4 ms·

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the pre

by nv-vn 9y ago

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I don't get how somebody can argue for this as a first amendment right. The first amendment guarantees that you can speak your mind, not that you can say anything you want anywhere you want (keyword: anywhere). The Supreme Court has ruled that time, place, and manner restrictions are constitutional. For example, the government can restrict you from standing at the door of an abortion clinic and protesting, but cannot prevent you from protesting abortions publicly. This case seems like a pretty clear-cut example: you are not being censored by saying that you cannot tweet directly to President Trump, as long as you still have the right to publicly state your views. The fact that the speech doesn't make it to the ears of the President has never been a concern with free speech. The goal is to allow people to assemble and share their views with those who wish to listen. If Trump wears noise-cancelling headphones while passing by a protest, is he infringing upon your right to free speech? The thing here is that the tweets still do get sent out, and it's not like you're shadow-banned. The President has opted-out of viewing your tweets, just like how wearing noise-cancelling headphones is opting out of hearing your speech. More importantly, it is still important to note that they have not stopped your ability to actually speak to the President. You can send a letter in the mail or protest in front of the White House if you so wish to. It also creates a sticky situation when you think of the consequences of Twitter banning a user. If Twitter is to be considered a protected "free speech zone," the company loses the right to ban users. Fundamentally, this situation is nothing like what the first amendment has ever been applied to. It's not even really a debate on freedom of speech, but rather a right to audience. Is it within your constitutionally-protected right to have an audience? Based on what the Bill of Rights represents, I would argue that any such restriction is against the spirit of the document. The point of the document is to protect the individual from the government, not coerce the government or individuals into action -- if this becomes a protected mode of free speech, Twitter is coerced into allowing all messages to be published to anyone.

URSpider94 9y ago
The key to the argument is that Twitter is a public forum, not just your own tweets but also re-tweets and replies. By declaring his Twitter account to be part of the public record, Trump has forfeited the right to exclude people from that forum (specifically, the reply feed to his tweets) by blocking them. Saying that you have other places to speak is a specious argument. If you are generally providing an open microphone for public speech, you can’t regulate that speech based on content, beyond policing for obscenity and threats (though even that would be at issue in this case, since the President himself has used these forms of speech).
- nv-vn 9y ago
  >The key to the argument is that Twitter is a public forum The issue with that logic is that Twitter is still a private entity, and declaring them to be the facilitators of a public forum coerces them into certain actions (censoring anything would be illegal). >By declaring his Twitter account to be part of the public record, Trump has forfeited the right to exclude people from that forum (specifically, the reply feed to his tweets) by blocking them. When did he declare that? As far as I know, the only people who have said that are staunchly anti-Trump. >Saying that you have other places to speak is a specious argument. I get what you are saying, but the Supreme Court has ruled that this is enough to be considered free speech in the past. >If you are generally providing an open microphone for public speech, you can’t regulate that speech based on content Who is "you"? This applies to the government, but a private organization need not follow these laws. And at what point has Twitter declared itself to be an open microphone to free speech? I guess you mean that this applies to Trump's Twitter account, but I don't think it has ever been meant to be an open microphone. That is like saying that if Trump were to publish his phone number online it would instantly imply that he's using it to receive public opinions on politics. His Twitter account has existed since long before he became President, so in my opinion it's disingenuous to say that it should be an "open microphone," because do we really expect him to stop using his Twitter/Facebook/whatever accounts just because he's a politician?
  - URSpider94 9y ago
    Commenting on my phone so it’s hard to do in-line: 1. Sean Spicer is among the government officials who said that Trump’s tweets represent official statements. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/06/06/politics/trump-tweets-official-statements/index.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/06/06/poli... 2. Nobody is trying to compel Twitter to do anything here. They are not a party to the suit. The onus is on Trump to act according to the relevant law by not blocking people; or by not posting on Twitter if he can’t abide by the rules imposed by the law. 3. Sorry for the ambiguous pronoun. Twitter creates the rules for their platform, Trump decides to participate there. By doing so, he is explicitly choosing to participate in a forum discussion, which carries certain consequences (as TFA mentions). If he did not want to let people speak in rebuttal, he could write a blog with comments turned off, or broadcast a weekly radio address. What he can’t do, as a government official, is participate in a public forum in an official capacity, and then silence or demote dissenting speech.

by nv-vn 9y ago

URSpider94 9y ago

The key to the argument is that Twitter is a public forum, not just your own tweets but also re-tweets and replies. By declaring his Twitter account to be part of the public record, Trump has forfeited the right to exclude people from that forum (specifically, the reply feed to his tweets) by blocking them. Saying that you have other places to speak is a specious argument. If you are generally providing an open microphone for public speech, you can’t regulate that speech based on content, beyond policing for obscenity and threats (though even that would be at issue in this case, since the President himself has used these forms of speech).

nv-vn 9y ago
>The key to the argument is that Twitter is a public forum The issue with that logic is that Twitter is still a private entity, and declaring them to be the facilitators of a public forum coerces them into certain actions (censoring anything would be illegal). >By declaring his Twitter account to be part of the public record, Trump has forfeited the right to exclude people from that forum (specifically, the reply feed to his tweets) by blocking them. When did he declare that? As far as I know, the only people who have said that are staunchly anti-Trump. >Saying that you have other places to speak is a specious argument. I get what you are saying, but the Supreme Court has ruled that this is enough to be considered free speech in the past. >If you are generally providing an open microphone for public speech, you can’t regulate that speech based on content Who is "you"? This applies to the government, but a private organization need not follow these laws. And at what point has Twitter declared itself to be an open microphone to free speech? I guess you mean that this applies to Trump's Twitter account, but I don't think it has ever been meant to be an open microphone. That is like saying that if Trump were to publish his phone number online it would instantly imply that he's using it to receive public opinions on politics. His Twitter account has existed since long before he became President, so in my opinion it's disingenuous to say that it should be an "open microphone," because do we really expect him to stop using his Twitter/Facebook/whatever accounts just because he's a politician?
- URSpider94 9y ago
  Commenting on my phone so it’s hard to do in-line: 1. Sean Spicer is among the government officials who said that Trump’s tweets represent official statements. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/06/06/politics/trump-tweets-official-statements/index.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/06/06/poli... 2. Nobody is trying to compel Twitter to do anything here. They are not a party to the suit. The onus is on Trump to act according to the relevant law by not blocking people; or by not posting on Twitter if he can’t abide by the rules imposed by the law. 3. Sorry for the ambiguous pronoun. Twitter creates the rules for their platform, Trump decides to participate there. By doing so, he is explicitly choosing to participate in a forum discussion, which carries certain consequences (as TFA mentions). If he did not want to let people speak in rebuttal, he could write a blog with comments turned off, or broadcast a weekly radio address. What he can’t do, as a government official, is participate in a public forum in an official capacity, and then silence or demote dissenting speech.