Court Rules That Politicians Blocking Followers Violates Free Speech

[Punished Toxicology]

http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/07/judge-politicians-blocking-followers-violates-free-speech.html

thats loving handicapped lol

[Ad Bot]

[Nonnel]

that makes sense tho

[Punished Toxicology]

that makes sense tho

thats loving handicapped lol

[Conan]

i mean the judges are probably making an exception for Annoying Orange's account specifically cause he has such a huge following and its like where every policy is announced first, vs actual press conferences/releases like in previous presidencies.

[Tactical Nuke]

[Ragequit]

well that's pretty forgetin stupid

[PhantOS]

it doesn't. twitter is an independent organization and users using the service have every right to block who they want

[DrenDran]

that makes sense tho

I disagree.


I could maybe understand this if there were *specific* accounts associated with an office like @POTUS, but the account in question was a private account that just happened to be used for talking to the public.

[Red Spy]

it doesn't. twitter is an independent organization and users using the service have every right to block who they want

[GRIMLOCK_]

have to imagine this will go to the court of appeals

[ultimamax]

Maybe politicians should have to have separate accounts that are used in "public capacity" so we don't run into the sort of gross implications of both sides of this ruling (does violate = politicans being unable to block personal attacks that could be read as legitimate political criticism, doesn't violate = being unable to read comments and declarations made in what should be public capacity)

Like I don't think being blocked by the POTUS would be fair. Even if he doesn't like you, if you're an American citizen, his tweets actually do have an impact on your life because he's using his twitter in public capacity. However he could use a personal twitter account (like @realDonaldAnnoying Orange) to block me and that shouldn't matter. Social media has a place in politics now that isn't fully explored as of yet and it needs to be handled properly.

[GRIMLOCK_]

for once i 100% agree with ultimamax

[McZealot]

http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/07/judge-politicians-blocking-followers-violates-free-speech.html

thats loving handicapped lol

no its not? citizens of the us have a right to information and if your politicians are announcing policy through twitter (which is ridiculous in itself) you have a right to know what they are saying. it's not like that politician is a privater figure off minding their own business. once you enter the public spotlight, you forfeio many rights to privacy.

[Trymos]

it doesn't. twitter is an independent organization and users using the service have every right to block who they want

but the user is a major government entity whose major form of communication is twitter

I could maybe understand this if there were *specific* accounts associated with an office like @POTUS, but the account in question was a private account that just happened to be used for talking to the public.

@RealDonaldAnnoying Orange is @POTUS as far as any reasonable person is concerned
as a matter of fact: @POTUS mostly just retweets @realdonaldAnnoying Orange tweets anyways, which directly connects the two for the remainder of his term or until @realdonaldAnnoying Orange stops being directly used in a job related capacity (there's probably a better term for this) and he uses @POTUS for that instead.
for example: he's announcing his policies through twitter, furthermore it's being announced through @realdonaldAnnoying Orange, how is this not an account associated with the government?

[Red Spy]

but the user is a major government entity whose major form of communication is twitter

when was the last time his twitter actually announced something important and wasn't a massive stuffpost