14 ms·

The amicus brief from the Internet Alliance makes that fear very clear: they demanded clarification that those decisions only apply to interactions with account

by bertil 8y ago

The amicus brief from the Internet Alliance makes that fear very clear: they demanded clarification that those decisions only apply to interactions with accounts that are clearly used as policy tool by the US Government. For me, the fact that this is the personal account and not @potus is the outlying factor. The court was explicit that, because policy was announced from that account, it made it a Government tool, subject to a lot of rules. To me, this is a smart move, warning the next President: make sure that all communications where you use the power of the office are from @potus, because otherwise, National Archive will get into your DMs. If encourages to define a line between the West and the East Wing (the personal residency) and extend it to social media.

rpiguy 8y ago
Yes but if the primary argument is based around the idea that everyone must have access to these “public channels” because their first amendment rights guarantee them a right to the information from the President and to be part of the conversation then a plausible argument can be made that Twitter, etc. cannot ban anyone from their site, or Facebook for that matter since Trump also uses it as a public forum. Even Nazis get their first amendment rights. Furthermore this opens the door for a President to turn any private space into a “public forum” by using it for official government business. The whole amicus just opens a Pandora’s box and would likely be struck down if the President cared enough to challenge it. It benefits Trump more to let this ruling stand as he attempts to muscle Twitter, Facebook, etc. into changing the hate speech rules they use to suspend conservative accounts.
- bertil 8y ago
  The argument in the First Amendment is that the Government cannot limit the right to access those public channels. If the paper mill union thinks that your opinions are abhorrent, they can refuse to sell you paper. Even if the Government demands that all communication be written. Otherwise, because you can reach the Government by phone, you logic would mean phone companies are not allow to cut you the service for not paying it.

by bertil 8y ago

rpiguy 8y ago

Yes but if the primary argument is based around the idea that everyone must have access to these “public channels” because their first amendment rights guarantee them a right to the information from the President and to be part of the conversation then a plausible argument can be made that Twitter, etc. cannot ban anyone from their site, or Facebook for that matter since Trump also uses it as a public forum. Even Nazis get their first amendment rights. Furthermore this opens the door for a President to turn any private space into a “public forum” by using it for official government business. The whole amicus just opens a Pandora’s box and would likely be struck down if the President cared enough to challenge it. It benefits Trump more to let this ruling stand as he attempts to muscle Twitter, Facebook, etc. into changing the hate speech rules they use to suspend conservative accounts.

bertil 8y ago
The argument in the First Amendment is that the Government cannot limit the right to access those public channels. If the paper mill union thinks that your opinions are abhorrent, they can refuse to sell you paper. Even if the Government demands that all communication be written. Otherwise, because you can reach the Government by phone, you logic would mean phone companies are not allow to cut you the service for not paying it.