3 ms·

> Politicians demand censorship all the time, as is their right. Sorry, but that just won't fly. > A federal appeals court in Manhattan says President Trump c

> Politicians demand censorship all the time, as is their right. Sorry, but that just won't fly. > A federal appeals court in Manhattan says President Trump cannot block critics from his Twitter account, calling it "unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination." In a 29-page ruling on Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld a lower court's decision that found that Trump violated the First Amendment when he blocked certain Twitter users https://www.npr.org/2019/07/09/739906562/u-s-appeals-court-rules-trump-violated-first-amendment-by-blocking-twitter-follo https://www.npr.org/2019/07/09/739906562/u-s-appeals-court-r... Trump may have wanted to silence criticism, but he didn't get away with it, even on his own personal account.

ceejayoz 3y ago
Blocking isn't censorship; it does not prevent you from speaking. Blocking wasn't permissible because it restricted access by citizens to official announcements; it's like banning someone from coming to a town hall meeting or visiting Congress's website.
- GeekyBear 3y ago
  > Blocking isn't censorship Trump was blocking those who replied to his comments with takes that were critical of himself or of his policies. He was silencing critics. It wasn't allowed.
  - joshuamorton 3y ago
    That's not what the ruling said. Trumps actions weren't impermissible censorship, they were impermissible for other reasons. You can't just assume a court ruling was done for the reason you believe.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > Trumps actions weren't impermissible censorship, they were impermissible for other reasons. They were impermissible as viewpoint-based censorship of a designated public forum in violation of the First Amendment, you are wrong that it was “for other reasons”.
mrguyorama 3y ago
>Trump may have wanted to silence criticism, but he didn't get away with it, even on his own personal account. This is a misrepresentation of the facts. Trump was only using his "personal" twitter during his presidency so the court considered it his de-facto presidential account.

ceejayoz 3y ago

Blocking isn't censorship; it does not prevent you from speaking. Blocking wasn't permissible because it restricted access by citizens to official announcements; it's like banning someone from coming to a town hall meeting or visiting Congress's website.

GeekyBear 3y ago
> Blocking isn't censorship Trump was blocking those who replied to his comments with takes that were critical of himself or of his policies. He was silencing critics. It wasn't allowed.
- joshuamorton 3y ago
  That's not what the ruling said. Trumps actions weren't impermissible censorship, they were impermissible for other reasons. You can't just assume a court ruling was done for the reason you believe.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > Trumps actions weren't impermissible censorship, they were impermissible for other reasons. They were impermissible as viewpoint-based censorship of a designated public forum in violation of the First Amendment, you are wrong that it was “for other reasons”.

mrguyorama 3y ago

>Trump may have wanted to silence criticism, but he didn't get away with it, even on his own personal account. This is a misrepresentation of the facts. Trump was only using his "personal" twitter during his presidency so the court considered it his de-facto presidential account.