Things that made you Facepalm today (Political Version)

[Methais]

Federal Court Rules President Trump Can't Block Critics On Twitter

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan ruled that President Donald Trump is not allowed to block people who criticize him on Twitter. The three-judge panel upheld a decision by a lower court, which found that the president violates the First Amendment when he blocks his critics on Twitter.

The case was brought by Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University on behalf of seven individuals who were blocked by Trump after they sent tweets criticizing his policies. Once the users were blocked, they were unable to view the president's Twitter feed or respond to his tweets.

The court found that public officials who use social media for "all manner of official purposes" are not allowed to block people because it would prevent them from engaging in open dialogue with those officials.

"In resolving this appeal, we remind the litigants and the public that if the First Amendment means anything, it means that the best response to disfavored speech on matters of public concern is more speech, not less," Circuit Judge Barrington D. Parker wrote.

___________________________

How does this even add up?

[Gelston]

Federal Court Rules President Trump Can't Block Critics On Twitter

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan ruled that President Donald Trump is not allowed to block people who criticize him on Twitter. The three-judge panel upheld a decision by a lower court, which found that the president violates the First Amendment when he blocks his critics on Twitter.

The case was brought by Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University on behalf of seven individuals who were blocked by Trump after they sent tweets criticizing his policies. Once the users were blocked, they were unable to view the president's Twitter feed or respond to his tweets.

The court found that public officials who use social media for "all manner of official purposes" are not allowed to block people because it would prevent them from engaging in open dialogue with those officials.

"In resolving this appeal, we remind the litigants and the public that if the First Amendment means anything, it means that the best response to disfavored speech on matters of public concern is more speech, not less," Circuit Judge Barrington D. Parker wrote.

___________________________

How does this even add up?

It makes sense to me. He can just ignore them. If anyone else was doing this you'd call them a fucking snowflake.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

It makes sense to me. He can just ignore them. If anyone else was doing this you'd call them a fucking snowflake.

I agree, public officials shouldn't be allowed to block people in any manner.

[Astray]

It's only bullshit if they enforce it on him and no other politician. Otherwise I don't see what the problem is. It's up to Twitter (lol) to deal with abusive individuals.

[Viekn]

Federal Court Rules President Trump Can't Block Critics On Twitter

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan ruled that President Donald Trump is not allowed to block people who criticize him on Twitter. The three-judge panel upheld a decision by a lower court, which found that the president violates the First Amendment when he blocks his critics on Twitter.

The case was brought by Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University on behalf of seven individuals who were blocked by Trump after they sent tweets criticizing his policies. Once the users were blocked, they were unable to view the president's Twitter feed or respond to his tweets.

The court found that public officials who use social media for "all manner of official purposes" are not allowed to block people because it would prevent them from engaging in open dialogue with those officials.

"In resolving this appeal, we remind the litigants and the public that if the First Amendment means anything, it means that the best response to disfavored speech on matters of public concern is more speech, not less," Circuit Judge Barrington D. Parker wrote.

___________________________

How does this even add up?

Without getting in to right/left stuff, if an elected official were speaking to a group of people, and magically he/she/qbert could mute those in the group that disagreed with the president, would that infringe on the muted people's first amendment rights? Isn't that the same thing thing the court basically said?

[Methais]

It makes sense to me. He can just ignore them. If anyone else was doing this you'd call them a fucking snowflake.

No I wouldn't, it would be just as stupid if Obama were in office blocking people. Trump blocking people on Twitter is dumb in general, but it's also pretty fucking different than facing legal consequences by the government.

Without getting in to right/left stuff, if an elected official were speaking to a group of people, and magically he/she/qbert could mute those in the group that disagreed with the president, would that infringe on the muted people's first amendment rights? Isn't that the same thing thing the court basically said?

What legal consequence are those people facing?

[Gelston]

No I wouldn't, it would be just as stupid if Obama were in office blocking people. Trump blocking people on Twitter is dumb in general, but it's also pretty fucking different than facing legal consequences by the government.



What legal consequence are those people facing?

He can literally just ignore them. I mean, Trump really is a massive snowflake. He is triggered easy as fuck. He decided to go into public life, and this is what he gets. When he is no longer President, then it shouldn't apply to him anymore, but right now? No, he is a politician. Replace Trump's name with Schumer and I guarantee you'd be loling at him.

[Viekn]

What legal consequence are those people facing?

Quite possibly even your piggy is smarter than me (love the new avatar btw. I own frenchies and they're pretty much the dog equivalent of piggies!), but what "legal" consequence is required to infringe on someone's first amendment free speech rights?

[Methais]

He can literally just ignore them. I mean, Trump really is a massive snowflake. He is triggered easy as fuck. He decided to go into public life, and this is what he gets. When he is no longer President, then it shouldn't apply to him anymore, but right now? No, he is a politician. Replace Trump's name with Schumer and I guarantee you'd be loling at him.

I'm not saying Trump blocking people on Twitter isn't stupid. I just don't see how it's a first amendment issue as there are no legal consequences involved. Doesn't matter who the current president is.

[Gelston]

I'm not saying Trump blocking people on Twitter isn't stupid. I just don't see how it's a first amendment issue as there are no legal consequences involved. Doesn't matter who the current president is.

It blocks their ability to speak to an elected official.