hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 1771 of 2036 FirstFirst ... 77112711671172117611768176917701771177217731774178118211871 ... LastLast
Results 35,401 to 35,420 of 40719

Thread: The Questionably Fascist [USA Politics Thread]™

  1. #35401

    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    2006
    Posts
    4,281
    As I understand it the medium of communication is irrelevant as to whether or not something counts as censorship. All that matters is who is initiating the block.

    If some random nut-job is blocking people taking this piss out of him, then it isn't censorship.
    If a company on its own decides to block something, then it isn't censorship.
    If a government decides to block something, then it's censorship.
    If a government directs a third-party to block something, then it's censorship.

    As such:
    If Trumps account is actively blocking critical replies from being seen by others, then that is censorship because the block is being enacted by agents of the government.
    If Scott Adams account is actively blocking critical replies from being seen by others, then that isn't censorship because the block is being enacted by a private individual who is not part of the government and is not following the directives of the government.

    Correct me if I'm wrong.

  2. #35402
    Smuggo's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Behind you
    Posts
    28,894
    Who is Scott Adams?

    I agree Nicholai.



  3. #35403
    Duckslayer's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    11,743
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    Who is Scott Adams?

    I agree Nicholai.

  4. #35404

    Join Date
    May 31, 2011
    Posts
    3,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Frug View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ego Proxy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex Caine View Post
    Could people stop quoting Rak please? It's making blocking kind of pointless, and he's such a worthless little cunt I don't want to give his words the respect of being read.

    Thx.
    So just block people who quote Rak. Easy peasy.
    I, too, enjoy the slippery slope of censorship of anyone that refuses to confirm my worldview.
    I hear ignoring people is censorship.

    ffs.
    IIRC if someone blocks you on Twitter you can't read their tweets anymore either.

    While I don't see the freedom of speech limited, I wonder if there isn't some rule about publications by the president being public by default. Maybe they're public domain even.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ars Technica
    The suit claims that Trump's Twitter feed is a public forum and an official voice of the president. Excluding people from reading or replying to his tweets—especially because they tweeted critical comments—amounts to a First Amendment breach, according to the lawsuit.

    "The @realDonaldTrump account is a kind of digital town hall in which the president and his aides use the tweet function to communicate news and information to the public, and members of the public use the reply function to respond to the president and his aides and exchange views with one another," according to the lawsuit (PDF) filed in New York federal court.
    Source: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-public-forum/

  5. #35405
    Donor Pattern's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    6,155
    Also, is there any difference (lawwise) between @potus and @realDonaldTrump? As one will belong to trump long after he's still president. Obama didn't even have a private account until a few weeks ago.

  6. #35406
    Smuggo's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Behind you
    Posts
    28,894
    Quote Originally Posted by Pattern View Post
    Also, is there any difference (lawwise) between @potus and @realDonaldTrump? As one will belong to trump long after he's still president. Obama didn't even have a private account until a few weeks ago.
    Well this is the problem when you blur the lines between the office and personal issues and a great example of why Trumpers is leading the most incompetent administration muricans have ever seen.



  7. #35407
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Sadness
    Posts
    11,565
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Frug View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ego Proxy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex Caine View Post
    Could people stop quoting Rak please? It's making blocking kind of pointless, and he's such a worthless little cunt I don't want to give his words the respect of being read.

    Thx.
    So just block people who quote Rak. Easy peasy.
    I, too, enjoy the slippery slope of censorship of anyone that refuses to confirm my worldview.
    I hear ignoring people is censorship.

    ffs.
    IIRC if someone blocks you on Twitter you can't read their tweets anymore either.

    While I don't see the freedom of speech limited, I wonder if there isn't some rule about publications by the president being public by default. Maybe they're public domain even.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ars Technica
    The suit claims that Trump's Twitter feed is a public forum and an official voice of the president. Excluding people from reading or replying to his tweets—especially because they tweeted critical comments—amounts to a First Amendment breach, according to the lawsuit.

