Judge rules Trump can't block Twitter users

[hollohas]

You're reading WAY TOO much into this COGirl...

Saying Trump can't block another user has ZERO, I repeat ZERO, effect on Twitter, FB, etc blocking conservative's/guns/etc on their internet based medium.

This does nothing but say that an anti-trump judge in NY is trying to defend anti-trumpers...

^This.

The "Free speech" argument only applies here (and loosely at that, IMO) because one party is a government official.

Private companies will continue to block/censor whomever they want and this court rulling will not change that.

[Aloha_Shooter]

This is a loss no matter how you look at it. Twitter, FB, and any of those other platforms may be leftist but they are private. No one says you have to participate on those fora so you don't have a "right" to express yourself on them --- nor does anyone have to put up with trolls and argumentative idiots on them, even a government official. No one has blocked anti-Trumpers from saying what they want about Trump on Twitter, FB, or any other platform (witness NPR, MSNBC, etc.) but Trump clearly felt (and I agree) that he doesn't have to enable their responses on his account.

This judge is just another example of how legal reasoning has decayed in the past 3-4 decades.

[MrPrena]

Lots of good posts.

As people said companies has rights to ban/block/unblock comments of their own CEO or founder of the company if they want.
I just hope some companies would not be bias and pick on people based on political views, sex, religion, race, and/or nationality.

[Zundfolge]

Anyone that thinks this ruling will be used to benefit conservatives or harm liberals really hasn't been paying attention to the last half century.

[ben4372]

The original post actually has a quote that explains why this is a special case. And he mostly did it to himself. The blocking seem reasonable. I'm pretty sure my right to free speech does not compel people to listen to me.

[Grant H.]

I personally think this judge is overstepping, and I will be surprised if this is upheld in appeals.

[Aloha_Shooter]

The original post actually has a quote that explains why this is a special case. And he mostly did it to himself. The blocking seem reasonable. I'm pretty sure my right to free speech does not compel people to listen to me.

No, the OP has a quote showing the judge's rationalization. There is no "special case" here except that liberals -- judges or not -- hate Trump and are willing distort every rule of jurisprudence to attack him or block his agenda. Freedom of speech has never EVER meant that someone else had to carry your speech, just that you are free to find your own forum or printing press to issue it.

[ben4372]

No, the OP has a quote showing the judge's rationalization. There is no "special case" here except that liberals -- judges or not -- hate Trump and are willing distort every rule of jurisprudence to attack him or block his agenda. Freedom of speech has never EVER meant that someone else had to carry your speech, just that you are free to find your own forum or printing press to issue it.

You're right. I didn't word it very well. The explanation I was referring to, was the judges rationalization. Thanks for clarification. Either way this is a flawed judgement IMO.

[CoGirl303]

The "Free speech" argument only applies here (and loosely at that, IMO) because one party is a government official.

Private companies will continue to block/censor whomever they want and this court rulling will not change that.

This ruling may not specifically or directly. However, the ruling may be a foothold in this lawsuit here, especially if Twitter loses in court.

https://yournewswire.com/conservativ...er-censorship/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CoGirl303]

Not at all. Not related. Public gov't accounts in media companies do not equal everybody else in media companies. The ruling was the gov can't block citizens from it's official accounts. That has nothing to do with the first amendment ability of a private company to do whatever the hell they want. Including blocking people they disagree with.

I dont have time to find the case this weekend, but years ago, a judge ruled that people posting on Twitter and Facebook are indeed members of the press. I think it had something to do with an ireporter photographing or videoing something and then posting it.

Any competent lawyer drags that case into it as a reference and it could tie in along with the ruling above.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk