Judge rules Trump can’t block people, what does this mean for twitter going forward?
Recently a federal Judge ruled that President Donald J Trump cannot block US citizens on twitter without violating the first amendment. While this may seem a trivial matter, it may well have far reaching implications on the way Twitter is allowed to operate.
Since the 2016 election their has been much talk in conservative circles about unfair censorship and bans by twitter. These complaints were often met with “Twitter is a private company they can do what they want”, but that may no longer be the case with this new ruling. The ruling is based on the idea that when Trump blocks a person, they are no longer able to engage in discourse under his tweet, which as the court sees it is a “public square”. If this logic is carried forward, is it not a violation of the 1st amendment if an American individual is banned from Twitter? Just like those blocked by Trump, those who have been banned, censored, or shadow banned are also incapable of communicating with their leader via his favorite public forum.
While the left celebrates this as some sort of victory over Trump, it may be whats needed to finally break Big Tech’s stranglehold on speech and censorship of right wing views in this country.
This case, and the many like it that are sure to follow could potentially change the dynamics of internet speech and censorship forever. Pay attention.
Upvoted ($0.20) and resteemed by @investorsclub
Normally @investorsclub would not upvote and resteem a post like this - but we did because of the impact this could have on the Twitter Inc (NYSE: TWTR) share price if this interpretation of the court ruling is true. How many $dollars in damages will Twitter have to pay to Americans who sue them after being blocked in some way by Twitter. It is certainly worth thinking through the possible implications of this post if you hold Twitter in your portfolio.
Join the Investors Club if you are interested in investing.
Since I live in Canada, I have to be aware that there are laws limiting speech in very specific ways, and that their effect is to 'damp' speech around those subjects in a lot of vague ways.
A similar thing happens in groups of people. One-on-one, people might explore dangerous, even offensive ideas. Add more people, and very soon, the only thing everyone can agree to talk about is that everyone agree.
Agreed?
Anyway, it kind of homogenizes twitter, facebook and most other platforms.
I wish 1a would mate with 2a and the result be a discussion tool (with optional protected anonymity) guaranteed to every citizen.
But I probably wouldn't like what I found written there :)
I very much agree with you. I do think the government needs to determine a clear framework for what constitutes a public discussion tool, so that lines on issues like these can become less blurry
I don’t think the logic follows in that way.
Trump is making Twitter into a public square by using it for communication from the president of the us. Twitter is not the public square without this public (governmental) use.
In a similar way just because a newspaper reports on a government news story doesn’t mean that they are required by the first amendment to publish your letter to the editor.
Ok but as long as the president is using it as his primary means of communication, being banned from twitter is just as much a “violation” as being blocked by trump, it amounts to the same thing.
Hmm, maybe.
I think that would only be the case if you got banned from twitter for or while talking with a governmental figure.
We should just convince trump to use twitter and the whole problem gets solved.