3 ms·

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

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.

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.