use the Secret Service to charge you. Whelp, Trumperino can't block me anymore, I can say whatever I want now. More dysfunctional hypocritical hilarity from my government. |
 |
| i loled how it's redirected to actual MAL account... |
 "If taking responsibility for a mistake that cannot be undone means death, it's not that hard to die. At least, not as hard as to live on." |
Kuma said: i loled how it's redirected to actual MAL account... yep im surprise there is an actual MAL account for that one |
deg said: Kuma said: i loled how it's redirected to actual MAL account... yep im surprise there is an actual MAL account for that one too bad he is inactive... look like a duplicate... |
"If taking responsibility for a mistake that cannot be undone means death, it's not that hard to die. At least, not as hard as to live on." |
| humanity is doomed, what has been up with ce threads for the past few days? |
Edward Elric > your waifu  |
| What are they gonna do about it? Relevant:  |
deg said: Kuma said: i loled how it's redirected to actual MAL account... yep im surprise there is an actual MAL account for that one Didn't know Trump had good taste in anime. He gave Evangelion a 1. |
lol that's like saying that if I shot someone, I didn't kill them, the bullet that came out of the gun did. Phendrus said: So does this mean the White House is required to open every Nigerian bank scam email that pops up in official inboxes? Are they violating the First Amendment if they don't listen to Mr. Solomon's requests for help transferring money out of his Swiss bank account? What about those ads about cheap Viagra alternatives? Last I checked, emails were not a public forum like Twitter. |
| People who put MAL stats in their sigs are losers lol |
| Lol this vendetta against trump is so retarded. I cannot wait until this shit society collapse into chaos. |
| lol what..that's really stupid. |
| hi,i like you. |
| I don't like Trump much but this is rubbish, it's his own account not the white houses. |
| added the fourth most popular anime onto this site |
Phendrus said: So does this mean the White House is required to open every Nigerian bank scam email that pops up in official inboxes? Are they violating the First Amendment if they don't listen to Mr. Solomon's requests for help transferring money out of his Swiss bank account? What about those ads about cheap Viagra alternatives? My gosh. This is so flippin' stupid. Ms. Buchwald, this is petty childishness and you know it. I thought 1st amendment only applied to americans. |
Valaskjalf said: Phendrus said: So does this mean the White House is required to open every Nigerian bank scam email that pops up in official inboxes? Are they violating the First Amendment if they don't listen to Mr. Solomon's requests for help transferring money out of his Swiss bank account? What about those ads about cheap Viagra alternatives? My gosh. This is so flippin' stupid. Ms. Buchwald, this is petty childishness and you know it. I thought 1st amendment only applied to americans. it also applies to japan, but basically yes |
| "among monsters and humans, there are only two types. Those who undergo suffering and spread it to others. And those who undergo suffering and avoid giving it to others." -Alice “Beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty.” David Hume “Evil is created when someone gives up on someone else. It appears when everyone gives up on someone as a lost cause and removes their path to salvation. Once they are cut off from everyone else, they become evil.” -Othinus  |
EvenJellyOn said: I don't like Trump much but this is rubbish, it's his own account not the white houses. Actually it makes quite a lot of sense. The white house does have an official POTUS twitter account, but Trump in the beginning of his presidency refused to use it and instead chose to use the realDonanldTrump account claiming it as an official political channel of his presidency, thereby making it a public forum. If so Trump has no one to blame but himself for this because the simple fact is that he could have used the official POTUS account and kept this one as personal. |
 |
| Here is another source https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/23/613780174/trump-cant-block-critics-from-his-twitter-account-judge-says PoeticJustice said: Lol this vendetta against trump is so retarded. I cannot wait until this shit society collapse into chaos. It's technically the law, not a vendetta. |
Phendrus said: What does twitter being a public forum have to do with the first amendment? From the official opinion on the matter: We then proceed to the substance of plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims. We hold that portions of the @realDonaldTrump account -- the “interactive space” where Twitter users may directly engage with the content of the President’s tweets -- are properly analyzed under the “public forum” doctrines set forth by the Supreme Court, that such space is a designated public forum, and that the blocking of the plaintiffs based on their political speech constitutes viewpoint discrimination that violates the First Amendment. https://sc.cnbcfm.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/editorialfiles/2018/05/23/Microsoft%20Word%20-%202018.05.pdf So Twitter being a public forum matters quite a bit when it comes to the First Amendment. |
| People who put MAL stats in their sigs are losers lol |
| Well we wouldn't want anyone missing out on quality content. |
 I can see you |
Phendrus said: Only Congress can violate the first amendment, and then only by passing a law. Technically false as the 14th Amendment expanded the Bill of Rights to apply to the states as per Gitlow v. New York (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gitlow_v._New_York) and other court cases. Now, under your logic then the President (or the Executive or Judicial branches in general) would be perfectly able to limit the freedoms of the populace. This is not possible, however, as per the inherent qualities of each branch laid out in the Constitution (essentially: The Legislative branch creates the law, the Judicial branch interprets the law, and the Executive branch enforces the law). Therefore, as Twitter would be considered a public forum by the First Amendment, Trump would be overstepping the boundaries of his office by blocking people with a Presidential Twitter account, which is still unconstitutional. To give a more striking example, if the President were to use the Secret Service to attack news journalists for criticizing him, that would be illegal as there was no legislative precedent for those actions. Under your logic though, this would be perfectly acceptable within the bounds of the Constitution. |
| People who put MAL stats in their sigs are losers lol |
PoeticJustice said: I agree a lot of the backlash against Trump (and supporters) is just making everything worse, but in this case, the way the POTUS uses Twitter is kind of a big deal. Lol this vendetta against trump is so retarded. I cannot wait until this shit society collapse into chaos. I wonder if you really think that's relevant. Hopefully not. |
rawrX3pounces said: Do you understand the liability a content carrier faces? I don't think you understand the repercussions we'd face if this was ever enforced (which it won't be enforced).PoeticJustice said: I agree a lot of the backlash against Trump (and supporters) is just making everything worse, but in this case, the way the POTUS uses Twitter is kind of a big deal. Lol this vendetta against trump is so retarded. I cannot wait until this shit society collapse into chaos. I wonder if you really think that's relevant. Hopefully not. |
Thrashinuva said: rawrX3pounces said: Do you understand the liability a content carrier faces? I don't think you understand the repercussions we'd face if this was ever enforced (which it won't be enforced).I agree a lot of the backlash against Trump (and supporters) is just making everything worse, but in this case, the way the POTUS uses Twitter is kind of a big deal. I wonder if you really think that's relevant. Hopefully not. All Twitter would have to do is update their terms of services. But since it is in fact a part of their terms of services that by choosing to use Twitter the user has already elected that they are responsible for any use of the service and any content they provide which includes compliance with applicable laws, rules, and regulations. I mean I can't imagine why somebody with the handle Barnes_Law wouldn't understand the contract he's effectively adhered towards on the very site he posted that message but it certainly doesn't look good for his business. |
GamerDLM said: TOS isn't exactly legally binding. They can be, if everything within them is legal and reasonable, and a court later doesn't decide it cannot be upheld, but they are otherwise not something that can change whether or not something is illegal.Thrashinuva said: Do you understand the liability a content carrier faces? I don't think you understand the repercussions we'd face if this was ever enforced (which it won't be enforced). All Twitter would have to do is update their terms of services. But since it is in fact a part of their terms of services that by choosing to use Twitter the user has already elected that they are responsible for any use of the service and any content they provide which includes compliance with applicable laws, rules, and regulations. I mean I can't imagine why somebody with the handle Barnes_Law wouldn't understand the contract he's effectively adhered towards on the very site he posted that message but it certainly doesn't look good for his business. |
Thrashinuva said: GamerDLM said: TOS isn't exactly legally binding. They can be, if everything within them is legal and reasonable, and a court later doesn't decide it cannot be upheld, but they are otherwise not something that can change whether or not something is illegal.All Twitter would have to do is update their terms of services. But since it is in fact a part of their terms of services that by choosing to use Twitter the user has already elected that they are responsible for any use of the service and any content they provide which includes compliance with applicable laws, rules, and regulations. I mean I can't imagine why somebody with the handle Barnes_Law wouldn't understand the contract he's effectively adhered towards on the very site he posted that message but it certainly doesn't look good for his business. According to the American Bar Association terms of service functions as a legally binding contract. The only exception being how the terms of service are presented can influence a courts willingness to enforce policies. For example clicking "I Agree to the Terms of Service" is more legally binding than just having a terms of service page that people can optionally access. Which in the case of Twitter users are notified that they are agreeing to the terms as soon as they try to create an account. Courts also routinely upheld TOS cases in which people have clicked a button saying they agree to the terms whether or not they also read the terms of the agreement. For this specific instant I can't imagine you're trying to argue that it's unreasonable that Twitter made the users legally responsible for how they choose to use their service. |
