Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Federal appeals court rules Trump can't block people on Twitter


enjoy

So is this going to apply to all public officials? Is it okay for Nancy Pelosi to block someone on twitter?

Originally posted by staxamillion
Federal appeals court rules Trump can't block people on Twitter


enjoy

Triggity

Originally posted by Surtur
So is this going to apply to all public officials? Is it okay for Nancy Pelosi to block someone on twitter?


Oh, I'm sure it will be perfectly fine for her and every other public official to block whoever the Hell they like. The rule only applies to Trump, of course lol.


Hopefully, this will be appealed to the Supreme Court (where conservatives have a clear majority ).

Originally posted by staxamillion
Federal appeals court rules Trump can't block people on Twitter


enjoy


^ Trumpers can self-soothe themselves that when Biden, Buttigeig, Harris, Warren or whichever Dem wins in 2020, they won't be able to block people either, not that they ever would, because they'll be POTUS and have better things to do than get into social media fights with private citizens on Twitter and then rage about blocking them after their fee-fees get hurt because someone said mean things.

Why is Robbie so full of Hate?

Oh wait cause He is a POS.

So Being President makes you Lose the rights that all other citizens have?

Not that anyone who votes RIGHT has all the same "RIGHTS" as those that Vote Left on Twitter.

Well it has begun: two people are filing lawsuits against AOC for blocking them on twitter. *shrugs* And nope we will not be saying this only applies to Trump, either all public officials can block or none can.

Oh it is to LARF!

Would be funny to see this go for Celebrities as well. Especially those that use Twitter to push their own products and the like.

Originally posted by Surtur
Well it has begun: two people are filing lawsuits against AOC for blocking them on twitter. *shrugs* And nope we will not be saying this only applies to Trump, either all public officials can block or none can.

It's not like they told Trump that he must at all times maintain his account. Just go off Twitter, I've never had an account and I'm still here. All seems quite stupid to me, if you're not allowed to block people then why is it an option to begin with?

Originally posted by samhain
It's not like they told Trump that he must at all times maintain his account. Just go off Twitter, I've never had an account and I'm still here. All seems quite stupid to me, if you're not allowed to block people then why is it an option to begin with? Twitter is pointless.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Twitter is pointless.


Certainly seems that way.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Oh it is to LARF!

Would be funny to see this go for Celebrities as well. Especially those that use Twitter to push their own products and the like.

Some are trying to argue she isn't like the POTUS, which is true she isn't as powerful. However, she is a public official and is able to vote on things that impact more than just those in her own district. Also pretty sure her salary comes from the federal government and thus not just the people of NY, but all tax payers.

I'm seeing talk of Rep. Cohen(the chicken eater) also being sued by people he has blocked.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Twitter is pointless. Some philosopher dude said that reducing conversations, debates, arguments, and discussions down 140 characters (this was a while ago, before the increase) is stupid because no meaningful conversation and information exchange can occur in such short messages.


But he's probably a long-winded blowhard because that's what philosophers do.

Other groups are saying to use twitter to have better arguments:


http://dailynous.com/2018/11/05/philosophers-science-others-use-twitter/

Originally posted by Robtard
^ Trumpers can self-soothe themselves that when Biden, Buttigeig, Harris, Warren or whichever Dem wins in 2020, they won't be able to block people either, not that they ever would, because they'll be POTUS and have better things to do than get into social media fights with private citizens on Twitter and then rage about blocking them after their fee-fees get hurt because someone said mean things.

Read an article yesterday that AOC already got in trouble after this ruling was made. Meaning, it's not just Trump. Apparently, AOC blocked people.

According to the far-left, it's ok when their side does it.

I don't use twitter myself, but I find it silly to say it is pointless. It *could* be a valuable tool if used properly.

It gets abused though and even worse is now there is a tendency from the media(on both sides) to craft entire stories around the tweets of maybe half a dozen twitter users. That is where this "White folk are mad over black mermaids!" shit came from. One of the tweets came from a troll account, there were a few legit ones. Out of billions of users.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Read an article yesterday that AOC already got in trouble after this ruling was made. Meaning, it's not just Trump. Apparently, AOC blocked people.

And the chicken eater Stephen Cohen lol. He's a dem, but I'm sure other republicans have people blocked too.

