177
Comments (16)
sorted by:
11
halcyondream 11 points ago +11 / -0

1st amendment only protects your freedom of speech from government censorship.

However what I don't understand is how a federal judge can rule that Trump can't block anybody because twitter is a public forum and people have a right to access a public official, but twitter can ban him thereby depriving people of that access on the public forum that is twitter.

5
halcyondream 5 points ago +5 / -0

Also I don't think the founding fathers had it in mind that rich oligarchs could effectively control the public discourse and ban ideas they didn't like from being discussed by the citizenry, or that citizens should lose their livelihood for stating an opinion in private, totally goes against the spirit of freedom of speech.

2
GeneralFlynn 2 points ago +2 / -0

That feels, in fact, like quite literally the exact opposite of their intentions

2
duckduck 2 points ago +2 / -0

This is what I was going to say. If Trump can't block people on Twitter because he's a public official, then that means a public official can't be blocked by Twitter. But then again, logic and consistency are not exactly hallmarks of the left.

2
wow_a_conservative 2 points ago +2 / -0

This is an important point.

Theoretically a lawsuit by you or I citing this as a precedent should have a good chance of winning in a logical and legal world. Too bad we live in Clown World instead...

2
Gipgm2 2 points ago +2 / -0

That's Good---

2
TrumpFeverForever [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

The problem is, Twitter behaves as an arm of the government. So much government crap is on there. We kind of have it backwards. The government should have a Twitter-like service, and then wannabees can compete. Why doesn't the government just say, "Hey thanks for this invention, we'll need to seize it and run it ourselves now. This is exactly the kind of public utility we need." ??

You'd think Trump could have Jack arrested for interfering with government communication. It is absolutely ridiculous that shit-hipster thinks he's better than the president of the free world. Fuck that motherfucker.

6
The-nii 6 points ago +6 / -0

Private company with 230 protection. These companies should be regulated as utilities. Con Ed can’t deny you power because you hang an offensive flag up. Should be the same for all of these companies.

2
mcccxxxiv 2 points ago +2 / -0

This is the way.

2
The-nii 2 points ago +2 / -0

It sucks. I hate the state of our legal system, but it’s the third branch and some there listen to reason.

1
duckduck 1 point ago +1 / -0

Sad to say, but that won't be the case for long. They already block certain people from having bank accounts based on political affiliation, I have no doubt that power companies could start discriminating who they give their service to as well. I'd say we need laws protecting against this kind of thing, but the left doesn't care about laws, and neither does the Supreme Court.

3
PolishBaldEagle 3 points ago +3 / -0

It’s not... and who’s gonna stop them? Which is why EVERYONE needs to stand up and fight! If we show them that silencing GEOTUS is easy, you think they won’t do it again?

2
duckduck 2 points ago +2 / -0

It is past time for civil war. I guess we are waiting because of the conspiracy theories that something will happen before the 20th? I really don't know why people are allowing this to happen, it is nightmarish. And no, we are not powerless to stop it, we have an army of 75+ million.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
Alpha_Lemming 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well, he's about to be in deep shit, depending on how much of his company is held by PLA shell companies:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-addressing-threat-securities-investments-finance-communist-chinese-military-companies/

1
arterius2 1 point ago +1 / -0

By being a democrat