Off Topic > Off Topic
Court Rules That Politicians Blocking Followers Violates Free Speech
PhantOS:
--- Quote from: Deus Ex on July 30, 2017, 11:37:37 AM ---unfiltered statements on policy from HIM
--- End quote ---
the most recent 'unfiltered statement' was the transgenders will all be banned tweet, which ended up being pointless since no decision was actually made and it ended up being false
you should also consider the unfiltered statements unrefined as well, because that's essentially what they are- sweeping statements introduced before any logical thought or advisory takes place
otto-san:
--- Quote from: Tactical Nuke on July 30, 2017, 11:40:30 AM ---I don't get why some people think that when someone like Anita Sarkeesian blocks someone on Twitter it's different from when the president blocks someone on Twitter. They're both public accounts on a private company's website and they should be held to that website's rules. This is not hard to understand.
IMO, this is just another judge trying to stuff on Annoying Orange because that's so cool and hip these days.
--- End quote ---
the case had nothing to do with Annoying Orange or twitter, it's just a potential precedent that could be used against Annoying Orange. and it's specifically just for when a politician is using social media as a platform for political communication with americans. the use of the word "public" in this discussion has been confusing tho since it actually serves two different meanings, one to describe the political purpose of account activity (i.e. 'professional use') and one to describe the accessibility of the account (i.e. 'open access')
Nobot:
blocking someone isn't violating free speech at all unless it's censorship, which, even then it's questionable. in fact, it isn't because it's a loving twitter account and not a post on an official government website. want information on what your president is doing? watch the loving news.
these people trying to mix company policies with individual rights policies are handicaps because the company will always win. try to go to court with them and you're gonna get forgeted, it's that simple. anybody thinking otherwise is clueless and obviously hasn't studied business law for a minute of their life.
LeisureSuit912:
--- Quote from: Deus Ex on July 30, 2017, 11:37:37 AM ---Well if the American media wasn't bullstuffting the president constantly maybe he'd address them directly, but since that's not the case I'd rather get his unfiltered statements on policy from HIM. Just gonna have to get used to it. I hope the next president communicates the same way.
--- End quote ---
Why should the president care about media bullstuff
Otis Da HousKat:
--- Quote from: Nobot on July 30, 2017, 12:54:32 PM ---blocking someone isn't violating free speech at all unless it's censorship, which, even then it's questionable. in fact, it isn't because it's a loving twitter account and not a post on an official government website. want information on what your president is doing? watch the loving news.
these people trying to mix company policies with individual rights policies are handicaps because the company will always win. try to go to court with them and you're gonna get forgeted, it's that simple. anybody thinking otherwise is clueless and obviously hasn't studied business law for a minute of their life.
--- End quote ---
Where does the social media company's policy come into play? This isn't a case of Twitter or Facebook blocking people or removing accounts but the politicians themselves doing so.
Can you explain how a politician hosting a forum for solicitation using online social media is fundamentally different from an in person town hall event, and how blocking someone from participating online is different from not letting them in the room during the in person meeting?
This is an issue that goes beyond Annoying Orange's Twitter account; the court ruling was in regards to a local politician blocking one of their constituents on Facebook. It doesn't matter what medium you choose to engage with the public in you cannot block them from participating solely for providing criticism. If you use a private account to engage the public it should de facto escalate to public usage and be under the same scrutiny.
--- Quote from: LeisureSuit912 on July 30, 2017, 01:37:39 PM ---Why should the president care about media bullstuff
--- End quote ---
Despite your personal feelings about social media it is not going to disappear in the foreseeable future. It has been used as a means of communicating policy to the public for years now.