Wanna be dictator Trump can't block Twitter followers, federal judge rules - GoFuckYourself.com

Bladewire · 05-23-2018, 10:59 AM

Another day and Trump is forced to follow the law and constitution. When will Trump learn he's not above the law?

"Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald said in her ruling that Trump is violating the U.S. Constitution by preventing certain Americans from viewing his tweets."

Trump can't block Twitter followers, federal judge rules

beerptrol · 05-23-2018, 11:06 AM

That corrupt snowflake

xClips Jim · 05-23-2018, 11:17 AM

LOL. You guys got played - AGAIN.

"The social media platform, Buchwald said, is a "designated public forum..."

Guess what it means?

You don't even know. It's so awesome.

dyna mo · 05-23-2018, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xClips Jim

LOL. You guys got played - AGAIN.

"The social media platform, Buchwald said, is a "designated public forum..."

Guess what it means?

You don't even know. It's so awesome.

I predict this will go all the way to the SC. Further, the argument will be that his account, not the platform, is a public forum, while the main defense argument will be the account is private due to his creating it prior to being POTUS.

beerptrol · 05-23-2018, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xClips Jim

LOL. You guys got played - AGAIN.

"The social media platform, Buchwald said, is a "designated public forum..."

Guess what it means?

You don't even know. It's so awesome.

neither does Chump!

xClips Jim · 05-23-2018, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

I predict this will go all the way to the SC. Further, the argument will be that his account, not the platform, is a public forum, while the main defense argument will be the account is private due to his creating it prior to being POTUS.

The issue will not be this account - the issue will be, is Twitter (and Facebook, et al) part of the public square? Or are they simply a private corp that can censor whatever they like on their platform?

#internetbillofrights

The Porn Nerd · 05-23-2018, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xClips Jim

The issue will not be this account - the issue will be, is Twitter (and Facebook, et al) part of the public square? Or are they simply a private corp that can censor whatever they like on their platform?

#internetbillofrights

Yes because this argument is working so well for file lockers like The Pirate Bay, right?

Assholes always want it both ways. They want privacy when it suits them and public liberties when it suits them. They want control but no regulations. They want freedom for themselves but not freedom for others.

Amazing country I live in. Just amazing. MAGA JO!*

*Make America Great Again - Just Once

dyna mo · 05-23-2018, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xClips Jim

The issue will not be this account - the issue will be, is Twitter (and Facebook, et al) part of the public square? Or are they simply a private corp that can censor whatever they like on their platform?

#internetbillofrights

Perhaps. I believe the stronger argument may be that the account, not the platform, is in the pubic domain. The platform is simply a conduit. but, I'm theorizing.

Acepimp · 05-23-2018, 11:44 AM

Twitter allows you to block people who are hysterical idiots sending harassing messages, like Bladewire for example.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xClips Jim

The issue will not be this account - the issue will be, is Twitter (and Facebook, et al) part of the public square? Or are they simply a private corp that can censor whatever they like on their platform?

#internetbillofrights

^^ Correct, this ruling will lead to the platforms ending their censorship of groups they don't like. Trump outsmarted the clueless libs yet again

xClips Jim · 05-23-2018, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd

Yes because this argument is working so well for file lockers like The Pirate Bay, right?

Ummm. Okay?

xClips Jim · 05-23-2018, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

Perhaps. I believe the stronger argument may be that the account, not the platform, is in the pubic domain. The platform is simply a conduit. but, I'm theorizing.

It's really not a matter of argument - more about bringing this issue into the open. A huge majority of speech currently takes place on a few platforms. What, if any, rights do people have to ensure their voices are not censored on these platforms based on the views of the people that own or run them?

People like Mrs. Bladewire laugh at what they think is a defeat for the President. They don't understand what is happening in the background and how he keeps using these things to bring attention to them. Hook, line and sinker - over and over again.

