Trump Can't Block Users On Twitter

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Just as good as if they only read letters from Democrats. Freedom of speech doesn't mean anyone has to listen.

So your libertarian answer is the government doesn't have to read letters from constituents directed to the government because "free speech." The government has no duty to read letters from citizens. How do wrongs ever get redressed and citizen bills suggested if the government never has to communicate with its citizens? The right wing traditionally supports the King over the people, but here is statism, no?

You have a right to speech. You do not have a right to force people to listen. This is so simple even you can understand it ... probably.

King? This is the United States we are discussing.

So your argument is to engage in ad hominems. That doesn't work. Neither does repeating what you already wrote.

Let's try out how well this works in other areas of government. If a judge refuses to hear any cases by anyone he doesn't like, let's say, because they are Libertarian Party members, would you think that the judge is following his duty as a judge? Is he doing his job he is getting paid to do? Note that this is the government we are talking about and not whether he's taking phone calls at his home while he reclines watching baseball after 6pm in his favorite chair.

See that is really where the issue here is. It's whether or not the government is treating Twitter as a de facto public forum for government duty. Things in life are complicated, many variables, and continua. This case could be in-between and ambiguous, BUT you've argued fervently for the President not to follow his duties on Twitter, but way beyond to merely reading letters he received by constituents.

See, here you are allowing elimination of ALL fora for communication with Twitler:

Just as good as if they only read letters from Democrats. Freedom of speech doesn't mean anyone has to listen.

Your argument is way way beyond what was originally being discussed, which is why I gave the analogy of a King, because that is how much power you gave to the President. Very unliberty-like.

 

[Copernicus]

You keep missing the point. Even though it is about the president, nobody's free speech rights are violated when Trump refuses to read their tweets. He's not suppressing it, they are still able to express their displeasure on any number of forums, including Twitter.

You may be thinking that this is about Trump putting a user on "mute", but he wants to actually block people entirely from his Twitter feed, which is different. In a public forum, a government official has no authority to suppress a dissenting voice addressed to that public official. The Constitution calls it "petition the Government for a redress of grievances". It's too bad that Trump doesn't want to listen. He's the government official who was hired to receive the call. That's his job.

Here's my challenge to you. Call the White House, ask for a personal phone conversation with Trump. When you are refused, explain to the operator that your free speech rights are violated until you are finally put through. If you are hung up on, file a first amendment court case. Tell me how that works out for you.

Phone calls are not public forums, but nice try. The White House hires staff to take messages, and they will definitely take my message. If it never makes it to Trump's desk, that's because he's too busy to read every message. If he's sitting around reading Twitter feeds, then he's not to busy to take a message there himself.

And here's my challenge to you: Find a lake somewhere. Jump in it.

 

[Elixir]

In a public forum, a government official has no authority to suppress a dissenting voice addressed to that public official.

That's the nut of it. If Obama ever did anything similar, the conservotards would shit their pants.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You may be thinking that this is about Trump putting a user on "mute", but he wants to actually block people entirely from his Twitter feed, which is different.

Which means they are unable to access from the account that is blocked, not unable to read it at all.

And even if you did respond, what guarantee do you have that Trump would take the time to read your disagreement in the first place?

The real nut of it is people complaining that the ability to ignore someone is inhibiting their right to free speech.

 

[Copernicus]

You may be thinking that this is about Trump putting a user on "mute", but he wants to actually block people entirely from his Twitter feed, which is different.

Which means they are unable to access from the account that is blocked, not unable to read it at all.

That is slightly incoherent. Who do you think is "unable to access from the account"? Trump can mute anyone he personally does not want to see in his account. He is talking about preventing that person from posting in his Twitter feed at all. He wants to block others from seeing this person's criticism in a public forum.

And even if you did respond, what guarantee do you have that Trump would take the time to read your disagreement in the first place?

The real nut of it is people complaining that the ability to ignore someone is inhibiting their right to free speech.

There is no need for any "guarantee" that Trump will read the criticism, nor does there need to be. This is about inhibiting the right of a citizen to participate in a public forum that the President uses as such. Since you can't seem to get this through your head, there is little point in continuing this discussion.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Your ability to use Twitter isn't impeded if he blocks you.

Your ability to read his tweets isn't actually impeded if he blocks you.

Those are the two points on which you claim that this violates your free speech rights, and those are both false.

 

[ZiprHead]

And even if you did respond, what guarantee do you have that Trump would take the time to read your disagreement in the first place?

The real nut of it is people complaining that the ability to ignore someone is inhibiting their right to free speech.

Bull shit. You're the only one saying that.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

And even if you did respond, what guarantee do you have that Trump would take the time to read your disagreement in the first place?

The real nut of it is people complaining that the ability to ignore someone is inhibiting their right to free speech.

