[1A] The Free Speech Thread

[2A_Tom]

Reposted from 1 killed 9 wounded,

So a local FOP lodge started a GoFundMe page for Sgt. O'neill to help with his court costs (?). G.F.M. cancelled his drive because they have say he committed a hate crime. I do not know the details, or all of the facts. Just what I read. Here is the post from the F.O.P.'s FB page.

URGENT: Anti-police activists have successfully pressured GoFundMe to CANCEL our fundraiser to help defend Sgt. O'Neill. After we raised more than $5,000 in less than a day, GoFundMe terminated the campaign because they say Sgt. O'Neill committed a hate crime. It's shocking and it's wrong.

Here's the news release we just put out about this. In the meantime, we have a new fundraiser with Fundly, a company that isn't anti-police. https://fundly.com/defend-officer-ryan-o-neill

All GoFundMe donations are being refunded. Please donate to this new fundraiser now!

They have raised over $51,000 so far.

And according to the article linked above, mayor Pete isn't doing anything to help. Probably just the opposite.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

2d Cir. holds that the "interactive space" on Twitter created when a public official has a public account is a public forum, and that it violates the First Amendment for a public official to deny access to that "interactive space" based on user content.

Seems silly, since users can just log out to see the content anyway. This is a garbage decision.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6185912/Trump-Twitter-ca2-20190709.pdf

 

[actaeon277]

2d Cir. holds that the "interactive space" on Twitter created when a public official has a public account is a public forum, and that it violates the First Amendment for a public official to deny access to that "interactive space" based on user content.

Seems silly, since users can just log out to see the content anyway. This is a garbage decision.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6185912/Trump-Twitter-ca2-20190709.pdf

Well, there's a couple of the younger democrats that have done that.
Will they be held to the same rule?

 

[actaeon277]

Well, there's a couple of the younger democrats that have done that.
Will they be held to the same rule?

https://news.yahoo.com/aoc-sued-court-rules-trump-201242374.html
AOC to be sued after court rules Trump can't block people on Twitter






Victoria Gagliardo-Silver

,The Independent•July 09, 2019



_______________________________________________________________________________

In the "yahoo comments", someone makes the argument this doesn't apply to AOC, because she's only a representative (she actually says "Senator"), not the President.
What do you think?
I think if it applies to him, it applies to them also.
But.. I can see where it'd have to go back to court, and then what?


___________________________________________________________________________________

loren37 minutes agoThe President can NOT because Every Tweet is PUBLIC Record and must be Archived. A Senator is not.

 

[actaeon277]

Looks like the White House is sponsoring a "Social Media Summit", and Tim Pool is one of those invited.
Traditional media is upset, because they are not invited.
Of course, people are saying it's for the "far right" only.
Tim is NOT "far right".
But he's right of "insane left", so.. he's "far right" to them.



[video=youtube;xYUs7lM3fKE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYUs7lM3fKE[/video]

 

[actaeon277]

This guy makes the claim, due to ruling Twitter as a public forum, then Twitter should not be allowed to ban anyone, otherwise they are then violating people's 1st amendment rights.


[video=youtube;iuRpJKe2_P0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuRpJKe2_P0[/video]

 

[actaeon277]

So how can be a private business, and a pubic forum, all at the same time?

 

[KLB]

We are in new territory here. It is going to be interesting to see how things shake out in the future on this stuff.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

This will be overturned. The decision is dripping with misunderstanding

 

[KLB]

By the law, it probably should be, but at the root of the issue I have to agree with the ruling.

Overall Congress will have to step in at some point and put some rules around these sites.

 

[jamil]

2d Cir. holds that the "interactive space" on Twitter created when a public official has a public account is a public forum, and that it violates the First Amendment for a public official to deny access to that "interactive space" based on user content.

Seems silly, since users can just log out to see the content anyway. This is a garbage decision.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6185912/Trump-Twitter-ca2-20190709.pdf

Actually I don’t have a problem with that decision. This is a ruling concerning social media and the de facto public forum it’s become. Who gets to see what when logged out is only an arbitrary platform policy change away. I don’t get to see Facebook pages unless I’m logged in. It’s the only reason I have a facebook account. Twitter could easily change theirs.

