3 ms·

I don't use twitter can anyone explain this? When the article says he blocked users, that just means he blocked them from writing on his page? Those people are

I don't use twitter can anyone explain this? When the article says he blocked users, that just means he blocked them from writing on his page? Those people are still free to create their own tweets on their page, correct? I don't see how that violates free speech. Using the article's "town hall" metaphor, if he asked to have someone removed from the town hall meeting aren't they still free to protest outside on the street corner? If someone is disturbing a town hall meeting (which is entirely subjective), they can be removed, which doesn't violate their free speech. If he goes around & starts forcing Twitter to ban anyone who tweets negative comments on their own page that is violating free speech. I don't think the 2nd amendment guarantees my right to tag the president in social media posts, unless I'm not understanding.

mikestew 9y ago
I’ve just skimmed the news on this, but from what I gather they’re asking for a reversal of that xkcd cartoon (the link for which someone will supply shortly): you can say whatever you want, but “free speech” does not guarantee you an audience. The plaintiff, AFAICT, is saying they have a Constitutional right to an audience (audience in this case being D. Trump). Or maybe the audience is supposed to be Trump’s Twitter followers, and they’re asking that their tweets show up on Trump’s feed so that they get that audience. Either seems to be quite a stretch to my IANAL mind.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> I don't use twitter can anyone explain this? The short version is that there are a line of existing federal First Amendment cases which are united by the principle that social media forums used by government officials in their official capacity are, in that context, “limited public forums”, and that restrictions (particularly content- or viewpoint-based ones) on participation instituted by government officials (including the one controlling the relevant social media account) in that context are generally in contravention of the First Amendment. I've linked sources which address both the original letter (which make its own legal argument with citations to relevant precedent) and a separate analysis addressing the same general issue (again, with references to relevant legal precedent) in another comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14509298 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14509298

mikestew 9y ago

I’ve just skimmed the news on this, but from what I gather they’re asking for a reversal of that xkcd cartoon (the link for which someone will supply shortly): you can say whatever you want, but “free speech” does not guarantee you an audience. The plaintiff, AFAICT, is saying they have a Constitutional right to an audience (audience in this case being D. Trump). Or maybe the audience is supposed to be Trump’s Twitter followers, and they’re asking that their tweets show up on Trump’s feed so that they get that audience. Either seems to be quite a stretch to my IANAL mind.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> I don't use twitter can anyone explain this? The short version is that there are a line of existing federal First Amendment cases which are united by the principle that social media forums used by government officials in their official capacity are, in that context, “limited public forums”, and that restrictions (particularly content- or viewpoint-based ones) on participation instituted by government officials (including the one controlling the relevant social media account) in that context are generally in contravention of the First Amendment. I've linked sources which address both the original letter (which make its own legal argument with citations to relevant precedent) and a separate analysis addressing the same general issue (again, with references to relevant legal precedent) in another comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14509298 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14509298