8 ms·

> then surely Twitter themselves blocking individuals is also a violation That's quite the leap. Twitter is not a representative of the federal government.

by meritt 7y ago

clinta 7y ago
The court has ruled that individuals have a First Amendment right to use Twitter to interact with representatives of the federal government. But you can't use Twitter to interact with those representatives if Twitter has banned you.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > The court has ruled that individuals have a First Amendment right to use Twitter to interact with representatives of the federal government. No, it hasn't, except insofar as such a right is protected against a specific form of government action. It has ruled, more accurately, that individuals have the right to not have the government officials exclude them from full participation in particular corners of Twitter used for official government purposes.
  - SkyBelow 7y ago
    The government official, by choosing to use twitter, has chosen a platform that has people excluded. Perhaps the technical flaw is on the politician for choosing a platform that has already excluded people, but the end result is that from the private public partnership people are being excluded.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > but the end result is that from the private public partnership people are being excluded. Sure, but that end result isn't what the courts have found is prohibited, they have found that government officials excluding people on certain bases is prohibited.
- Goronmon 7y ago
  It's not that individuals have a First Amendment right to use Twitter to interact with representatives of the federal government, it's that representatives of the federal government can't control who interacts with them on Twitter in an official capacity.
  - clinta 7y ago
    So if Twitter's moderators were supporters of the President and they voluntarily blocked all of his critics, that would be legal?
    - qntty 7y ago
      Well a court hasn't yet declared it illegal
      - clinta 7y ago
        I wasn't clear, I know it's legal today. I'm speculating about what future courts might rule based on the ruling today.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
SkyBelow 7y ago
If they block someone for anyone else, you are correct. But when they block someone from the ability to interact with Trump's account (or any similar politician's), it is a position they are in only because they are doing business with the federal government. It seems natural that to the extent they do business with the federal government, they have to respect the same rules. So if they ban someone and that person is unable to respond anyone else's twitter, that is fine. But the moment they ban someone from responding to the President's twitter, they have violated that person's right in the same way the President did. I think the simplest way to think about this is to consider a simpler example. Say that a government entity is holding a town hall for public comment on some issue, but expecting a large crowd, they have to use a private venue to host it as all government venues are too small. They pick Richy Rich's Stereotypical Rich Person Club. On the day of the town hall, the club decides as a private club they want to ban some people from being on their property, thus denying them access to the town hall. What if they choose to block everyone on the opposing side of the issue? What if they block anyone who doesn't show up in a custom made suit? What if they decide to block all non-members for that day? What if they decide to block any minority? Despite it being a private company, by doing business with the government in allowing them to use the venue to host the town hall, enforcing the rules that normally a private club is legally allowed to enforce can still violate's a person's Constitutional rights.
- adventured 7y ago
  If logically followed, it very obviously means they can never remove any person from their platform for responding to a public official, at the very least. It entirely supersedes any restrictions that Twitter puts into their terms of service on behavior. The sole exception would be overt threats of violence, which are generally not protected as free speech in the US.
  - SkyBelow 7y ago
    >If logically followed, it very obviously means they can never remove any person from their platform for responding to a public official, at the very least. It entirely supersedes any restrictions that Twitter puts into their terms of service on behavior. Yes, that is the cost to Twitter in hosting an official government account. If they do not like this, they can choose to not host an official government account. Same way as if a venue decides to host an official government function they forfeit their normal ability to ban people for as long as that venue is serving as an official government location. To give an extreme example, even a school cannot ban a registered sex offender from being on the premise as long as the school is serving as a voting place (assuming the individual still has their right to vote, which may possibly have been removed but isn't guaranteed).
tastygreenapple 7y ago
No, but this ruling applies to Trump's personal account ('@realdonaldtrump') not the official Federal account (@Potus). You can read an analysis about why this conflicts with twitter's TOS here: https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/appeals-court-rules-trump-cant-block-annoying-twitter-users/ https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/appeals-court-rules-trump-ca...
- icebraining 7y ago
  Despite his well-scrubbed appearance, Stephen Green ain't no lawyer, because one wouldn't write "if the First Amendment applies to Twitter" right after reading in the Court's decision an explicit disclaimer disavowing that conclusion. If and when a court decides upon that issue, it may conflict with Twitter's TOS; this one certainly doesn't.
belorn 7y ago
A bit of interesting legal text in regard to public forums owned by private companies: https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-01/17-speech-plus.html https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-01/17-speec... Based on this case I could see someone being deplatformed suing twitter on the grounds that twitter is a Quasi-Public Place because it is functionally akin to public property.