The excuses being given for AOC are "these people aren't their constituents". Like I said, she is able to vote on stuff that impacts me and you though. And draws a federal paycheck.

Originally posted by Surtur
And the chicken eater Stephen Cohen lol. He's a dem, but I'm sure other republicans have people blocked too.

The excuses being given for AOC are "these people aren't their constituents". Like I said, she is able to vote on stuff that impacts me and you though. And draws a federal paycheck.

I'm still not okay with this ruling. I think Twitter should get to censor right-wingers all they want and Trump should get to use his private twitter account in any way he wants within Twitter's guidelines.

Maybe, but alas what's good for the goose...

This is all sorts of wrong. Regardless of a person's public status if they are a user of a platform they should have the ability to block anyone they like. Particularly if they are subject to abuse. Being blocked by Trump doesn't stop people accessing his tweets. There are other mirror accounts that repost his tweets so people who want to read them without having to follow his account can do so.

This just sets a precedent for legal interference in the usability of social media.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
This is all sorts of wrong. Regardless of a person's public status if they are a user of a platform they should have the ability to block anyone they like. Particularly if they are subject to abuse. Being blocked by Trump doesn't stop people accessing his tweets. There are other mirror accounts that repost his tweets so people who want to read them without having to follow his account can do so.

This just sets a precedent for legal interference in the usability of social media.



It also constitutes judicial activism and, therefore, extends the power of government over individuals (both companies and individuals using those companies' resources). It's another power overreach.

Im wicked happy that our president and other elected officials are spending so much of their/our and the courts time and money on this.

I mean sure there are millions of 12 year olds around the world who can handle twitter just fine without problems, yet our elected officials act like toddlers that just got called a pee pee head in the sandbox. Its not embarrassing at all, im super proud of both sides.

Originally posted by Raptor22
Im wicked happy that our president and other elected officials are spending so much of their/our and the courts time and money on this.

I mean sure there are millions of 12 year olds around the world who can handle twitter just fine without problems, yet our elected officials act like toddlers that just got called a pee pee head in the sandbox. Its not embarrassing at all, im super proud of both sides.

Well see it was whiny snowflakes who brought the lawsuit against Trump in the first place lol.

And now in order to hold both sides accountable, there will be even more lawsuits.

But yeah sarcasm aside we should be glad Trump tried to fight this bullshit, because it's wrong.

Just wait until a Federal Court says its Ok when the Clintons are envolved in Child Sex Trafficking and Molestation...cause those Wacky Clintons..Derp Dee Derp!!

Originally posted by Surtur
Well see it was whiny snowflakes who brought the lawsuit against Trump in the first place lol.

And now in order to hold both sides accountable, there will be even more lawsuits.

But yeah sarcasm aside we should be glad Trump tried to fight this bullshit, because it's wrong.


Indeed.

Originally posted by Surtur
Well see it was whiny snowflakes who brought the lawsuit against Trump in the first place lol.

And now in order to hold both sides accountable, there will be even more lawsuits.

But yeah sarcasm aside we should be glad Trump tried to fight this bullshit, because it's wrong.

No, it was people concerned with the rule of law. And if another court finds that the Presidential Records Act somehow applies to public officials who are not the president or vice president, then so be it. The transparency of the public record is not a bad thing. Cry more.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No, it was people concerned with the rule of law. And if another court finds that the Presidential Records Act somehow applies to public officials who are not the president or vice president, then so be it. The transparency of the public record is not a bad thing. Cry more.

Okie dokie! Then the folk suing AOC are just people concerned with the law.

Originally posted by Surtur
Okie dokie! Then the folk suing AOC are just people concerned with the law.

They do not seem to have a functioning understanding of it, but sure. It will be an expensive civics lesson for them. Maybe making their stupidity hurt them financially will help them learn.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
They do not seem to have a functioning understanding of it, but sure. It will be an expensive civics lesson for them. Maybe making their stupidity hurt them financially will help them learn.

Nah we're not gonna say only certain public officials can't block.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No, it was people concerned with the rule of law. And if another court finds that the Presidential Records Act somehow applies to public officials who are not the president or vice president, then so be it. The transparency of the public record is not a bad thing. Cry more.

Case where the law was broken:

In June 2018, Politico reported that President Donald Trump frequently and routinely would tear up papers he received, resulting in government officials taping them together for archiving to ensure that Trump did not violate the Presidential Records Act.

