5 ms·

Someone blocked by president trump can still read his tweets because Twitter does not prevent you from having multiple accounts. On the notion of free speech, t

Someone blocked by president trump can still read his tweets because Twitter does not prevent you from having multiple accounts. On the notion of free speech, twitter does not block users from tweeting stances in their own feeds. To allow this should mean EFF should also require fox news to provide a 1 hour block at midnight that allows 1 minute video segments from angry people that want to shout at the president. It's not going to happen. The first amendment was about making it legal to shout from the rooftops, but not a requirement that all mediums re-shout it for you. If you want to start a newspaper in the US, no one is stopping you.

Jeff_Brown 9y ago
If someone blocks you on Twitter, can you still refer to their account using their handle, and their tweets using the URL? If not, then that is an infringement of speech. We should be able to refer to the president's remarks, for instance; otherwise we are hindered from processing that information.
- coding123 9y ago
  Even if Twitter had some capability to block WhitePower.com or BlackPower.com from showing Tweets, referring to a instance of a communication can always be done the old fashioned way: Example: This week the New York Times interviewed the president who said "I love people." No more issues - everyone is allowed to share, read, and post their own views on the mediums that will allow, and are capable of creating their own medium in the US.
Quenty 9y ago
The article discusses this and says that citizens should not have to find technical workarounds. The government can’t make it more difficult to receive communications in this way. Private citizens on rooftops is different than government communications.
icebraining 9y ago
To allow this should mean EFF should also require fox news No, this is a restriction on the government itself, not on Twitter. The point is that the government shouldn't be able to bypass restrictions on its powers by using private companies.
- nv-vn 9y ago
  The core argument is that a private space (Twitter) can be a protected free speech zone. By that argument, nobody (including Twitter) can restrict those rights on the platform.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    No, I don't think there's anything like a binary "protected free speech zone" property. It's always context-specific. They used the example of Television, where the government is restricted from blocking its official communications to certain people, yet that doesn't mean the channel itself can't choose what gets shown. This is specific to the First Amendment restrictions on government, which don't apply to Twitter, as a private company. (IANAL)
    - nv-vn 9y ago
      You are mixing the two arguments being made, i.e. the right to be heard and the right to hear. Your argument is in favor of the right to hear what Trump says, but the point where it becomes a "free speech zone" is when it is about whether you're allowed to speak. To try and make blocking people on Twitter illegal for a politician means that they cannot censor those people _on Twitter_. There is no analogue for this in a 1-way communication system like TV.
      - URSpider94 9y ago
        Exactly right, and the article very clearly lays out this difference. A TV channel is more like the library’s official announcement board discussed in TFA. There is no expectation of, or right to, speech for anyone but the speaker, and that’s fine. However, Twitter is a forum where everyone has a voice, and the President is using tools available on the platform to decide who gets to participate in the discussion by reading and responding to his tweets. It would be like saying, “fans of the library can post on the open message board in the lobby. Haters, you can use the message board down by the bathrooms.” Point is, the EFF’s argument is that either everyone gets a say, or not — you can’t curate speech in a public forum based upon content, if you are a public official. And, make no mistake, Trump is the one hitting that “Block” button.
URSpider94 9y ago
You misunderstand the article. There is no requirement to facilitate public comment - the President can give a speech and not take any questions, and even escort out anyone who disrupts his speech. What he can not do is participate in what is advertised to be a public forum, and then pick and choose which people and ideas he allows to be heard. If he wants to speak un-contested, he should start a blog, or give a weekly radio address.

Jeff_Brown 9y ago

If someone blocks you on Twitter, can you still refer to their account using their handle, and their tweets using the URL? If not, then that is an infringement of speech. We should be able to refer to the president's remarks, for instance; otherwise we are hindered from processing that information.

coding123 9y ago
Even if Twitter had some capability to block WhitePower.com or BlackPower.com from showing Tweets, referring to a instance of a communication can always be done the old fashioned way: Example: This week the New York Times interviewed the president who said "I love people." No more issues - everyone is allowed to share, read, and post their own views on the mediums that will allow, and are capable of creating their own medium in the US.

Quenty 9y ago

The article discusses this and says that citizens should not have to find technical workarounds. The government can’t make it more difficult to receive communications in this way. Private citizens on rooftops is different than government communications.

icebraining 9y ago

To allow this should mean EFF should also require fox news No, this is a restriction on the government itself, not on Twitter. The point is that the government shouldn't be able to bypass restrictions on its powers by using private companies.

nv-vn 9y ago
The core argument is that a private space (Twitter) can be a protected free speech zone. By that argument, nobody (including Twitter) can restrict those rights on the platform.
- icebraining 9y ago
  No, I don't think there's anything like a binary "protected free speech zone" property. It's always context-specific. They used the example of Television, where the government is restricted from blocking its official communications to certain people, yet that doesn't mean the channel itself can't choose what gets shown. This is specific to the First Amendment restrictions on government, which don't apply to Twitter, as a private company. (IANAL)
  - nv-vn 9y ago
    You are mixing the two arguments being made, i.e. the right to be heard and the right to hear. Your argument is in favor of the right to hear what Trump says, but the point where it becomes a "free speech zone" is when it is about whether you're allowed to speak. To try and make blocking people on Twitter illegal for a politician means that they cannot censor those people _on Twitter_. There is no analogue for this in a 1-way communication system like TV.
    - URSpider94 9y ago
      Exactly right, and the article very clearly lays out this difference. A TV channel is more like the library’s official announcement board discussed in TFA. There is no expectation of, or right to, speech for anyone but the speaker, and that’s fine. However, Twitter is a forum where everyone has a voice, and the President is using tools available on the platform to decide who gets to participate in the discussion by reading and responding to his tweets. It would be like saying, “fans of the library can post on the open message board in the lobby. Haters, you can use the message board down by the bathrooms.” Point is, the EFF’s argument is that either everyone gets a say, or not — you can’t curate speech in a public forum based upon content, if you are a public official. And, make no mistake, Trump is the one hitting that “Block” button.

URSpider94 9y ago

You misunderstand the article. There is no requirement to facilitate public comment - the President can give a speech and not take any questions, and even escort out anyone who disrupts his speech. What he can not do is participate in what is advertised to be a public forum, and then pick and choose which people and ideas he allows to be heard. If he wants to speak un-contested, he should start a blog, or give a weekly radio address.