Bladewire · 05-23-2018, 11:53 AM

↑↑↑ Fake nic troll is melting down again

JohnnyClips aka xClips Jim aka Acepimp aka JohnnyNight etc. etc.

xClips Jim · 05-23-2018, 11:57 AM

End Mrs. Bladewire

dyna mo · 05-23-2018, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xClips Jim

It's really not a matter of argument - more about bringing this issue into the open. A huge majority of speech currently takes place on a few platforms. What, if any, rights do people have to ensure their voices are not censored on these platforms based on the views of the people that own or run them?

People like Mrs. Bladewire laugh at what they think is a defeat for the President. They don't understand what is happening in the background and how he keeps using these things to bring attention to them. Hook, line and sinker - over and over again.

I'm referring to the legal arguments of the case, not GFY arguments.

I don't know the answer to your question, I'm looking to the courts for clarification on that, I think this judge did bring the issue into the open, but a higher court needs to sort it out clearly.

BaldBastard · 05-23-2018, 12:06 PM

Seems like a stupid decision from the judge, if your not logged in to Twitter.. you can still read Trumps tweets and replies to them. I can imagine the POTUS account has to follow stricter protocols, but his personal account.. should be able to be used like any other personal account.

I always wondered why he uses Twitter, I would of thought it would of been a lot better to get people to his site, rather than promoting someone else's.

xClips Jim · 05-23-2018, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

I'm referring to the legal arguments of the case, not GFY arguments.

I don't know the answer to your question, I'm looking to the courts for clarification on that, I think this judge did bring the issue into the open, but a higher court needs to sort it out clearly.

I understand what you meant - you are just out of the loop on this particular issue, most likely. There is a reason this case exists and a reason it's happening now.

The actual answer will come down to US - the people. What kind of country are we going to have? Can the speech of that country be controlled by a few media companies?

That's why these issues are being brought up.

#internetbillofrights

TheSquealer · 05-23-2018, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acepimp

Twitter allows you to block people who are hysterical idiots sending harassing messages, like Bladewire for example.

^^ Correct, this ruling will lead to the platforms ending their censorship of groups they don't like. Trump outsmarted the clueless libs yet again

I think they have no concept of how much censorship there is on twitter, youtube, reddit facebook etc.... because its always left leaning people doing the censoring on these platforms to appease all the snowflakes losing their minds day in and day out anytime someone says something they don't want to hear.

dyna mo · 05-23-2018, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xClips Jim

I understand what you meant - you are just out of the loop on this particular issue, most likely. There is a reason this case exists and a reason it's happening now.

The actual answer will come down to US - the people. What kind of country are we going to have? Can the speech of that country be controlled by a few media companies?

That's why these issues are being brought up.

#internetbillofrights

I've been following the case since the beginning, I don't get my news here. I doubt any GFYers are actually "in the loop" of the proceedings.

xClips Jim · 05-23-2018, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

I've been following the case since the beginning, I don't get my news here. I doubt any GFYers are actually "in the loop" of the proceedings.

That's not what I meant. I actually have zero clue about the proceedings and likely you'd be MORE in the loop on them than I am. I only know what it means.

crockett · 05-23-2018, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

I predict this will go all the way to the SC. Further, the argument will be that his account, not the platform, is a public forum, while the main defense argument will be the account is private due to his creating it prior to being POTUS.

It doesn't matter when it was created. He now holds public office and uses his Twitter feed to announce his position on things related to the WH or official policy. He's made his Twitter feed a public information feed so it now falls under all laws another official platform would be accounted for.

xClips Jim · 05-23-2018, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

It doesn't matter when it was created. He now holds public office and uses his Twitter feed to announce his position on things related to the WH or official policy. He's made his Twitter feed a public information feed so it now falls under all laws another official platform would be accounted for.

I'm totally for this decision, for the record.

I also expect it to be applied to anyone in office that tweets public business.

Axeman · 05-23-2018, 12:29 PM

Anyone in office should not be able to block a citizen from sending them communications, so i am fine with it. Same as they can't block their calls or return their mail to sender.

I do have a problem with big companies like Twitter, Youtube and FB controlling and deciding what is good or bad and enabling censorship on a massive scale.

This will lead to either the SC or a true set of regulations for this new digital world, which is sorely needed.

brassmonkey · 05-23-2018, 12:34 PM

well he's a public figure. he's being paid for that

xClips Jim · 05-23-2018, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axeman

This will lead to either the SC or a true set of regulations for this new digital world, which is sorely needed.