GamerDLMMay 25, 2018 10:24 AM
GamerDLM said: For this specific instance, I don't know what specifically changed, and as such I cannot tell you if it is legally binding or not. Generally speaking however TOS cannot legally bind you to anything that is illegal, and also often if it's unreasonable.Thrashinuva said: TOS isn't exactly legally binding. They can be, if everything within them is legal and reasonable, and a court later doesn't decide it cannot be upheld, but they are otherwise not something that can change whether or not something is illegal. According to the American Bar Association terms of service functions as a legally binding contract. The only exception being how the terms of service are presented can influence a courts willingness to enforce policies. For example clicking "I Agree to the Terms of Service" is more legally binding than just having a terms of service page that people can optionally access. Which in the case of Twitter users are notified that they are agreeing to the terms as soon as they try to create an account. Courts also routinely upheld TOS cases in which people have clicked a button saying they agree to the terms whether or not they also read the terms of the agreement. For this specific instant I can't imagine you're trying to argue that it's unreasonable that Twitter made the users legally responsible for how they choose to use their service. As an example: Twitter may have in their TOS "we own all creative works you post on our site" or something similar. These kinds of things tend to raise public outrage every now and then. "Site x is going to steal all of our hard work! Be mad!" In reality this would absolutely not hold any water in court should Twitter ever attempt to use this to claim other people's works as their own. More often than not companies will put these sorts of things within their TOS just because if they don't they worry it might bite them in the ass later on, should any particularly "creative" lawsuits come up. This also happens a lot because TOS tend to be copy and pasted quite a bit. Basically inside of a TOS can be all sorts of illegal things that wouldn't ever hold up in a court, but unless the company who wrote the TOS ever plans to do anything shady, they don't really have to worry about anyone suing them over what's in their TOS. The worst it'll get is users getting a bit angry over something, and then they can play the good guys by tweaking whatever it is they have an issue with. Meanwhile some of the more shady things in a TOS, or otherwise more general purpose things, can sometimes save them from lawsuits. |
| Yerr good for him m8888 |
| @Trashinuva Nothing changed for this instance. Twitter had/has a specific clause in their TOS that says individual users are responsible for how they use the service (in this case Trump is responsible for using the block function, Twitter isn't contrary to what that lawyer you quoted claimed). Using extreme cases of TOS abuse doesn't really refute that it's still a legally binding contract. If someone made a physical contract to have another person assassinated that doesn't mean contracts in general are any less legally binding. The reason that a lot of them are "copy/pasted" is pretty obvious, they tend to be the most basic legally sound variation of the agreement. But just to jump back to the original question of "what are they going to do about it?" hypothetically Twitter could suspend or terminate his account for blocking people since there's a specific ruling in place saying he can't and it would be considered unlawful actions by the account. |
| @GamerDLM As a content carrier, assuming Twitter remains focused on providing a platform rather than generating content, they are much less legally liable than individual users. However the claim we're faced with is an extraordinary one, in which by blocking someone on Twitter, the person who was blocked has had their free speech restricted. In this very context, Twitter itself is not a piece of land, but a corporation. The claim lies contradictory with itself as Twitter remains a platform, but provides the tools to restrict free speech. The natural conclusion will be that this verdict will be entirely reversed, and judged that free speech has not been restricted in any way, because otherwise Twitter will have to remove the block feature from everyone or move from being a platform to a content provider, both of which are unsustainable models for Twitter. Or in the final case, this will simply only apply to the White House account, in which case the President being the arm of the law will simply ignore should he choose to, and no one can lift a finger to change it. The point of TOS not being necessarily legally binding is not purely on the case of extreme scenarios. TOS is regularly filled with things that are not legally binding, extreme or not. The question was more about what the courts or other legal authorities would do about it. I have zero doubt that Twitter will do absolutely nothing in respect to this, and allow Trump to do whatever he wants. |
