3 ms·
The point is whether or not the 1st amendment gives you a right to not be blocked, whether or not they are disruptive is irrelevant. I could have phrased the or
by Cyclone_ 7y ago
The point is whether or not the 1st amendment gives you a right to not be blocked, whether or not they are disruptive is irrelevant. I could have phrased the original scenario differently. If the president hosts a radio show and he takes calls from listeners, is he now forced to listen to every caller or can he legally hang up? It's a scenario where people can opt into as well. This seems like a largely populist ruling to me, I'm guessing it will be overturned.
- arcticbull 7y agoThe president isn't forced to read replies and neither is anyone else, though, that's my point. On a radio call-in show, they are forced to listen, and once again the caller is being disruptive. That the president chooses to read replies and becomes personally offended to the point of blocking people is, (a) shameful and (b) on him. Twitter is free to block anyone not following their code of conduct, and this ruling does not enjoin them from doing so. The case here is about whether the president can block someone from listening to them solely because they share different political viewpoints. It appears the answer is no. I think disruptiveness is in fact the crux. The president's communications are official government communications and "blocking haters" is not a function of the US government. In fact, they're so important, certain arms of the US government get their marching orders from Trump's Twitter feed, horrifying though that may be. Trump is not tweeting in a personal capacity, and if he were, I don't believe this ruling would apply.