And - this is what it means.

dyna mo · 05-23-2018, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

It doesn't matter when it was created. He now holds public office and uses his Twitter feed to announce his position on things related to the WH or official policy. He's made his Twitter feed a public information feed so it now falls under all laws another official platform would be accounted for.

you can bet this decision will be challenged and then higher courts will decide if it matters or not. I don't agree with the current ruling but it does open the door for it to move to higher courts, where it needs to be defined.

dyna mo · 05-23-2018, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xClips Jim

And - this is what it means.

This is what I've been posting.

xClips Jim · 05-23-2018, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

This is what I've been posting.

Well then I shall endeavor to read you more closely.

But really, I mean the last part I quote him on. It's not about this one case.

#internetbillofrights

2MuchMark · 05-23-2018, 12:43 PM

One Day, Trump will be out of the whitehouse.

And we will dance.

and dance.

xClips Jim · 05-23-2018, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2MuchMark

One Day, Trump will be out of the whitehouse.

And we will dance.

and dance.

That's because the world will be great again by then!

We will all dance together.

dyna mo · 05-23-2018, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xClips Jim

Well then I shall endeavor to read you more closely.

But really, I mean the last part I quote him on. It's not about this one case.

#internetbillofrights

I don't really get into the meat of matters, GFY and all. you know.

But I think the judge claiming twitter is a public forum by SC guidelines is murky at best and needs to be specifically defined and sorted out better by the SC.

dyna mo · 05-23-2018, 12:53 PM

below are the formal guidelines established by the SC that define a "public forum" and the guidelines this judge used in her decision:

Quote:

What is a public forum?
A public forum is a place that has, by tradition or practice, been held out for general use by the public for speech-related purposes.

To determine which of the standards of student expression applies in a given case, many courts first conduct a "public forum analysis." The public forum analysis determines whether individuals may have access to places for communicative purposes.1

There are three types of public forums:

I. A "traditional", or "open, public forum" is a place with a long tradition of freedom of expression, such as a public park or a street corner. The government can normally impose only content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions on speech in a public forum. Restrictions on speech in a public forum that are based on content will be struck down, unless the government can show the restriction is necessary to further a compelling governmental interest.

II. A "limited public forum" or "designated public forum" is a place with a more limited history of expressive activity, usually only for certain groups or topics. Examples of a limited public forum would include a university meeting hall or a city-owned theater. The government can limit access to certain types of speakers in a limited public forum, or limit the use of such facilities for certain subjects. Despite these more proscriptive guidelines, however, a governmental institution may still not restrict expression at a limited forum unless that restriction serves a "compelling interest."

III. A "closed public forum" is a place that, traditionally, has not been open to public expression, such as a jail or a military base. Governmental restrictions on access to a nonpublic forum will be upheld as long as they are reasonable and not based on a desire to suppress a particular viewpoint. This standard is far more deferential to government officials.

With regard to public schools, the Supreme Court elaborated on the public forum doctrine in cases involving the use of teacher mailboxes, Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators’ Association,2 and student newspapers, Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier.3

In Perry, the Court determined that in-school teacher mailboxes were not public forums, and that the school district could allow the official teacher union sole access to the mailboxes, even if it meant excluding a rival teacher union. "Implicit in the concept of the nonpublic forum is the right to make distinctions in access on the basis of subject matter and speaker identity," the Court wrote.4

The Court went on to say that the deferential access provided to the official teachers' union was a reasonable way to "prevent the District's schools from becoming a battlefield for inter-union squabbles."5

In Hazelwood, the Supreme Court determined that a high school newspaper produced as part of a journalism class was not a public forum. Citing Perry, the Court wrote: "Hence, school facilities may be deemed to be public forums only if school authorities have 'by policy or practice' opened those facilities for 'indiscriminate use by the general public,' or by some segment of the public, such as student organizations."6 The majority in Hazelwood also reasoned that because the production of the newspaper was "part of the educational curriculum and a regular classroom activity," it was a nonpublic forum.