Bull shit. You're the only one saying that.

Then nobody is complaining about how this impairs the right of free speech. Good job for ending the controversy.

 

[Copernicus]

Your ability to use Twitter isn't impeded if he blocks you.

Your ability to read his tweets isn't actually impeded if he blocks you.

Those are the two points on which you claim that this violates your free speech rights, and those are both false.

My ability to use Twitter most certainly is impeded if he blocks me, because my ability to respond to his tweets is blocked. My claim is that this would definitely impede my First Amendment right to petition my government for redress of grievances. Please pay attention to the actual point I'm making--the one that a court has backed up with an official ruling.

 

[Elixir]

The real nut of it is people complaining that the ability to ignore someone is inhibiting their right to free speech.

Another crock of bullshit. Nobody thinks they're going to get a semi-literate, self-absorbed wanna-be tyrant to read their criticisms. In fact, nobobdy cares if Trump ignores them - he ignores everyone who is in the least learned or thoughtful, since they inevitably express ideas that run afoul of his petty impulses.
BUT!
Disallowing his critics from informing ANYONE on his feed, lest his sycophants learn of his falsehoods, misrepresentations and total self-interest, is unethical (what's new?) and in most informed opinions I have seen - ILLEGAL.
He is a PUBLIC FIGURE in the employ of those he wants to silence from telling the truth to his delusional "base".

 

[repoman]

The real nut of it is people complaining that the ability to ignore someone is inhibiting their right to free speech.

Another crock of bullshit. Nobody thinks they're going to get a semi-literate, self-absorbed wanna-be tyrant to read their criticisms. In fact, nobobdy cares if Trump ignores them - he ignores everyone who is in the least learned or thoughtful, since they inevitably express ideas that run afoul of his petty impulses.
BUT!
Disallowing his critics from informing ANYONE on his feed, lest his sycophants learn of his falsehoods, misrepresentations and total self-interest, is unethical (what's new?) and in most informed opinions I have seen - ILLEGAL.
He is a PUBLIC FIGURE in the employ of those he wants to silence from telling the truth to his delusional "base".

Sounds about right.

The best way to look at this is to imagine you have the best possible President (or other public official that this would apply to) wanting to block (not just mute) a truly reprehensible and dangerously persuasive twitter user that has not been removed by twitter itself.

Imagine President Bernie Sanders wanting to block a contingent of followers of Richard Spencer and Jared Taylor. Now some of the stuff they will post will backfire in grand fashion, but some will convince some people.

 

[Copernicus]

The real nut of it is people complaining that the ability to ignore someone is inhibiting their right to free speech.

Another crock of bullshit. Nobody thinks they're going to get a semi-literate, self-absorbed wanna-be tyrant to read their criticisms. In fact, nobobdy cares if Trump ignores them - he ignores everyone who is in the least learned or thoughtful, since they inevitably express ideas that run afoul of his petty impulses.
BUT!
Disallowing his critics from informing ANYONE on his feed, lest his sycophants learn of his falsehoods, misrepresentations and total self-interest, is unethical (what's new?) and in most informed opinions I have seen - ILLEGAL.
He is a PUBLIC FIGURE in the employ of those he wants to silence from telling the truth to his delusional "base".

Sounds about right.

The best way to look at this is to imagine you have the best possible President (or other public official that this would apply to) wanting to block (not just mute) a truly reprehensible and dangerously persuasive twitter user that has not been removed by twitter itself.

Imagine President Bernie Sanders wanting to block a contingent of followers of Richard Spencer and Jared Taylor. Now some of the stuff they will post will backfire in grand fashion, but some will convince some people.

Neither of us has to imagine this. Just go on Facebook and subscribe to Patty Murray's or Maria Cantwell's Facebook feed. You'll find all sorts of nasty and abusive comments directed at them. I don't think either senator has tried to block anyone, especially not those who are designated as residents of Washington. That is a case in point. It ought to be illegal for either of them to block participants those feeds, as long as the users abide by the standards that Facebook imposes on all its users.

Most politicians have Twitter feeds and Facebook feeds these days, and they should all have to abide by the same rules for public forums.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Now, 'bout this Criminal Deep State that I learned about from Dear Leader's tweets. Anyone know how I can join? Are there honorary/associate/paid memberships, for instance? Golden-agers' discounts? A toll-free number? I want to do my part.

I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.

You don't 'join' the deep state. They recruit you.

I've said too much!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Now, 'bout this Criminal Deep State that I learned about from Dear Leader's tweets. Anyone know how I can join? Are there honorary/associate/paid memberships, for instance? Golden-agers' discounts? A toll-free number? I want to do my part.

I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.

You don't 'join' the deep state. They recruit you.

I've said too much!

<Bang!>