In July 2018, Business Insider reported that President Trump gave his personal cellphone number to various world leaders, having unrecorded conversations with them completely without U.S. officials' knowledge.

In July 2018, CNN reported that The White House had suspended the practice of publishing public summaries of President Donald Trump's phone calls with world leaders, two sources with knowledge of the situation told CNN, bringing an end to a common exercise from the Republican and Democratic administrations. -From the PRA wiki

iirc, Trump was also deleting Tweets after a late-night rage fit, which would also fall under the PRA's duty to preserve.

Originally posted by Robtard
Case where the law was broken:

In June 2018, Politico reported that President Donald Trump frequently and routinely would tear up papers he received, resulting in government officials taping them together for archiving to ensure that Trump did not violate the Presidential Records Act.

In July 2018, Business Insider reported that President Trump gave his personal cellphone number to various world leaders, having unrecorded conversations with them completely without U.S. officials' knowledge.

In July 2018, CNN reported that The White House had suspended the practice of publishing public summaries of President Donald Trump's phone calls with world leaders, two sources with knowledge of the situation told CNN, bringing an end to a common exercise from the Republican and Democratic administrations. -From the PRA wiki

iirc, Trump was also deleting Tweets after a late-night rage fit, which would also fall under the PRA's duty to preserve.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/09/politics/twitter-trump-appeals-court/index.html

"The judges on the appeals court concluded that "the First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise-open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees."

I'd love to see why this wouldn't apply to AOC. Have it make sense

Originally posted by Surtur
Nah we're not gonna say only certain public officials can't block.

"We" are not going to say anything. The law, which applies to presidents and vice presidents, was passed in 1978.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
"We" are not going to say anything. The law, which applies to presidents and vice presidents, was passed in 1978.

Not what the court is saying kiddo.

@surt

"Presidential Records Act"

Do you understand that AOC isn't a President? At least not yet; when she is, this Act will apply to her.

Originally posted by Surtur
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/09/politics/twitter-trump-appeals-court/index.html

"The judges on the appeals court concluded that "the First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise-open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees."

I'd love to see why this wouldn't apply to AOC. Have it make sense

Originally posted by Surtur
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/09/politics/twitter-trump-appeals-court/index.html

"The judges on the appeals court concluded that "the First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise-open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees."

I'd love to see why this wouldn't apply to AOC. Have it make sense

Trump was charged with violating the Presidential Records Act. He cited the First Amendment as a defense, i.e. his right to Freedom of Speech exempted him from following the law. The appeals court did not agree.

I would love to hear why you think this would apply to anyone who is not president or vice president?

@surt That's not the PRA, probably that.

But as I said last month, I'm cool with all politicians losing their private Twitter/sm if they use it for official business.

edit: Adam covered it above

I just gave you the ruling. It says public officials, not just the president or vice president.

I'd love to know why you think AOC isn't a public official my son.

Originally posted by Robtard
@surt That's not the PRA, probably that.

But as I said last month, I'm cool with all politicians losing their private Twitter/sm if they use it for official business.

edit: Adam covered it above

But it says public officials. Pres and Vice aren't the only public officials. Therefore, it's silly to say this only applies to Pence and Trump.

Originally posted by Surtur
But it says public officials. Pres and Vice aren't the only public officials. Therefore, it's silly to say this only applies to Pence and Trump.

The law does not apply to all public officials. It only applies to the president and vice president. So when the appeals court finds that a public official in this context, cannot cite the First Amendment as a defense against violating this specific law, they are referring to only those public officials to which the law applies. The judiciary is not the legislature. It cannot rewrite the law, so that it applies more broadly than originally written. This is basic reading comprehension stuff. Do you even read?

Easy to settle this, show me the court specifically saying which public officials this applies to. Problem solved

Originally posted by Surtur
Not what the court is saying kiddo.

I pointed this out to Poe before, already. The ruling had nothing to do with the PRA.

And, yes, AOC was getting into hot water over this already, too.



Like I said, it's stupid.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I pointed this out to Poe before, already. The ruling had nothing to do with the PRA.

And, yes, AOC was getting into hot water over this already, too.



Like I said, it's stupid.

Bingo but they'll all play dumb anyways.

Playing dumb to own da con's. Good shit, makes me giggle.