Since the Hazelwood decision, many courts have continued to defer to the judgment of school officials. As a result, many forms of censorship that had previously been unacceptable under the Tinker standard of expression have been upheld.

magneto664 · 05-23-2018, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bladewire

"Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald said in her ruling that Trump is violating the U.S. Constitution by preventing certain Americans from viewing his tweets."

xClips Jim · 05-23-2018, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

But I think the judge claiming twitter is a public forum by SC guidelines is murky at best and needs to be specifically defined and sorted out better by the SC.

It isn't required - we could do the same thing without the SC, but if that's what it takes - let's get on it.

Big social media knows they've lost. You don't censor anyone when you're winning - you keep them around so you can make fun of them. Only losers try and silence - because they are afraid.

Bladewire · 05-23-2018, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2MuchMark

One Day, Trump will be out of the whitehouse.

And we will dance.

and dance.

Yeah he's a part time employee of the state. He'd be full time if he didn't golf so much and promote all of his businesses & properties

05-23-2018, 10:59 AM	#1
Bladewire StraightBro Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Monarch Beach, CA USA Posts: 56,232	Wanna be dictator Trump can't block Twitter followers, federal judge rules Another day and Trump is forced to follow the law and constitution. When will Trump learn he's not above the law? "Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald said in her ruling that Trump is violating the U.S. Constitution by preventing certain Americans from viewing his tweets." Trump can't block Twitter followers, federal judge rules

05-23-2018, 11:06 AM	#2
beerptrol Confirmed Asshole Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Half way between sobriety and fubar. Posts: 12,722	That corrupt snowflake __________________ “If we are to have another contest in the near future of our national existence, I predict that the dividing line will not be Mason and Dixon's but between patriotism and intelligence on the one side, and superstition, ambition and ignorance on the other.” -- Ulysses S. Grant

05-23-2018, 12:29 PM	#22
Axeman Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Swamp Posts: 5,201	Anyone in office should not be able to block a citizen from sending them communications, so i am fine with it. Same as they can't block their calls or return their mail to sender. I do have a problem with big companies like Twitter, Youtube and FB controlling and deciding what is good or bad and enabling censorship on a massive scale. This will lead to either the SC or a true set of regulations for this new digital world, which is sorely needed. __________________ XXXRewards - Karups - Boyfun - Jawked. Paying on time since 1997. Contact me at brent [at] xxxrewards.com

05-23-2018, 12:34 PM	#23
brassmonkey Pay It Forward Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Yo Mama House Posts: 76,955	well he's a public figure. he's being paid for that __________________ TRUMP 2025 KEKAW!!! - Support The Laken Riley Act!!! END DACA - SUPPORT AZ HCR 2060 52R - email: brassballz-at-techie.com

05-23-2018, 12:43 PM	#28
2MuchMark Videochat Solutions Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 48,554	One Day, Trump will be out of the whitehouse. And we will dance. and dance. __________________ VideoChat Solutions \| Custom Software \| IT Support https://www.2much.net \| https://www.lcntech.com

05-23-2018, 11:17 AM	#3
xClips Jim Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2017 Posts: 845	LOL. You guys got played - AGAIN. "The social media platform, Buchwald said, is a "designated public forum..." Guess what it means? You don't even know. It's so awesome.

05-23-2018, 11:53 AM	#12
Bladewire StraightBro Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Monarch Beach, CA USA Posts: 56,232	↑↑↑ Fake nic troll is melting down again JohnnyClips aka xClips Jim aka Acepimp aka JohnnyNight etc. etc.

05-23-2018, 11:57 AM	#13
xClips Jim Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2017 Posts: 845	End Mrs. Bladewire

05-23-2018, 12:06 PM	#15
BaldBastard Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Sydney Posts: 15,892	Seems like a stupid decision from the judge, if your not logged in to Twitter.. you can still read Trumps tweets and replies to them. I can imagine the POTUS account has to follow stricter protocols, but his personal account.. should be able to be used like any other personal account. I always wondered why he uses Twitter, I would of thought it would of been a lot better to get people to his site, rather than promoting someone else's.