> then surely Twitter themselves blocking individuals is also a violation That's quite the leap. Twitter is not a representative of the federal government.

by meritt 7y ago

> then surely Twitter themselves blocking individuals is also a violation That's quite the leap. Twitter is not a representative of the federal government.

clinta 7y ago

The court has ruled that individuals have a First Amendment right to use Twitter to interact with representatives of the federal government. But you can't use Twitter to interact with those representatives if Twitter has banned you.

dragonwriter 7y ago
> The court has ruled that individuals have a First Amendment right to use Twitter to interact with representatives of the federal government. No, it hasn't, except insofar as such a right is protected against a specific form of government action. It has ruled, more accurately, that individuals have the right to not have the government officials exclude them from full participation in particular corners of Twitter used for official government purposes.
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  The government official, by choosing to use twitter, has chosen a platform that has people excluded. Perhaps the technical flaw is on the politician for choosing a platform that has already excluded people, but the end result is that from the private public partnership people are being excluded.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > but the end result is that from the private public partnership people are being excluded. Sure, but that end result isn't what the courts have found is prohibited, they have found that government officials excluding people on certain bases is prohibited.
Goronmon 7y ago
It's not that individuals have a First Amendment right to use Twitter to interact with representatives of the federal government, it's that representatives of the federal government can't control who interacts with them on Twitter in an official capacity.
- clinta 7y ago
  So if Twitter's moderators were supporters of the President and they voluntarily blocked all of his critics, that would be legal?
  - qntty 7y ago
    Well a court hasn't yet declared it illegal
    - clinta 7y ago
      I wasn't clear, I know it's legal today. I'm speculating about what future courts might rule based on the ruling today.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

SkyBelow 7y ago

If they block someone for anyone else, you are correct. But when they block someone from the ability to interact with Trump's account (or any similar politician's), it is a position they are in only because they are doing business with the federal government. It seems natural that to the extent they do business with the federal government, they have to respect the same rules. So if they ban someone and that person is unable to respond anyone else's twitter, that is fine. But the moment they ban someone from responding to the President's twitter, they have violated that person's right in the same way the President did. I think the simplest way to think about this is to consider a simpler example. Say that a government entity is holding a town hall for public comment on some issue, but expecting a large crowd, they have to use a private venue to host it as all government venues are too small. They pick Richy Rich's Stereotypical Rich Person Club. On the day of the town hall, the club decides as a private club they want to ban some people from being on their property, thus denying them access to the town hall. What if they choose to block everyone on the opposing side of the issue? What if they block anyone who doesn't show up in a custom made suit? What if they decide to block all non-members for that day? What if they decide to block any minority? Despite it being a private company, by doing business with the government in allowing them to use the venue to host the town hall, enforcing the rules that normally a private club is legally allowed to enforce can still violate's a person's Constitutional rights.

adventured 7y ago
If logically followed, it very obviously means they can never remove any person from their platform for responding to a public official, at the very least. It entirely supersedes any restrictions that Twitter puts into their terms of service on behavior. The sole exception would be overt threats of violence, which are generally not protected as free speech in the US.
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  >If logically followed, it very obviously means they can never remove any person from their platform for responding to a public official, at the very least. It entirely supersedes any restrictions that Twitter puts into their terms of service on behavior. Yes, that is the cost to Twitter in hosting an official government account. If they do not like this, they can choose to not host an official government account. Same way as if a venue decides to host an official government function they forfeit their normal ability to ban people for as long as that venue is serving as an official government location. To give an extreme example, even a school cannot ban a registered sex offender from being on the premise as long as the school is serving as a voting place (assuming the individual still has their right to vote, which may possibly have been removed but isn't guaranteed).

tastygreenapple 7y ago

No, but this ruling applies to Trump's personal account ('@realdonaldtrump') not the official Federal account (@Potus). You can read an analysis about why this conflicts with twitter's TOS here: https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/appeals-court-rules-trump-cant-block-annoying-twitter-users/ https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/appeals-court-rules-trump-ca...

icebraining 7y ago
Despite his well-scrubbed appearance, Stephen Green ain't no lawyer, because one wouldn't write "if the First Amendment applies to Twitter" right after reading in the Court's decision an explicit disclaimer disavowing that conclusion. If and when a court decides upon that issue, it may conflict with Twitter's TOS; this one certainly doesn't.

belorn 7y ago

A bit of interesting legal text in regard to public forums owned by private companies: https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-01/17-speech-plus.html https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-01/17-speec... Based on this case I could see someone being deplatformed suing twitter on the grounds that twitter is a Quasi-Public Place because it is functionally akin to public property.