Um, sweetie, what is he gonna do about this?

>>128807492
Apply this logic to comment sections

>>128807492
I was blocked by Obama multiple times so if this true I cant wait.

tfw you have more rights than POTUS.

Does this apply to everyone blocking Drumpf?

But leftists attacking you and starting riots so you cannot speak on college campuses if they disagree with you is perfectly okay

>>128807856
RWDS when? I can't take this shit anymore.

Twitter is privately owned they have absolutely zero obligation to respect the first amendment.

>Being blocked on the internet is against the first amendment
>liberal news sites and YouTube channels block comments

Wow really toggles the noggin

File: 1429458520089.png (82KB, 245x251px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 245x251px

>>128807492
>Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech
>the Executive must broadcast my shitposts
fuck right off

>>128807492
I could see a little logic in this, (wouldn't agree because being blocked doesn't stop you from posting. This is like saying that if you called the president on a phone and he hangs up on you he is violating the first) if they were referring to the potus twitter account but @realdonaldtrump is a personal account.

>>128807492
I got banned by obama and nobody gave a fuck then

>>128807492
Doesn't the First Amendment also imply a freedom of negative association?

let them open this can of worms. there will be legal teams going after twitter, facebook, and google to destroy them if any of this shit actually passes. they need to censor conservatives more than anybody needs to censor liberals

>>128807492
They block their critics all the time.

>>128807492

It would be glorious if this works.

All those fucking nigger, feminist and kike cunts forced to unblock my accounts.

Milo and Richard Spencer will be back on too.

Right to free speech =/= right to free reading

>>128807492
Except it's his private twitter account he's held for years, and his blocking you is a function of the website, not his executive power. I'm not violating your rights by blocking you on twitter, and neither is he.

That is Trump's personal account though. He has a presidential account @POTUS

>>128807492
twitter blocks a lot of people

>>128807492

>Lawyers for the Knight Institute, which threatened to take legal action, said the Twitter blocks were tantamount to a City Council blocking critics from attending a council meeting.

I'm going to have a lot of fun with this.

>>128807969
>frogs in charge of interpreting the constitution

>>128807991
Silly American
Liberal opinions are never wrong

>>128807492
>>128807728
Bake the cake bigot.
>Its different when we do it.

File: 1473487157483.jpg (12KB, 250x247px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 250x247px

>it's real.

File: free_speech.png (52KB, 566x577px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 566x577px

Uhh, isn't it always liberals who make the point that having freedom of speech doesn't mean people have to listen to you or give you a platform?

>>128808579

This too.

Was Obama violating the first because the secret service stopped you from jumping the fence and joining in on family dinner.

>>128807492
Excellent. Do it faggots, and watch the legal shit storm against google, twitter, facebook, youtube, etc. who have blocked, banned, and outright silenced any content and users they didn't want noticed. This will backfire immensely, so please, continue, you short-sighted reactionary dullards.

>>128808598
Sean Spicer said today tweets from Donald Trump's account, not the official potus account, are considered official statements. It is an interesting legal question for sure.

>>128808733
>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

>Congress

>>128808425
Yes, but the 14th Amendment says no. We'll either have to get a very nearly majority nonwhite country to axe the 14th, or give up on the Constitution.

>>128808425
For most of our history, yes. But that changed in the 1960s. Now freedom of association means everyone has the right to associate with you even if you don't want to associate with them.

>>128807492


The freedom of speech does not include the right to compel others to listen.

be very afraid of 'liberals' claiming otherwise.

this is a nonsense argument, one that should be ignored, no matter what any federal trial or appellate judge says.

Regressive Leftists crying free speech now - Peak Irony.

Read what the 1st Anendment says.

Wait, so if he deletes his now huge twitter account, it's that censoring free speech?

You don't get to see his content on that platform anymore, so it must be censorship.

If anyone actually pushes this they'll get fucking annihilated legally by people that don't have downs.

>>128809598
Personally I feel censored because Trump doesn't come to /pol/ and shitpost with us.

>>128807991
Liberals don't have to follow their own rules, didn't ya know?

>>128807492
He's refusing to listen to you, not violating your freedom of speech. Trump's private twitter account isn't a public platform. Is the 1st amendment violated when CNN won't let me go on their show and talk about whatever I want?

>@realDonaldTrump
>not @POTUS

Wow cased closed I sure hope those lawyers were worth it.

>>128807492
The Left has gone Full Retard again.
"DRUMPHPHFF can't block people on Twitter!"
Meanwhile, Twitter deletes accounts it doesn't like.

File: 1451455347636.jpg (78KB, 750x565px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 750x565px

>>128807492
@realdonaldtrump is his personal twitter and he can do what he damn well pleases with it

@POTUS is the presidential twitter account, which is a "designated public forum" that hasn't blocked anyone

>>128807492
>A public forum
Better unblock me from all of the public figures who have blocked me then.

