113
posted ago by Mwga ago by Mwga +113 / -0

They forced Trump to unblock a single user on Twitter because of legal reasons. So the White House blocks 320 million Americans, and that's ok????

Comments (15)
sorted by:
8
KaitoBF8 8 points ago +8 / -0

Trump can't block people on twitter, but twitter can block Trump.

1
Jonny 1 point ago +1 / -0

The constitution only applies when the left wants it to

5
MrCuriousGuy513 5 points ago +5 / -0

The White House Channel on YouTube was disable for comments on Trump’s term too. What happen earlier under Biden, apparently they forgot to disable it on the first couple of videos. So it seems normal now with the others.

It’s actually funny going to inauguration video and looking at the 7k comments with 47k dislike to 10k.

It’s going to be a long term.

5
Racecarr214 5 points ago +5 / -0

They are also monkeying around with the likes.

2
Jonny 2 points ago +2 / -0

Oh I'm convinced on that. I watched his EO signing live earlier and it sat at the same amount of downvotes for 5 minutes even after it was stickied here saying to go downvote it. Then it slowly crept up by a 100 downvotes every 5 minutes or so

5
defiant_liberty 5 points ago +5 / -0

Why is Biden even in the whitehouse, is that legal?

2
consumptiveballerina 2 points ago +2 / -0

Zing!

3
marishiten 3 points ago +3 / -0

They're blocking them because of the fucking DELUGE of hate the comments get insulting anything and everything. The comments are actually really fucking mean. Haha. It's great. And the hate is like lightning on people that comment defending Biden.

It shouldn't be legal, no. Trump can't block on Twitter, they shouldn't be able to block on YouTube, but there are some Trump videos that had comments disabled, so it's 50/50

2
PonySoldier66 2 points ago +2 / -0

Comments are turned off for Cowards

1
grndmrshlgando 1 point ago +1 / -0

China just conquered the US through their government i dont think legalities matter

1
Brickapede2 1 point ago +2 / -1

Maybe. A blanket ban is different than targeting individual users, which could be construed as viewpoint-based censorship.

Not saying I agree with the foregoing, just that it is a legal distinction that could be material.

3
SpookySpook 3 points ago +3 / -0

The court argued that its a public forum, thus, Trump was not allowed to ban

2
Brickapede2 2 points ago +3 / -1

Sigh. A blanket ban on speech in a public forum may be allowable under certain circumstances, and is held to a lower level of judicial scrutiny than a viewpoint-based ban.

If you don’t grok 1A law, don’t worry about it. As I said, it’s a legal distinction.

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

I mean I understand, but it really leaves a bad impression on people that on the Joe Biden Channel and The White House channel no speech is allowed. I'm getting North Korea vibes.

1
Brickapede2 1 point ago +2 / -1

Yeah, it’s shitty. And perhaps a court would rule it is unconstitutional. But it is not the same fact pattern as the Twitter account case.