Thursday Next Posted June 14, 2017 Report Share Posted June 14, 2017 I can see a weakness in this argument in so far as there is nothing preventing a blocked individual from creating another account and following Trump. How inconvenient does the government have to make access before it becomes a constitutional issue? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted June 14, 2017 Report Share Posted June 14, 2017 (edited) Any discrimination based solely on viewpoint is a constitutional issue. For example, if a designated public forum like a community school building that rents classrooms after-hours for a set fee decided to charge the local Republican party more than the local Democratic party to use a classroom, that would be a constitutional issue even if the fee was not much more for the Republicans. The government is almost never allowed to discriminate based on viewpoint. Courts consider the government playing favorites based on the viewpoint of the speaker to be one of the most egregious violations of the First Amendment. There are some exceptions to content-based speech restrictions, as opposed to viewpoint-based (see: broadcast radio and television content restrictions (which I believe are largely unconstitutional, although SCOTUS has found a number of content restrictions to be constitutional, such as for swearing and violence)), but I don't believe the major exceptions would really apply to Twitter unless the tweets were harassing or threatening. The issue of whether getting a new account is so easy that it would cure the government's discrimination is interesting. The moment the President blocks an account with thousands of followers, the argument withers; it takes a lot of time and effort to build a follower base and by cutting off the original account, the government restricts its ability to engage with its followers regarding the government tweets. I believe this is most salient when an organization's Twitter account is blocked, which Trump has done: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-blocks-national-veteran-group-twitter-n771601 This sort of thing is bound to get the courts' attention more than Trump blocking someone with a dozen followers who just tweets poorly-spelled rants at Trump (you know, like the kind of rants Trump tweets). Edit: cleaning up typos, including unintentional elision of the difference between viewpoint and content discrimination, which Ethan outlines well below. Edited June 14, 2017 by Mr. GOH! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted June 14, 2017 Report Share Posted June 14, 2017 Content-based is bad, viewpoint based is almost never okay (I can't think of a situation where it's okay but I don't like to talk in absolutes). So there are situations where the government might say "we're not going to allow this sort of content", like for instance a public facility saying they won't rent space to anyone discussing abortion or whatever, and that might be okay even though it's based on the content of the speech. What the government absolutely cannot do is say "we'll rent space to anti-abortion people, but not pro-abortion people" because that's based on the viewpoint of the speech, not just the type of content. Trump's blocking of people is almost certainly viewpoint-based (I can't imagine he's blocking people who agree with him) which is the most suspect type of restriction there is. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted June 14, 2017 Report Share Posted June 14, 2017 I belong to couple of lawyer Facebook groups, newsletters, and forums, and even progressive attorneys seem pretty split on this issue. As someone who spent a lot of time in law school focusing on First Amendment law, I think the case has merit and that it is worth having the courts sort out. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted July 11, 2017 Report Share Posted July 11, 2017 As the cliche phrase goes "you couldn't even write this". Oh and nothing is likely to happen still even with his fucking son tweeting out shit. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted July 11, 2017 Report Share Posted July 11, 2017 Work is shielding me from browsing politics (10 hours days are nice). What's happening? Did Eric or whatever his face is being insane like his dad? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted July 11, 2017 Report Share Posted July 11, 2017 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40574564 Pretty much has admitted to dealings between Trump campaign and Russia with hacking of Dem/Clinton campaign. I think this was the best response I can't find tweet but also: "Trump family Lawyer just now" (this is still one of the best scenes ever, and one of greatest show exits. From IT Crowd if you somehow haven't seen it.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted August 12, 2017 Report Share Posted August 12, 2017 So Charlottesville. It's in Trump's hands if he call it a terrorist attack or not. Elsewhere where this happened it was called as such. I doubt he will though... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted August 12, 2017 Report Share Posted August 12, 2017 Geez, I live fairly close to Charlottesville so I'm sure it's all I'm going to hear about from anyone for a while. I can't wait. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted August 13, 2017 Report Share Posted August 13, 2017 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted August 16, 2017 Report Share Posted August 16, 2017 Trump goes back on his earlier condemnation of neo-nazis to once again say there is "blame on both sides..." How hard is it to just fucking say that neo-nazis are scum and stick by those words? This man is willing to make personal attacks on journalists, politicians, and talk show hosts, but when it comes to neo-nazis suddenly he turns into a spineless pussy. I already knew Trump was a total buffoon, but I can't believe I actually have to wonder now if he's a full-blown white supremacist. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted August 16, 2017 Report Share Posted August 16, 2017 Pretty sure attacks on journalists, politicians and..err maybe not talk show hosts, are par for the course in nazi tactics so yeah I'd say there's a reason he struggles to condemn neo-nazis. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted August 16, 2017 Report Share Posted August 16, 2017 2 hours ago, Mister Jack said: I can't believe I actually have to wonder now if he's a full-blown white supremacist. I've been wondering it for a while. Now in my mind there is no room for debate that he is. He could've straight up falsely condemned (lied) to nab one of the easiest political give-mes to keep people wondering. Yet he did not do that. His initial silence and now doubling down on his initial statement is all anybody really needs. I do however now wonder if I work with or around any budding, closet or full-blown white supremacists. A lot of them are being embolden by Trump. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted August 16, 2017 Report Share Posted August 16, 2017 Remember: Hitler did not gain power in a violent coup, but through the democratic process. Then tore apart that democratic process, imprisoned or killed his political and journalistic enemies and headed on with his plans of purification. Also he was rather inspired by a lot of US activities, which in some form or another continued even after WWII (which US never entered on any ideological issue with fascism or they'd have been in years before). Hand over your heart these days, but still makes your goddamn skin crawl. Wouldn't surprise me if there's plenty of white supremacists and neo-nazis kicking about, though the Charlotesville certainly shows a shift in outwardly not even bothering to don Klan masks. Civil Rights movement only came to an end a bit over 50 years ago, plenty folks still alive today that were young men opposing the movement in the day. It's shit, and it's shit that the tools they like to use such as freedom of speech and assembly are tools they'd want to take away from others had they the chance. Traditionally we're unfortunately shown the main way to get rid of fascists and white supremacists is with a bullet. I feel/fear that education and lack thereof is probably a root issue. I guess in the decades since that the nazis are seen as just a video game enemy rather than a very real political party and paramilitary force that took power, used violence to intimidate opponents, and ultimately led to the death and extermination of tens of millions of people. Nor was Hitler some unknowable fairy land evil, nor did he work alone. He had Goring n Goebbels to hand along with many other aides that supported his cause and rise to power which is why folks like Bannon need to be watched. I see too many dismiss Trump as dumb, which he is, but he has those thoughts and ideals, and the power to hand. He's just dissolved two advisory councils today because the people within them weren't agreeing with him. There's been a clear disregard for the press as "fake news". I doubt that the ultimate evils of the nazi party will be replicated in 21st century America, but the...well "lesser" evils which were still events like night of long knives and broken glass, are quite within grasp of possibility. The inability to not immediately condemn open neo-nazis taking to march within the streets of the US is a rather troubling thing. Our PM is hardly any better, a fucking milquetoast response where she'd quicker take umbrage with a clock being silenced for repairs than her counter-part in US failing to condemn the rise of groups we fought together in the mid-20th century. And I wrote a bit and I guess this is why I usually just RT stuff on twitter, it's not really a platform for this kind of discussion. (jesus christ Twitter, just fucking ban Trump already). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted August 17, 2017 Report Share Posted August 17, 2017 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted August 17, 2017 Report Share Posted August 17, 2017 That reminds me. Quote I agree with them [white nationalists and neo-nazis at Charlottesville] but I'm no racist. I overheard that while eating dinner on Saturday. It came from an older guy to his son, wife and his grandkids. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted August 18, 2017 Report Share Posted August 18, 2017 The worst thing than holding racist views is of course being called racist. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted August 18, 2017 Report Share Posted August 18, 2017 Seems like Steve Bannon have been fired or has resigned from his position in the White House. Not sure that'll help Trump at all since it either means fire and fury from Breibart aimed at him or nothing happens which would suggest Trump and Bannon are still talking. Maybe it's the fire and fury option. Writer for Breitbart. We'll see over the weekend and then on Monday people will go insane with the solar eclipse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted August 18, 2017 Report Share Posted August 18, 2017 I'm sure that either way Trump will claim it was his idea to let him go, like how it was his idea to dissolve those economic councils he put together and it's just a total coincidence that they were all planning to resign after his Charlottesville remarks. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted August 18, 2017 Report Share Posted August 18, 2017 It's a shame that guy is likely not ironically quoting Brass Eye. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted August 26, 2017 Report Share Posted August 26, 2017 Nah, Trump isn't racist. He's just pardoning a patriot that is Joe Arpaio. Oh, Trump will handle the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey just fine. Just fine. I hate to say but maybe all the rain Harvey is most likely going to bring is what is needed to put out this fire. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted September 7, 2017 Report Share Posted September 7, 2017 (edited) How did I miss this? Edited September 7, 2017 by Mister Jack 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted September 13, 2017 Report Share Posted September 13, 2017 Okay so this was almost definitely not done by the actual Ted Cruz but it still makes for an amusing story. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted October 4, 2017 Report Share Posted October 4, 2017 On 8/25/2017 at 8:24 PM, Malloween said: I hate to say but maybe all the rain Harvey is most likely going to bring is what is needed to put out this fire. In the end, Puerto Rico got the short end of the stick. Trump's response is just terrible, to say the least. After Puerto Rico is somewhat back on their feet, they should just vote to leave or... vote to become a state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted October 4, 2017 Report Share Posted October 4, 2017 They've already voted to become a state on multiple occasions, now it's on Congress to authorize it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.