| @Trashinuva No because now you're conflating that Twitter is a government agency because government officials are using it to make official announcements. Which means you're now associating content produced by government officials to be content owned and operated by Twitter which is not the case. As such Twitter as an organization cannot be counted as restricting free speech (nor is it liable when government officials chose to do so). But a Government official who uses Twitter in an official capacity is restricting free speech by making it so people can't view or respond to statements from the Government. Which is what this ruling focused on. If he doesn't want to have his personal account be his official government account then he needs to stop using it in an official capacity. If he does that then the ruling wouldn't apply or could be reversed but until that happens (which I doubt it will) their arguments are pretty valid. The only reason I can't argue against your example of ownership is that ownership is a much more complicated feature to transfer. But to reference Twitter's TOS using the platform does give them a non-exclusive non-royalty license to use, modify, copy etc. any content posted on their site. But that's more of a case where there's another legal framework potentially in place that counters your example is the only reason that specific instance may not be legally binding. As I mentioned traditionally as long as the TOS is clearly presented with a feature that forces a user to physically agree most courts would side with the organization. Unless the amendment clearly violates another law like say false advertising. The legal authorities could demand that the account have actions taken against it such as the ones I mentioned. Likely it would be something as simple as "you have to unblock that person or you won't be able to use your account." Whether Twitter chooses to take the initiative would be a possibility but if there's direct legal action saying that they have to deal with the account they obviously will. |
GamerDLMMay 25, 2018 6:38 PM
| Whyy is this so fucking funny |
 ☆ My Anime Challenges ☆ My List ☆ |
GamerDLM said: So by what extension of free speech is anyone given the right to what someone else is saying?But a Government official who uses Twitter in an official capacity is restricting free speech by making it so people can't view or respond to statements from the Government. Which is what this ruling focused on. |
Thrashinuva said: GamerDLM said: So by what extension of free speech is anyone given the right to what someone else is saying?But a Government official who uses Twitter in an official capacity is restricting free speech by making it so people can't view or respond to statements from the Government. Which is what this ruling focused on. You ignored the second half of it where they're also specifically blocking people from what is effectively participating in a public forum. But if you want a specific case for your question the supreme court established last year that "a fundamental principle of the first amendment is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more." |
GamerDLM said: Twitter is the content carrier. Blocking someone from your user page isn't denying them the usage of twitter. To add to that, such a claim would mean that it's illegal for Twitter is breaking the law whenever they ban someone from Twitter itself.Thrashinuva said: So by what extension of free speech is anyone given the right to what someone else is saying? You ignored the second half of it where they're also specifically blocking people from what is effectively participating in a public forum. But if you want a specific case for your question the supreme court established last year that "a fundamental principle of the first amendment is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more." Twitter isn't a public forum. |
Thrashinuva said: GamerDLM said: Twitter is the content carrier. Blocking someone from your user page isn't denying them the usage of twitter. To add to that, such a claim would mean that it's illegal for Twitter is breaking the law whenever they ban someone from Twitter itself.You ignored the second half of it where they're also specifically blocking people from what is effectively participating in a public forum. But if you want a specific case for your question the supreme court established last year that "a fundamental principle of the first amendment is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more." Twitter isn't a public forum. An official government account used to distribute content on a website that specifically encourages freedom of expression and discussion is a public forum. This isn't even the first case where a federal judge ruled an elected official can't block people on social media sites from their official account. Again you're conflating Twitter as an organization with a government agency which it is not while ignoring the fact that the actual president is a government official who designated that account as his official account. The very act of doing that made his account an official public forum as long as he maintains a political position and continues to use it as such. Saying whether or not they can still use Twitter when blocked by an account is literally missing the entire point of the argument and has no relevance whatsoever. |
GamerDLM said: Dictating that the white house twitter account is a public forum simply because it is used by someone in the government sounds rather arbitrary to me, and I doubt there is any sort of precedent of such a case before it in any legal capacity and maybe not even outside of any legal context as well. Rather the argument you are making is that someone's private speech is no longer private if they are in fact employed by the government, which is a drastic abuse of the law, which if you ever want to get everyone out of government that would be the sure way to do it, as not even their own homes would be safe. No doubt that's not specifically the point you mean to make, but surely that is the end of line for the logic you've laid out.Thrashinuva said: Twitter is the content carrier. Blocking someone from your user page isn't denying them the usage of twitter. To add to that, such a claim would mean that it's illegal for Twitter is breaking the law whenever they ban someone from Twitter itself. Twitter isn't a public forum. An official government account used to distribute content on a website that specifically encourages freedom of expression and discussion is a public forum. This isn't even the first case where a federal judge ruled an elected official can't block people on social media sites from their official account. Again you're conflating Twitter as an organization with a government agency which it is not while ignoring the fact that the actual president is a government official who designated that account as his official account. The very act of doing that made his account an official public forum as long as he maintains a political position and continues to use it as such. Saying whether or not they can still use Twitter when blocked by an account is literally missing the entire point of the argument and has no relevance whatsoever. You won't be able to differentiate Twitter as a private organization or as a government entity if you treat it as a government entity in one circumstance and not in another. It is either or, not both or neither. If you don't think being able to still use Twitter is relevant in this context, then I don't think you understand the full scope of the law specifically in regards to free speech. If the argument is that Twitter is a place you go to to speak or listen, then someone refusing to speak to you at Twitter is not in any way the same as kicking you out of the place you've gone to speak or listen, namely Twitter. You have a right to free speech as an American citizen, however you don't have a right to be heard. Similarly, you don't have a right to hear anyone else's free speech. This extends to people in the government. Now you can make the case that people prominent in the government follow different rules than common folk, but that would be more about what the get away with, and not that they're legally bound to more rules than we are. Additionally to label the White House twitter account or the realDonaldTrump twitter account as official government communication is inherently flawed in itself. It presumes that the only communication to be had or should be had through those accounts is purely informational, and will never be used as PR or for political gain, all despite reality being just that. The anger here also sets aside the fact that even under the circumstance that important information is relayed through the twitter account, even ignoring that the government will assuredly relay that information through other means, that people will still get this information whether they like it or not either through their acquaintances or through the news, both of which will refuse to shut up about. In essence the claim, should it ever be made, that someone is being cut off from the world of government communication is entirely false as well. |
| @Trashinuva I mean your whole first paragraph shows you misread what I wrote despite being very clear. If Trump separated his accounts in both practice as well as officially there wouldn't be any issue. The issue is he's using his personal account as his professional account which I have said many times. A politician can block anybody they want on their Personal account. On the account that they've deemed official it is a designated public forum for discussion. If they choose to suppress people on that account they're breaking that clause of the supreme court case that I linked to you thus violating the first amendment according to the Supreme Court. I'm not treating the website Twitter as a government agency. I'm treating the officially designated government/politician accounts as a government agency because it's the governments official use of a social media outlet. If anything expands past that account it has no relevance to this discussion whatsoever and is shamelessly using the slippery slope argument. Right to be heard has no relevance here. Trump can ignore any post on Twitter he wants. He just can't block the speaker in an official capacity. The White House were the ones who initially labeled realDonaldTrump as an official government communication. The rest of that paragraph isn't relevant because all that is presumed in this case is that professional and personal content should be separated or they will be treated as professional. There being more options to receive communications has no relevance in a legal capacity. Just as banning someone from a public park for protesting is still violating the first amendment even if there are more public parks and streets. In that sense it is factual that a person is being cut off from the discussion on a designated public forum by a government official. |