    "The @realDonaldTrump account is a kind of digital town hall in which the president and his aides use the tweet function to communicate news and information to the public, and members of the public use the reply function to respond to the president and his aides and exchange views with one another," according to the lawsuit (PDF) filed in New York federal court.
    Source: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-public-forum/
    Poor argument. First, people retain freedom to respond in every other public medium, including their own twitter accounts, so their freedom of speech is not infringed.

    Second, individuals have no right to respond to the President in all means he uses to communicate. The idea is silly, akin to demanding that citizens be given radio time when FDR did his chats, TV time if the President has a televised speech, or access to the daily press briefings. No argument exists that denying Joe Q Citizen access to these possible response options amounts to limiting freedom of speech.

    With all that said, Trump should allow it on Twitter, but we all know hisultra sensitivity to slights and criticism will never allow it.


    "Nothing left to do, but smile, smile, smile......" Robert Hunter, "He's Gone"
    "...we looked very closely at the matter and concluded that unfortunately arseholes also get to benefit from democratic freedoms." Andreas Geisel, Interior Affairs Senator, Germany


  8. #35408
    Donor Pattern's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    6,155
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Pattern View Post
    Also, is there any difference (lawwise) between @potus and @realDonaldTrump? As one will belong to trump long after he's still president. Obama didn't even have a private account until a few weeks ago.
    Well this is the problem when you blur the lines between the office and personal issues and a great example of why Trumpers is leading the most incompetent administration muricans have ever seen.
    Nah.

    Unless you can migrate your followers (bots) efficiently, I don't see why you can't continue to use your personal account when president.

  9. #35409

    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    8,461
    Last edited by Don Rumata; July 12 2017 at 12:53:18 PM.

  10. #35410
    Smuggo's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Behind you
    Posts
    28,894
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Frug View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ego Proxy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex Caine View Post
    Could people stop quoting Rak please? It's making blocking kind of pointless, and he's such a worthless little cunt I don't want to give his words the respect of being read.

    Thx.
    So just block people who quote Rak. Easy peasy.
    I, too, enjoy the slippery slope of censorship of anyone that refuses to confirm my worldview.
    I hear ignoring people is censorship.

    ffs.
    IIRC if someone blocks you on Twitter you can't read their tweets anymore either.

    While I don't see the freedom of speech limited, I wonder if there isn't some rule about publications by the president being public by default. Maybe they're public domain even.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ars Technica
    The suit claims that Trump's Twitter feed is a public forum and an official voice of the president. Excluding people from reading or replying to his tweets—especially because they tweeted critical comments—amounts to a First Amendment breach, according to the lawsuit.

    "The @realDonaldTrump account is a kind of digital town hall in which the president and his aides use the tweet function to communicate news and information to the public, and members of the public use the reply function to respond to the president and his aides and exchange views with one another," according to the lawsuit (PDF) filed in New York federal court.
    Source: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-public-forum/
    Poor argument. First, people retain freedom to respond in every other public medium, including their own twitter accounts, so their freedom of speech is not infringed.

    Second, individuals have no right to respond to the President in all means he uses to communicate. The idea is silly, akin to demanding that citizens be given radio time when FDR did his chats, TV time if the President has a televised speech, or access to the daily press briefings. No argument exists that denying Joe Q Citizen access to these possible response options amounts to limiting freedom of speech.

    With all that said, Trump should allow it on Twitter, but we all know hisultra sensitivity to slights and criticism will never allow it.
    Your point would make sense if they had a blanket policy where no one is allowed to tweet reply. But, it is very selective in choose those tweets that criticise the President, which is very clearly censorship.



  11. #35411
    Smuggo's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Behind you
    Posts
    28,894
    Quote Originally Posted by Pattern View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Pattern View Post
    Also, is there any difference (lawwise) between @potus and @realDonaldTrump? As one will belong to trump long after he's still president. Obama didn't even have a private account until a few weeks ago.
    Well this is the problem when you blur the lines between the office and personal issues and a great example of why Trumpers is leading the most incompetent administration muricans have ever seen.
    Nah.

    Unless you can migrate your followers (bots) efficiently, I don't see why you can't continue to use your personal account when president.
    You can, in most cases it would probably be fine, but the orange one is not most cases. It would just be simpler to stick to using only the official POTUS account as Obama did.



  12. #35412

    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    8,461


    con·spir·a·cy
    /kənˈspirəsē/
    noun
    a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

  13. #35413
    Straight Hustlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 14, 2011
    Posts
    9,806
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    Your point would make sense if they had a blanket policy where no one is allowed to tweet reply. But, it is very selective in choose those tweets that criticise the President, which is very clearly censorship.
    Possibly; however there are precedents that would likely support him in the lawsuit. For example there are many cases of people being barred from giving comments or attending proceedings if they're behavior becomes a disruptive nuisance or a hindrance. This actually happened fairly recently in my town hall when environmental activists were escorted out of and barred from future meetings because of how disruptive they were.

  14. #35414
    Smuggo's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Behind you
    Posts
    28,894
    Quote Originally Posted by Straight Hustlin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    Your point would make sense if they had a blanket policy where no one is allowed to tweet reply. But, it is very selective in choose those tweets that criticise the President, which is very clearly censorship.
    Possibly; however there are precedents that would likely support him in the lawsuit. For example there are many cases of people being barred from giving comments or attending proceedings if they're behavior becomes a disruptive nuisance or a hindrance. This actually happened fairly recently in my town hall when environmental activists were escorted out of and barred from future meetings because of how disruptive they were.
    They can argue that sure... but it's up to a judge to decide.



  15. #35415

    Join Date
    August 18, 2014
    Posts
    155
    The big thing with the twitter censorship that doesn't seem to be clear over the last couple pages:

    If I get blocked by a twitter user (in this case the potus account, that was labeled as 'official' by the press secretary) I can no longer read the 'official' public announcements.

    This is the problem that will cause the plaintiffs to win; lawyers can argue all day about whether someone in the crowd has the right to come up and speak in the microphone during a political rally (the portion being discussed about my right to have everyone else subscribed read my responses).

  16. #35416
    Straight Hustlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 14, 2011
    Posts
    9,806
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Straight Hustlin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    Your point would make sense if they had a blanket policy where no one is allowed to tweet reply. But, it is very selective in choose those tweets that criticise the President, which is very clearly censorship.
    Possibly; however there are precedents that would likely support him in the lawsuit. For example there are many cases of people being barred from giving comments or attending proceedings if they're behavior becomes a disruptive nuisance or a hindrance. This actually happened fairly recently in my town hall when environmental activists were escorted out of and barred from future meetings because of how disruptive they were.
    They can argue that sure... but it's up to a judge to decide.
    Eh not quite. Its for the moderator of the discussion to decide; It is up to a judge to decide in a legal challenge, whether or not your ejection constitutes a infringement of your right to free speech; and in these sorts of cases it is generally not so because you have other avenues in which to exercise your right; be it writing a letter or an email or contacting them telephone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ego Proxy View Post
    The big thing with the twitter censorship that doesn't seem to be clear over the last couple pages:

    If I get blocked by a twitter user (in this case the potus account, that was labeled as 'official' by the press secretary) I can no longer read the 'official' public announcements.

    This is the problem that will cause the plaintiffs to win; lawyers can argue all day about whether someone in the crowd has the right to come up and speak in the microphone during a political rally (the portion being discussed about my right to have everyone else subscribed read my responses).
    Ah this is a good point; I had thought he was merely preventing them from commenting. Is such a thing even possible [on twitter]?

  17. #35417
    Smuggo's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Behind you
    Posts
    28,894
    Quote Originally Posted by Straight Hustlin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Straight Hustlin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    Your point would make sense if they had a blanket policy where no one is allowed to tweet reply. But, it is very selective in choose those tweets that criticise the President, which is very clearly censorship.
    Possibly; however there are precedents that would likely support him in the lawsuit. For example there are many cases of people being barred from giving comments or attending proceedings if they're behavior becomes a disruptive nuisance or a hindrance. This actually happened fairly recently in my town hall when environmental activists were escorted out of and barred from future meetings because of how disruptive they were.
    They can argue that sure... but it's up to a judge to decide.
    Eh not quite. Its for the moderator of the discussion to decide; It is up to a judge to decide in a legal challenge, whether or not your ejection constitutes a infringement of your right to free speech; and in these sorts of cases it is generally not so because you have other avenues in which to exercise your right; be it writing a letter or an email or contacting them telephone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ego Proxy View Post
    The big thing with the twitter censorship that doesn't seem to be clear over the last couple pages:

    If I get blocked by a twitter user (in this case the potus account, that was labeled as 'official' by the press secretary) I can no longer read the 'official' public announcements.

    This is the problem that will cause the plaintiffs to win; lawyers can argue all day about whether someone in the crowd has the right to come up and speak in the microphone during a political rally (the portion being discussed about my right to have everyone else subscribed read my responses).
    Ah this is a good point; I had thought he was merely preventing them from commenting. Is such a thing even possible [on twitter]?
    Yeah it is legally a grey area perhaps, but there is no moderator on twitter. It is an open and public discussion area and the President's twitter account that he releases official comms on, which Spicer has said that account is, effectively therefore belongs to the nation, not the individual in office, and therefore it is not appropriate to block people unless it's clearly disruptive/racist/etc... He could have avoided such problems by using the POTUS account.



  18. #35418
    Lana Torrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Location
    Bonding around
    Posts
    17,806
    Quote Originally Posted by Pattern View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Pattern View Post
    Also, is there any difference (lawwise) between @potus and @realDonaldTrump? As one will belong to trump long after he's still president. Obama didn't even have a private account until a few weeks ago.
    Well this is the problem when you blur the lines between the office and personal issues and a great example of why Trumpers is leading the most incompetent administration muricans have ever seen.
    Nah.

    Unless you can migrate your followers (bots) efficiently, I don't see why you can't continue to use your personal account when president.
    Same reason it's not a good idea to use your personal phone for work.. You can totally do it, but you cant get shitty and turn the thing off when work is trying to call you at 2am on your personal number (because you refused to take theirs).

    He has basically refused to use @potus, so hes decuded to use his own number as his work number and is now getting shitty about it.
    Quote Originally Posted by lubica
    And her name was Limul Azgoden, a lowly peasant girl.

  19. #35419
    Rakshasa The Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 18, 2011
    Location
    Only one here to predict a win for God Emperor
    Posts
    12,430
    Quote Originally Posted by Don Rumata View Post
    In Soviet Russia democrats try to find russian spies colluding with Trump, in FreedomLand America patriots tried to find russian spies colluding with Clinton.

    Amazing how different the storys turn out depending on which side you are on.
    Are you an engineer? -- Quack

  20. #35420
    Approaching Walrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 8, 2013
    Location
    MAKE AMERICA WHOOP AGAIN
    Posts
    6,212
    Obligatory reminder that the Democrats colluded with the Russians too.

    Like Clinton selling the Russians a fuckton of Uranium https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...m-company.html

    Or Obama promising to go easy on Russia after the election http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nu...82P0JI20120326

    Turns out no one gives a shit about wheat farmers in eastern europe squabbling.

    It's almost like muh russian collusions is a smokescreen to cover up the fact that the leaked emails revealed the Democratic party to be completely corrupt.

    You know what will get revealed in time by these investigations? That Trump laundered money for some Russian oligarchs through real estate deals.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •