45 ms·

The US government (of which the President heads one branch) is bound by freedom of speech, not private individuals or corporations. Or to let XKCD say it: https

The US government (of which the President heads one branch) is bound by freedom of speech, not private individuals or corporations. Or to let XKCD say it: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/

clinta 7y ago
So is it the fact that a member of government clicked the block button the violation? If it was a President whom the moderators at Twitter supported and they willingly blocked all of this President's critics on his behalf, would that make it legal?
- sd8f9iu 7y ago
  > So is it the fact that a member of government clicked the block button the violation? From the decision: "The First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise-open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees...." I believe the problem is that Trump uses the account for official purposes. I assume that any account that carries out official government business falls under this decision. > If it was a President whom the moderators at Twitter supported and they willingly blocked all of this President's critics on his behalf, would that make it legal? If it were on his behalf, I assume the court would consider this equivalent to the President himself blocking them. If Twitter themselves blocked people independently and without colluding with the President, I have no idea. I assume private businesses can continue to block/ban whomever they see fit, but if a public official were to only use platforms that automatically blocked dissenting views, I don't know what the court would say. It's an interesting question.
SkyBelow 7y ago
>not private individuals or corporations When they are working with the government, it is not so clear cut. Twitter hosting Trump's tweets is a business relationship between the government and a private business. Otherwise you have created a loophole the size of Alaska that allows government to violate constitutional rights by outsourcing the actual violation.
- sd8f9iu 7y ago
  Sure, that's an interesting question, whether or not Twitter can block people commenting on Trump's tweets. If Twitter colluded with him, then I assume it would be considered the same as Trump himself blocking them. But if the White House released press releases exclusively on some right-leaning platform that independently blocked any dissenting views, I wonder what the court would say.

clinta 7y ago

So is it the fact that a member of government clicked the block button the violation? If it was a President whom the moderators at Twitter supported and they willingly blocked all of this President's critics on his behalf, would that make it legal?

sd8f9iu 7y ago
> So is it the fact that a member of government clicked the block button the violation? From the decision: "The First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise-open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees...." I believe the problem is that Trump uses the account for official purposes. I assume that any account that carries out official government business falls under this decision. > If it was a President whom the moderators at Twitter supported and they willingly blocked all of this President's critics on his behalf, would that make it legal? If it were on his behalf, I assume the court would consider this equivalent to the President himself blocking them. If Twitter themselves blocked people independently and without colluding with the President, I have no idea. I assume private businesses can continue to block/ban whomever they see fit, but if a public official were to only use platforms that automatically blocked dissenting views, I don't know what the court would say. It's an interesting question.

SkyBelow 7y ago

>not private individuals or corporations When they are working with the government, it is not so clear cut. Twitter hosting Trump's tweets is a business relationship between the government and a private business. Otherwise you have created a loophole the size of Alaska that allows government to violate constitutional rights by outsourcing the actual violation.

sd8f9iu 7y ago
Sure, that's an interesting question, whether or not Twitter can block people commenting on Trump's tweets. If Twitter colluded with him, then I assume it would be considered the same as Trump himself blocking them. But if the White House released press releases exclusively on some right-leaning platform that independently blocked any dissenting views, I wonder what the court would say.