GamerDLMMay 25, 2018 10:47 PM
| Can you point to me any law that declares any and all communication that someone in the government gives that is deemed "official" by any other aspect of the government, as infringing on the first amendment if that communication is withheld from any particular individual? |
Thrashinuva said: Can you point to me any law that declares any and all communication that someone in the government gives that is deemed "official" by any other aspect of the government, as infringing on the first amendment if that communication is withheld from any particular individual? The Supreme Court case that I literally linked to you can very easily apply to that concept and has been used to apply to that concept. The first example I found that cited that supreme court case towards a designated official account can be found here. If you're expecting a lot more than you're going to have to be patient because the Supreme Court case that allowed for cases such as that one was only voted on in mid 2017 so it's an extremely new guideline. |
GamerDLM said: I'll take a stance that is contradictory to the ruling here. That you cannot open a public forum on private property. The very nature of this case relies on the fact that the defendant here opened a forum of some kind, yet any and all examples (that I can find) of governments opening forums has been on public property.Thrashinuva said: Can you point to me any law that declares any and all communication that someone in the government gives that is deemed "official" by any other aspect of the government, as infringing on the first amendment if that communication is withheld from any particular individual? The Supreme Court case that I literally linked to you can very easily apply to that concept and has been used to apply to that concept. The first example I found that cited that supreme court case towards a designated official account can be found here. If you're expecting a lot more than you're going to have to be patient because the Supreme Court case that allowed for cases such as that one was only voted on in mid 2017 so it's an extremely new guideline. "Only traditional public forums, like parks and streets, get the . full protection of the First Amendment. Newer sites of communication, from shopping malls to the internet, are free from the constraints imposed on the traditional public forum. " https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1265&context=facpub It is my stance then that the judgement in this particular case was incorrect. However the claim that the plaintiff being wronged holds ground through other means, in that she had access to that particular facebook page as part of her job and was then barred entry in order to ensure her views not be heard or seen. This would be a question on if she held any rights as someone who managed the page at the request of the "owner" (being the defendant) of the page. A number of states have made laws to extend free speech into privately owned but publicly available property, but these are in the minority. Virginia is not one of them. Further in a case that was dismissed in Virginia courts over free speech on private property it was stated that these states are not merely offering an interpretation of the 1st amendment, but additional protections of free speech that the 1st amendment does not provide. http://tjcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/05-10-518-Collins-v-Shoppers-World-Amicus-Brief-in-Opposition-to-Defendants-Demurrer.pdf The bit in the more recent Virginia case deeming it an unconstitutional act may have been referring to Virginia constitution rather than the American constitution. Since neither seems to apply, it's hard to determine which is to be the case. Neither document has been updated since the inception of the internet, so I don't believe either holds too much power over these cases. |
| I guess Trump is going to be on a long-time twitter lover who loves to talk and interact with NK and other politicans and resolve this sitaution for it. No block shall be maintained! |
 |
