4 ms·

> No it didn't. It ruled that trumps account was acting as an official government account, and so trumps account fell under stricter regulations that govern how

> No it didn't. It ruled that trumps account was acting as an official government account, and so trumps account fell under stricter regulations that govern how the government can communicate. Twitter was still able to ban his account though, because Twitter isn't the government! Again, I suspect you missed a bit: "U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald in Manhattan ruled on May 23 that comments on the president’s account, and those of other government officials, were public forums and that blocking Twitter Inc users for their views violated their right to free speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution." Ref: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-twitter-idUSKCN1LE08Q https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-twitter-idUSKCN... When governments use social media as a way to communicate, it changes their standing as at least one court has ruled so far.

joshuamorton 5y ago
The key part being "under the presidents account." The president using twitter does not change twitter. The president is held to standards of the government, which is not allowed to block people. But the rules that affect the government don't affect twitter, they only apply to government officials using twitter. Twitter is still allowed to block people who reply to the president, or, as they did, ban the president.
- caseysoftware 5y ago
  The Internet Association - quoted in the article - is concerned about the implications of that case but glad to hear you are not. Was there a more recent case+ruling that is more relevant and clarifying? Can you share a reference on that? Thanks.
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    > The Internet Association - quoted in the article - is concerned about the implications of that case but glad to hear you are not. Yes, hence they provided a brief asking the court to rule a certain way, and the court did, by keeping the ruling particular to Trump's government account. There isn't any newer or better ruling, you're just misunderstanding this one.
    - caseysoftware 5y ago
      > by keeping the ruling particular to Trump's government account. From the article I cited: "The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University on August 10 sent the Justice Department a list of 41 accounts that had remained blocked from Trump’s @RealDonaldTrump account. The seven users who filed suit had their accounts unblocked in June." aka Not his government (@POTUS at the time) account. Once again, misinformation from you. :(
      - joshuamorton 5y ago
        The thing you're still missing is that the ruling was that the @RealDonaldTrump account was being used in an official government capacity, and therefore would fall under said government specific regulations. If you look at the actual ruling[0], you'll see that on page 9-11 of the ruling, they outline ways in which the @RealDonaldTrump account was used in an official capacity, and on pages 42 and 43, they outline how this is governmental control of the account (but not of twitter as a whole). Quoting the ruling: > First, to potentially qualify as a forum, the space in question must be owned or controlled by the government...Here, the government-control prong of the analysis is met. Though Twitter is a...company that is not government-owned, the President and Scavino nonetheless exercise control over various aspects of the @realDonaldTrump account...The President and Scavino’s control over the @realDonaldTrump account is also governmental...the President presents the @realDonaldTrump account as being a presidential account as opposed to a personal account and, more importantly, uses the account to take actions that can be taken only by the President as President So please, stop crying "misinformation" when you're just wrong about the legalities of the situation. You may disagree with the ruling, but my description of it is factual. [0]: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000163-8e16-dd91-abe7-8f3f5f050001 https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000163-8e16-dd91-abe7-8f3f5...

joshuamorton 5y ago

The key part being "under the presidents account." The president using twitter does not change twitter. The president is held to standards of the government, which is not allowed to block people. But the rules that affect the government don't affect twitter, they only apply to government officials using twitter. Twitter is still allowed to block people who reply to the president, or, as they did, ban the president.

caseysoftware 5y ago
The Internet Association - quoted in the article - is concerned about the implications of that case but glad to hear you are not. Was there a more recent case+ruling that is more relevant and clarifying? Can you share a reference on that? Thanks.
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  > The Internet Association - quoted in the article - is concerned about the implications of that case but glad to hear you are not. Yes, hence they provided a brief asking the court to rule a certain way, and the court did, by keeping the ruling particular to Trump's government account. There isn't any newer or better ruling, you're just misunderstanding this one.
  - caseysoftware 5y ago
    > by keeping the ruling particular to Trump's government account. From the article I cited: "The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University on August 10 sent the Justice Department a list of 41 accounts that had remained blocked from Trump’s @RealDonaldTrump account. The seven users who filed suit had their accounts unblocked in June." aka Not his government (@POTUS at the time) account. Once again, misinformation from you. :(
    - joshuamorton 5y ago
      The thing you're still missing is that the ruling was that the @RealDonaldTrump account was being used in an official government capacity, and therefore would fall under said government specific regulations. If you look at the actual ruling[0], you'll see that on page 9-11 of the ruling, they outline ways in which the @RealDonaldTrump account was used in an official capacity, and on pages 42 and 43, they outline how this is governmental control of the account (but not of twitter as a whole). Quoting the ruling: > First, to potentially qualify as a forum, the space in question must be owned or controlled by the government...Here, the government-control prong of the analysis is met. Though Twitter is a...company that is not government-owned, the President and Scavino nonetheless exercise control over various aspects of the @realDonaldTrump account...The President and Scavino’s control over the @realDonaldTrump account is also governmental...the President presents the @realDonaldTrump account as being a presidential account as opposed to a personal account and, more importantly, uses the account to take actions that can be taken only by the President as President So please, stop crying "misinformation" when you're just wrong about the legalities of the situation. You may disagree with the ruling, but my description of it is factual. [0]: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000163-8e16-dd91-abe7-8f3f5f050001 https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000163-8e16-dd91-abe7-8f3f5...