Like it or not, social media has become a privately owned public space, which can be used to, I hate to use this word, “oppress” people. That makes it more complicated than a simplistic view of their company, their business. Because of this ruling, it might be harder to defend silencing an entire political party through selective banning on social media, which it appears is what’s happening. It sucks that social media has become so important that people can literally be oppressed by it. People get doxxed. People lose their jobs. People are incited to violence by it.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Here's the reasoning I saw from a lawyer:

Twitter lacks the features traditionally associated with public forums, which is why this panel and the district court below strains to discover this "interactive space" theory.

I'm skeptical about this interactive space business being a designated public forum because it leaps over the issue that Trump isn't in even primary control over how users can see and interact with that space.

That control lies more with Twitter itself and individual users.

How weak is this "interactive space" theory of Twitter as a public forum?

The entirety of the court's analysis on this pivotal issue is one paragraph, with one in-apposite citation.

But Perry Educ. Ass'n held that when a public entity on public property opens up that property for periodic use by the public it *still didn't create a public forum.*

Perry is simply inapposite here.

And that one paragraph lacking analysis is the whole ball game.

If Twitter automagically converts into a public forum when a public official uses it, then, axiomatically, the First Amendment is violated if the public official uses Twitter to impede speech he disagrees with.

So you would think that the panel would handle the issue of whether Twitter is actually a public forum with more care. But no.

There was another way out here, but the panel forecloses it too, holding that when a public official tweets it is always state action and never private action.

Essentially, Trump is never "off" on Twitter, even though this too bizarrely curtails his own rights.

This is one of those decisions that is going to come back to bite. People hated Trump enough that they just impaired Twitter usage by all public officials and public entities.

But, boy, they sure showed Trump!

.......

I want to come back to this public forum thing. Here is the entirety of the court's analysis.

But Perry Educ. Assn was about whether opening up space for communication *on public property* created a public forum. And even there on gov't property, the court said it did not.

Here, by contrast, we have Twitter, a private company, being converted into a public forum every time it is used by a public official.

The conclusion simply does not follow, and the court just runs right over the precedent because this is the conclusion it wishes to draw.

They quoted the precedent on their way to failing to apply it.

The nature of the property here is a private company, not public property.

And while Twitter is compatible with expressive activity SCOTUS just got through explaining in Manhattan Community Access Corp. that private entities that provide forums for speech do not become public forums.

Seeing a lot of libertarians cheer this decision, but, as a general matter, the involuntary conversion of private space into public space is something they should oppose!

The decision requires that, having used Twitter for any public purpose, public officials cannot make private use of Twitter again.

And while one would hope former public officials could regain a private space on Twitter once out of office, but that doesn't follow from the decision's reasoning either.

The public character of the "interactive space" exists independent of the public official.

It's very disappointing how unreasoned this decision is. These are important questions, and the opinion barely nods at them before thinking its preferred conclusion down and walking away.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Google Play Store Bans Gab App, Following In The Footsteps Of Apple

 

[actaeon277]

There is nothing more dangerous, than those that do things "for your own good".

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Cruz: ‘Top Gun’ Censorship for China Proves ‘Hollywood is Afraid to Stand Up for Free Speech’

 

[2A_Tom]

Free speech is a social construct.

 

[KLB]

Cruz: ‘Top Gun’ Censorship for China Proves ‘Hollywood is Afraid to Stand Up for Free Speech’

Why would this surprise anyone? They want to make $$$$. China is a HUGE market.

This is also not something the .gov should be getting involved in.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, and Tom Udall are Attempting to Amend the First Amendment and Increase Limitations on Free Speech, With the Exception of the Press

 

[actaeon277]

Well, F all of them.

 

[BugI02]

Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, and Tom Udall are Attempting to Amend the First Amendment and Increase Limitations on Free Speech, With the Exception of the Press

It probably won't, but this sort of **** should crystalize for people who they want appointing Ginsberg's successor or occupying the bully pulpit when attempts are made to pack the court or push this sort of self-serving ammendment

It also wouldn't surprise me if success in this area would embolden them to treat the 2nd the same way