| @Trashinuva I mean there are two notable problems with your argument around the first article. One full protection doesn't mean that non-traditional public forums like the internet don't have any protections. He even goes on to say if the government were to discriminate on the basis of viewpoints it would be wrong. Ie. blocking somebody who had a different opinion is discriminating on the basis of viewpoint such as the Facebook case in which a person was actively complaining about corruption they were silenced. Even the Supreme court did say there were methods in which the Government could build legal structures to limit social media usage but it has to be extremely defined with clear intentions. Since the Supreme Court case was about whether sexual offenders are allowed to use social media I can use that as an example. They decided that sweeping bans and punishments for people using social media was unconstitutional but they did say they could limit a sexual offenders actions with clearly defined regulations. Such as making it so a registered sexual offender is not allowed to contact minors on social media or use it for gathering information about them. The other notable problem is according to your first article the basis around the private property can determine the analysis and relation to freedom of speech. He even goes on to mention a privately owned mall that opens up to the public for more actions than commercial use is open to more analysis when dealing with issues of freedom of speech. Really in the entire article you could just swap out the phrase "shopping center" with "social media" and it would be equally appropriate given the decade since that article was published. in fact I'm just going to directly quote the article but change out the words Private shopping centers for Social media and you can tell me if it still fits: The Virginia case determined it as unconstitutional to both. |
GamerDLM said: "non-traditional public forum" isn't a thing. There are traditional public forums, which are public streets, sidewalks, and parks. There are non-public forums, which are things like public schools, jails, and military bases. There are limited forums, which is simply a more limited version of traditional public forums. The most that can be argued is that things like twitter are technically forums by English definition, and that they are generally available to the public. However they are not owned or operated by the public, and are privately owned, and should Twitter decide to ban anyone for any reason, including every single user, they would be legally allowed to do so.One full protection doesn't mean that non-traditional public forums like the internet don't have any protections. He even goes on to say if the government were to discriminate on the basis of viewpoints it would be wrong. Ie. blocking somebody who had a different opinion is discriminating on the basis of viewpoint such as the Facebook case in which a person was actively complaining about corruption they were silenced. However this is under the presumption that a facebook page operated by an individual constitutes a public forum, which it does not under any other circumstance separate from the verdict of this particular case.The other notable problem is according to your first article the basis around the private property can determine the analysis and relation to freedom of speech. He even goes on to mention a privately owned mall that opens up to the public for more actions than commercial use is open to more analysis when dealing with issues of freedom of speech. A number of states have made laws or rulings enforcing individual speech in privately owned malls. Many of them have reversed those decisions over time. Many of them recognize the 1st amendment itself doesn't offer this protection of speech, and it is simply state law that has given the protection.Social Media has replaced the traditional downtown public square as a forum for public discourse. Across the United States, organizations and individuals are permitted to hold events on the grounds of social media and encouraged to engage in open discussion of the events of the day. Indeed, social media provides an "almost limitless invitation" for speech to their consumers; thus, encouraging free expression on their property. The practical result of this invitation is that individuals have come to rely upon social media as a necessary forum for expressing their thoughts, ideas and values. Failure to protect those individual's right to free expression while on the grounds of social media would have a disastrous effect on public free expression Well why don't we explore this a bit. Social Media = Downtown Public SquareYou kick someone out of the Downtown Public Square, and so they are left unable to air out their concerns to the rest of the people in the Downtown Public Square You kick someone out of Social Media, and so they are left unable to air out their concerns to the rest of the people in Social Media. Are you making the claim that Trump, and the Virgnia case, kicked people out from the entirety of social media? Or maybe it's like this. You block someone from your personal space so they cannot speak to you in social media, and they are left to communicate to the rest of the people in Social Media. You block someone in your personal space so they cannot speak to you in the Downtown Public Square, and they are left to communicate to the rest of the people in the Downtown Public Square. Does that not seem right either? That you can shut someone down in a public square without them be limited in speaking to anyone else? Of course these are only the least obvious of differences. When you say "Social Media is run by the government" it sure isn't going to agree with anyone, and neither does "The Downtown Public Square is run by corporations". |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |