@Herr Durr I enjoyed reading your debate with @TonyG. In all of this there is one thing I didn't understand. It is when you said that you only need to understand if you had agreed with the basis of her decision. Don't you need to first understand it all in order to make a decision as to whether to agree or disagree?

 

It ultimately boils down to that. Thanks mate.

 

Isn't it common sense really?
regardless of whether or not the judge had any prejudice is irrelevant.
You have a 1st Amendment right. I suppose if that goes then maybe America can do the rest of the world a favour and lose the 2nd Amendment while you are at it. At least you wouldn;t have ten times the deaths by gun shootings than the entire remaining 95% of the world.
Hey why not take away freedom of the press and speech while you are it?!

FFS - If you do not have any laws to abide by that makes a country what?
- Lawless. America advanced since the vigilante days. Get rid of the 1st Amendment over a fricking twit site that twats use is one suggestion ???
-That might be possibly one of the worst decisions any judge could make. She may have been prejudiced which is only speculation because I doubt the people making that statement were there, but still, the judge upheld the 1st Amendment. Kudos to her.

 

Well, what do you know: Stephen King also got blocked...

 

.
this is the never ending media circus that keeps media corporations busy all day and thereby consume peoples daily amount of thinking energy, discussing "democracy issues". did he block people on twitter or did he not, was he right, was he not.

its just that, before twitter blocking..

the u.s is a plutocracy, a dictatorship of corporations.
the whole political process in the u.s is bought, at every single stage, from beginning to end by corporations.

and then, in case anything or anyone "unexpectedly" outside the control of the plutocracy would slip through, then they have a cute little detail called the "electoral vote" to filter out the last residuals of any democratic exercise. what you vote is simply overruled out by a team of plutocracy-dictatorship gate-keepers.

so in case you would want to elect any other than what you have been pre-programmed to vote for, they will not even see the light of day or be available on the "Election Day"

and that is the country pointing fingers around the globe telling other sovereign nations what "democracy" really is, what is "good enough" and is not "democracy", at gunpoint.

so twitter? really?..
in any case, these media corporations (twitter, fb etc) are outside any democratic oversight, when do you notice that? whenever there is a threat of the plutocracy status quo of. funny enough you can see how they today fight against a business tycoon, why? because he happens to have certain "ideas" of nationalistic sort besides the regular menu. when in a nation there flourishes any deeper kind of social or political conflict you start seeing the huge problems of having a social media infrastructure provided by corporations, your accounts start to suddenly be gone, what you subscribed to suddenly is not there anymore, etc etc. happens to tons of politicians and alternative voices already in the u.s but also in other countries.


.

 

Last edited: May 24, 2018

LOL
What I don't find fair though is that we should also be allowed to get nasty towards ''ordinary'' people and their family over political views as well and not get blocked. The block feature violates my right to free speech. I think the problem is with rules, choice and deciding what is best for each one of us, because in doing so, we might offend somebody. If it was free for all, or if at least, if no defensive measures whatsoever are possible, there might be less hard feelings and violations.
Twitter was trying hard to please everybody in those days, and it turns out you can only do that by not getting in the way of what someone wants to say to you, especially if you are a public figure, it is known, once you become a public figure, you lose all basic citizen rights, so that in the name of freedom and liberty your dissenters can say or threaten whatever they want to you or your family. It is well known, anything beneath that is a very serious breach of human rights. If you look it up, you will see that most other public figures and politicians fully accept this ''pillory'' and will gladly accept any vile comment, no matter how bad or threatening, because most of them now respect you like a child of God, and want that you never encounter opposition to your right to be whatever you want to be, where ever you feel like being and doing whatever you feel like doing.
It turns out society was trying to be too decent in those days, the basic standards we grew up with are very discriminatory.........

 

Too true....chump is your president and that is legal, but certainly not right or correct

 

This is such bullshit. Does that mean that, now, no one can block people on Twitter because of their political views? I myself had entered a long list of poilitically-pertinent keywords to keep posts containing them out of my Twitter feed, and I would block or un-follow people for political opinions, no matter what they were. I eventually quit Twitter because of all the so-called politics on it. I follow other musicians on Instagram, but either don't follow or un-follow them when their posts are political. In effect, everyone is potentially "trolling," on Twitter. If people on social media start giving me shit, unwarrantedly and unprovoked, for something I'd said (i.e., women coming out of nowhere to "mainsplain" something to me), I block their asses. Opinions and views aren't necessarily sacrosanct because they're what someone thinks or how they feel in regard to politics. "Freedom of speech" is so absurdly misinterpreted; hardly anyone appreciates it for what it really is. Twitter itself blocks tweets and bans accounts which aren't in line with its political penchants – so is Twitter itself to be held to this Federal Court ruling? If so, would that apply to YouTube? Are mean-spirited comments to be protected, without deletion or blocking, because they're "free speech?" YouTube and Twitter can block or ban people on anything remotely, by a far stretch of the imagination, considered "hate speech" – but the POTUS can't block someone, like he's just another schmoe. Because he is, ultimately: he signed-up for the same Terms of Service as anyone else.

 

Just in time for #SPYGATE nobody should be blocked from seeing this

 

Last edited: May 24, 2018

This issue, and all Trump related issues revolve around his attitude. It's the attitude of a sheltered ponk whose gone all his life running his mouth, and never had to face the average man in the general pop who would beat his ass for talkin that shit. Consequence or punishment is something that's never been real in his mind. He should spend the last of his days on a fucked up prison yard cause he's long overdue for a reality check.

 

I think, without reading the decision and just gleaming tidbits here and elsewhere, that since El Presidente has publicly stated that his Twitter account is being actually used as an official government policy forum, which in addition has supposedly been reiterated by certain staff members, that then because all their statements as such, blocking a person's posts would be blocking a person's right to be obnoxious or contrary and would so be limiting their access to the government in a public forum. Trump in my mind has caused the problem in the first place by being obtuse, spiteful, and although it has nothing whatsoever to do with the verdict handed out, being a jerk. Want to tweet about what you had for lunch, cool, but tweeting about using nuclear weapons against enemies of the State, not so cool and since he represents us all as he actually works for US the people as a whole, that in my mind crosses from a personal to an official statement because it is an "official" platform. I can paint myself blue and say that I am red, but I am still quite blue when shines the truth of sunlight on my naked and beautiful skin.

 

The judge said she isn't even going to bother trying to enforce it. It's literally nothing.

 

This decision would have no impact on individuals and their accounts. Ordinary citizens can block whoever they choose to and for whatever reason. This decision simply reaffirms that viewpoint discrimination in public forums plainly violates the First Amendment.
This case is about applying established First Amendment principles to emerging technologies. When the government creates a space for public discussion and debate, whether in a physical or virtual setting, it creates a public forum. The Constitution then bars the government from silencing those who question it and giving voice only to those who praise it.

 

Trump should change his picture to a turd splattered on a feminist fist, leave it up for a week, and then close the account. Then he should move to another platform so hopefully we can watch millions of people leave Twitter. Personally I'd find great joy in this.

Assuming he's allowed to close his Twitter account of course.

 

I plan to keep updating them on a regular basis. As to the "de minimis doctrine", I think you were referring to the "de minimis exception" in sound recordings. The de minimis doctrine, grew up under the Fair Labor Standards Act. When I have some free time, I will do it. When you create a thread members are going to reply, debate you,and so on. For that you need the time I don't freely have.

 

You are wrong. She does not need to. The rationale for her opting to not do so can be found @ pages 73-74 of her order. I already have quoted that portion but here it is again:

[W]e conclude that injunctive relief may be awarded in this case -- at minimum, against Scavino -- we decline to do so at this time because declaratory relief is likely to achieve the same purpose. The Supreme Court has directed that we should “assume it is substantially likely that the President and other executive . . . officials would abide by an authoritative interpretation of [a] . . . constitutional provision,” Franklin, 505 U.S. at 803 (plurality opinion); see Utah v. Evans, 536 U.S. at 464 (citing Franklin, 505 U.S. at 803 (plurality opinion)); see also Allco Fin. Ltd. v. Klee, 861 F.3d 82, 96 (2d Cir. 2017); Made in the USA, 242 F.3d at 1310; Swan, 100 F.3d at 980; L.A. Cty. BarAss’n v. Eu, 979 F.2d 697, 701 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Were this court to issue the requested declaration, we must assume that it is substantially likely that [government officials] . . . would abide by our authoritative determination.”), and there is simply no reason to depart from this assumption at this time. Declaratory judgment is appropriate under the factors that the Second Circuit directs us to consider, see Dow Jones & Co. v. Harrods Ltd., 346 F.3d 357, 359-60 (2d Cir. 2003), and a declaration will therefore issue: the blocking of the individual plaintiffs from the @realDonaldTrump account because of their expressed political views violates the First Amendment. (emphasis added) Id.

 

@Herr Durr Yeah I saw that. Crazy. She got so mad she took a shit. hahaha

 

This is kind of extreme: She's obviously somewhat deranged, nobody in his right mind would do such a thing... well, at least this is unheard of.

 

Good evening Ladies, some nice reading earlier on @Herr Durr, just a thought but didn't someone @Von_Steyr ? get some grieff some months ago about having a political thread on a music site?

Not that I give a toss about having a political thread on a music site, just that the lack of continuity seems a bit odd........maybe the thread nudged my faded jaded..