Oh boy i hope they open this can of worms. bwha watch it blow up in their faces.

>>128807492
I can 'threaten' to take legal action at you for calling me a meanie. Will I take it? If I take it will I win? No. This is the most absurd partisan legal argument yet. Freedom of speech doesn't mean 'forced to listen'

>>128810092
Even if he blocked them from @Potus it wouldn't change a thing. If these people said what they tweeted to Trump's face, do you think the 1st Amendment would keep Trump from walking away?

File: reddit R6 siege ban.png (60KB, 1055x820px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 1055x820px

we do actually severely need some sort of freedom of speech provision to protect the internet against corporate censorship

think twitter bans for memes, video game bans for "toxic" trash talk where you lose access to a game you paid money for etc

see pic for what reddit thinks about this topic

>>128807492
>that all Americans should have access to — even opponents.

So log out nigga like hahahahhaahahahaha

>>128810614
>peek again
>prone prone crouch crouch

fucking lel

File: IMG_4149.jpg (48KB, 680x346px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 680x346px

>>128807492
Right. The constitution did not explicitly consider forum misuse by abusive users. The anonymity of the internet emboldenens morons. (See /pol/ every day for examples) The constitution does not require that public figures put up with those directing specific hate at a particular person (famous or not), threats, and by people stalking internet users just to leave abuses so they can get followers.
Constitutional protection ends when you misuse your rights to inflict harms on others.
Pic related

It's simple, all Trump has to do is say it's hate speech. That works on college campuses for preventing certain types speakers.

>>128807492
>Leftist channels disable comments
>It's okay when we do it though

Really sizzles my stir fry.

>>128807492
Ive been blocked by 7 new networks twitter handles for calling em retsrds and talking shit. If Trump has to unblock the shitheads hes blocked then CNN should unblock me so I call them retards 20 times a post

This case can have two possible results depending on the holding:

>The court holds that Twitter is a public forum and Trump loses. As a result, any and all censorship or manipulation done by twitter creates a cause of action on the grounds of a first amendment violation.

Or

>The court holds that Twitter is not a public forum and Trump wins. Things remain as they are

This is all assuming that they were blocked from @POTUS rather than his personal handle. I don't care to check the article because I refuse to read legal articles written by 99% of major media outlets.

>>128810883
What's stop these idiots from seeing his tweets from a different account? Is a full block ip or account ban?

File: 1438590670830.jpg (28KB, 827x827px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 827x827px

>>128807492
>violating first amendment rights
It's fucking twitter for fucks sake.God I hate liberals with a passion.

You can see his tweets if you log out, this is a non argument.

JUST LOG OUT YOU FUCKING ASSHOLES and you can see everything

>thinking I'm going to let someone named Jameel Jafar lecture me about the Constitution

Yeah I don't think so. You can go back to Agrabah.

>>128811177
also check my fucking digits

>>128810883
Desu what those people were doing was and still is borderline harassment. I get that the man has some semblance of duty to keep himself open to the public, however berating literally everything he tweeted with sweetieposting is just retarded. None of it added anything to public discourse, it was all just awww poor baby trump got his feefees hurt or shit like that. He did what anyone should do when faced with that kind of retardation and thats block the cunt. Better that than opening the can of worms that is a harassment complaint.

File: IMG_4151.jpg (66KB, 500x300px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 500x300px

>>128810359
>California isn't Texas
It's scary because, depending on the where the case is filed, the outcome could be different. People seem so polarized & crazy anymore.

This is such a dumb argument, it's astounding.

If the president is being streamed live on tv and some lunatic starts shouting at him, is he required to sit there and listen "because the first amendment"? Twitter is just as much of a "public forum". And if it were really a public forum subject to the rules they want, then twitter would have to stop banning conservatives for being conservatives.

The left is trying to lose some of its most powerful strangleholds for tiny, meaningless victories. It's like the 2016 election all over again!

>>128807492
Hmmm, you know I do see their point in this.
If it was the actions of Twitter stopping me from seeing it, then it wouldn't violate those rights. But it's the actions of a government entity causing it.
Kind of an interesting case.

>>128808733
lol your don't know your own law.

The government has to respect freedom of speech, nobody else does. There is absolutely nothing stopping a privately owned service like Twitter, or any business in America from massively censoring anyone they wish, besides public backlash.

If Twitter wants to ban everyone who speaks against Muslims or Trump or anyone who says the word "faggot" then they're 100% within their legal rights to do that.

Same goes for freedom of assembly, in a public place you have that right and the government must respect it, but you can't go into someone's privately owned business or house and start a protest if they don't want you there.

The first amendment is strictly to prevent the government from making laws that infringe on people's right to free speech, it doesn't mean "I get to say whatever I like anywhere I like with no repercussions."

>>128810614
I agree we do need to protect free speech emanating from corporate programs or else the only time you will be able to speak freely in in person or on the phone.

>>128807492
Omg yessss then Twitter wont be able to block anyone! Lmaoooo theyre about to fuck themselves HARD

>>128811456
nobody is stopping you to see shit you dumbass , if you logout from twitter you can see everything

>>128807492
What fucking morons. He blocked with his person account, not @POTUS
Jesus, these fucking dipshits. I swear to God the movie Idiocracy is a prophetic movie.

>(((lawyers)))
sure thing shekelberg

>>128811043
>Interesting, it's likely a win either way
So could conservatives who have been subject to twatters new algorithms, audience manipulation, and relegation to certain circles that bring less likes and less interaction with liberal users have a cause of action against twitter if Trump loses?

>>128811642
Right, but you're no longer allowed to post in that comment chain. Which since by its nature it has become a public government entity; the first amendment should apply and censorship via blocking from the account would be unconstitutional.
It's just an interesting argument is all I'm saying.

>>128807492

this is absurdity at it's finest.

it would be one thing to claim Twitter should be considered a public forum, thereby requiring the government to step in and ensure it allows for freedom of speech, and that is something I would agree with under certain rules.

however saying that *just* the president's twitter is a public forum is more Le Resistance bullshit, and this is most likely a way to get (you)'s for whatever nigger loving kike group is doing it.

File: Lilith.png (867KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

867KB, 1366x768px

>>128807492
Just end the world.

File: 1496636396794.gif (3MB, 365x600px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 365x600px

>>128807492
Can't trump just invade Twitter? Or at the very least sanction the diamond Don militia to be formed so we can invade Twitter. We should silence communists and laugh while they're accounts get suspended for 12 days after every terrorist attack for preaching acceptance and open borders. They would literally cry themselves to death if they get banned after every attack for promoting the death of your country via multiculturalism and immigration.

>>128811345
Twitter ToS protects against harassment, so Trump or anyone is within their right to block/mute anyone they want.
Their beef should be with twitter not the govt. They are within their right to shit post but it doesn't come without consequences... but that require them to take responsibility for their actions.

>>128812030
Twitter is a private corporation, not the property of the government.

>>128812030
Where do the lines blur between Trump's rights as a citizen and consumer of Twitter's platform (therefore having access to its functions and subject to its ToS), and his duties as a government official?

>>128807492

If it's such a big deal then why give him the option to block in the first place?

>>128807492
Thats the grownup version of puting your fingers i your ears and yelling shit, how exactly is he using the government to silence the is beyond me.
>>128807769
The fuck did you do nigga?

>>128807492
On a scale of John Smith to Rabbi Schlomo Goldberg, how Jewish are those lawyers?

>>128807492
Blocking someone does not restrict their ability to speak, only your ability to hear them. Is it against the first amendment to wear earmuffs/earplugs in public? Are deaf people automatically breaking the first amendment? No?

This lawyer is fucking trash and will likely be laughed out of court.

Spicer is a tard.

Trump’s Tweets ‘Official Statements,’ Spicer Says

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-s-tweets-official-statements-spicer-says-n768931

Retarded argument. Twitter itself is not even recognized as a free speech platform, because it's private. A twitter handle is even less of a "public forum".

On the other hand this argument could lead to the nationalization of Twitter, which would bail out the shareholders of a company with no profit and no plan to ever make a profit, so we'll see.

>>128813125
Eh I doubt Spicer is the ultimate authority on that, they could probably revise that and say 'our opinions on the matter are evolving' or something

Wait aminit if they push this as free speech issue will that open twatter and the like to be sued for suppression of free speech for people who have right leaning opines? Seriously that cunt bess kald needs to be shot in front of her family

>>128812334
Which is why I said if twitter did it, then there's no case.
>>128812464
Well i think that's where it becomes an interesting question. Can you really classify a twitter account with 35 million followers as private? Or at that point does it become a public space forum of a government representative?

>>128807492
hail mary suit, garbage, nothing will come of it.

>>128807492
public
servant

>>128807492
If they want to read what he says, they can log out. If they want to comment on what he says, they should have been more respectful.

If the president held a public forum in person, and one of those fucks showed up talking the way they tweet, they'd be escorted off the fucking property.

The left has taken leave of their senses.

>>128807492
wait....so does this mean if some douche wants to stalk his ex girlfriend, she's now the one on civil rights charges? How many of you are blocked by left wing wackos? Lets get a formal list of people on the left who need to face charges.

>>128807492
>there are actual lawyers that think this

wtf

File: vicepepe.jpg (88KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 1024x1024px

>>128807492

>The Knight Institute

Don't you mean The (White) Knight Institute?

with the court rulings and lawyers and special commitees. law is kinda starting to look like a joke.

>>128810614
>we do actually severely need some sort of freedom of speech provision to protect the internet against corporate censorship

Point to the ESRB rating and tell those fuckers to fuck off with their "ban" and "censorship" crap. If they hate it so much to take off to some 3rd world country or to invest in their puny private islands to be literally shithole safespaces.

File: case closed.png (240KB, 593x398px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 593x398px

>>128807492
>they understood that the president must not be allowed to banish views from public discourse simply because he finds them objectionable. Having opened this forum to all comers, the president can’t exclude people from it merely because he dislikes what they’re saying.”

>Still around and still tweeting to Trump
>Clearly still allowed to express their views

Now maybe if Twitter were government ran and they completely revoked her access to it on the behest of Trump as he found her comments objectionable, THEN they may have a case. Otherwise this is just literal trash suit cooked up for publicity.

File: evergreen.png (556KB, 572x631px) Image search: [Google]

556KB, 572x631px

>>128807492
>twitter routinely censors and represses conservative and libertarian tweets
>twitter actively promotes left-wing ideas and prioritizes those tweets that share those ideas
>get blocked by the president because you're a fucking annoying cunt
>I SUE NOW :'(((((((((((

>>128807492
wow
this is it
i can feel it
we're gonna get him impeached
this is major

File: 1496446341243.png (941KB, 591x780px) Image search: [Google]

941KB, 591x780px

>>128809585
This

File: 1478552783910.png (829KB, 1000x968px) Image search: [Google]

829KB, 1000x968px

>>128809755
>Trump doesn't come to /pol/ and shitpost with us.
Wrong.

>>128807991

First amendment only applies to Government, you uneducated goober.

File: 30e68858f4video.jpg.jpg (22KB, 250x295px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 250x295px

TRUMP. YOU ARE A XENOPHOBIC RACIST, MISOGYNISTIC, BIGOTED PIG! UNBLOCK MY TWITTER. I HAVE ALREADY SIGNED AND EMAILED THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT TO CONGRESS

>>128807492

SIGN OUT OF FUCKING TWITTER YOU WEIRDO FUCKS!

>>128816004
Did you make sure to use the right email this time?

>>128807492
>blocked by trump on twitter? lawyers say he's violating your 1st amendment rights
>lawyers say he's violating your 1st amendment rights
>lawyers say
>(((lawyers)))
Did I miss the latest episode of Better Call Saul? What a fucking joke.

>what's he gonna do?
Start by not giving a fuck. Trump could buy twitter and ban everyone if he wanted and twitter would just turn into Trumpshitposts.com. What's stopping this FAGGOT from making another twitter account and following Trump again? Can't believe I replied to this weak attempt of a slide thread.

>>128807492
>Facebook deletes something
>It's private company, they don't have to host your opinion!

>Facebook doesn't delete something incorrect
>WTF HATESPEECH, FACEBOOK MUST FOLLOW ANTIHATE LAWS AND CENSOR BAD OPINIONS EVEN IF IT'S PRIVATE FOREIGN COMPANY !


Make up your minds faggot, either they have to follow laws including my freedom of speech or they can tell me to fuck off but also ignore hate speech laws, can't have both

>>128816914
>What's stopping this FAGGOT from making another twitter account and following Trump again?

Losing their precious blue checkmark and all the bot followers they paid for.

>>128815143
She's complaining about being blocked by trump?
She blocked my account that never even tweeted to anyone. I did add her to a list calling her a faggot, though.

"lawyers" = loooooyyyaaaaahs

>>128807492
>arguing that the @realDonaldTrump handle with its nearly 32 million followers amounts to a “designated public forum” that all Americans should have access to — even opponents.
Slippery Slope, and would be tossed in court because of this.

There is a @potus twitter handle.

The @RealDonaldTrump is private in that sense. His rights to block were not forfeited by acceptance of the highest seat in the USA.

Forcing this could also force everyday people to justify lawsuits for blocks...And it could be horrible for them people.

Example: X sjw blocks 4 chan user. 4 chan then crowdfunds the best attorney, and FORCES said person to unblock EVERYONE. Then that person is being FORCED to listen to our viewpoint.

This would create a precedent that would only benefit the right currently.

File: 1468102392791.gif (2MB, 250x188px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 250x188px

>>128807492
Are you fucking kidding me
Are these the same retards that think cyberbullying is completely unavoidable
AND THAT YOU JUST CAN'T WALK AWAY FROM THE COMPUTER BECAUSE ITS SOMEHOW PHYSICALLY FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE?!?!
GEE. i WONDER HOW THE FUCK WE EVER MANAGED TO GET BY BEFORE COMPUTERS WERE INVENTED, IF WE'RE ALL APPARENTLY SO FUCKING DEPENDENT UPON THEM

>>128810614
>we need corporate meta-nations with no accountability to tell us what to think, say, and do
Can you not see how this is a bad idea? Really?