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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
That feels, in fact, like quite literally the exact opposite of their intentions
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.
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...
That's Good---
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.