5 ms·
Isn't it clear that Trump has violated the TOS several times by now, but who's going to ban the president? They added the 'Public interests exception' rule for
by dpbriggs 6y ago
Isn't it clear that Trump has violated the TOS several times by now, but who's going to ban the president?
They added the 'Public interests exception' rule for a reason.
- lanevorockz 6y agoEverything is a TOS violation. The main idea is that with subjective standards you are able to manipulate the actions as you like.
- smitty1e 6y agoMy gripe is less that subjective standards apply, and more about the pious claims to contrary. 'Fairness' is just another F-word. OTOH, if Trump is actually bothered by Jack, then Trump has only a bazillion options open for sidestepping the media and going straight to his audience. Therefore, the back-and-forth should be seen as so much theater, to be enjoyed or rejected at audience will.
- smitty1e 6y agoGenuinely curious regarding the issue taken with the above reply.
- anewdirection 6y agoYour response ignored the comment you responded to, and went on a political diversion.
- smitty1e 6y agoWe understand the need for strict scrutiny in 1A restrictions. No trolling by yelling "Fire!" in a crowded non-combusting, crowded theater. So the question of whether the 'Public interests exception' should apply for a website where any reasonable user knows the content is dodgy on its best day.
- ta17711771 6y agoStop SAYING this! Goodness HN has stopped caring about facts. This ruling was not upheld. Please stop using this example, HN.
- smitty1e 6y agoWhat specific case, then? I come here to learn. Please educate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny
- ben509 6y agoSchenk v US was partially overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio. We've come around, though, as Holmes' line of reasoning is very common today. Some details in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
- bhupy 6y agoTo add some more commentary: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim... Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is protected by the 1A as long as it passes the Brandenburg Test of "imminent lawless action".
- bhupy 6y agoIt's not accurate, it was an argument used in a SCOTUS case that has since been unanimously overturned. https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim... Brandenburg v Ohio established the current standard for free speech, and it's extremely permissive.
- vonmoltke 6y ago> We understand the need for strict scrutiny in 1A restrictions. No trolling by yelling "Fire!" in a crowded non-combusting, crowded theater. This is a recurring favorite bad legal take for @BadLegalTakes: https://twitter.com/BadLegalTakes https://twitter.com/BadLegalTakes
- burger_moon 6y agoWhen Trump eventually loses his position as POTUS (as everyone does), will Twitter ban his account for previous TOS violations, or violations after POTUS? I wonder how this will play out once he one longer holds the 'in the publics interest' badge.
- hef19898 6y agoThis one part of the overall very, very interesting question how the US is handling things once Trump leaves office ultimately. It will also define a lot of things for democracy in general, world wide.