1. Hi there, Guest

    Only registered users can really experience what DLP has to offer. Many forums are only accessible if you have an account. Why don't you register?
    Dismiss Notice

Social Media and the First Amendment

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Agayek, Jun 20, 2017.

  1. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New England
    High Score:
    2810
    What the fuck is "viewpoint discrimination"?
     
  2. Agayek

    Agayek Prisoner DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    2,922
    Yet another in the long line of arbitrary things you can be discriminated against for, and thereby must be protected from.
     
  3. Sesc

    Sesc Slytherin at Heart Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2007
    Messages:
    5,524
    Location:
    Witch Mountain, Germany
    Presumably what I linked earlier:
    See also here.

    To my understanding, that viewpoint exclusion (or rather, its unlawfulness) was already well established, so the case hinged on whether Trump's tweets -- and especially the thread any tweet creates, where users respond -- constituted the same kind of public forum. Trump won't know this, but you'd assume his lawyers do. Which was why Spicey coming out back then and saying that Trump's tweets are, in fact, official WH stuff, was decidedly unhelpful.

    Also @Arthellion , as you see, it's got nothing to do with the medium; all electronic media can be official gov outlets. The question is whether @realDonaldTrump in particular is.


    Edit: @Agayek , I'm as common-sense as everyone (which is to say, what goes on at your colleges etc. makes me really confused), but in this case I don't think it's fair. Consider: It originally comes from a Town Hall setting, where politicians engage their constituency. If they could decide to kick out all people with opinions they dislike, and just do a hug-fest with their base, then how would the others ever be able to make their opinions heard?

    It's actually, quite literally, an anti-safe space policy, because it prevents politicians from creating one -- for themselves.
     
  4. Arthellion

    Arthellion Supreme Mugwump

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    1,754
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    0
    Welp.

    We’re screwed.
     
  5. Agayek

    Agayek Prisoner DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    2,922
    I don't actually mind it as a concept, I'm just so weary of the Oppression Olympics that the very word "discrimination" triggers a nearly violent dislike. 'sall there is to it really.
     
  6. Chengar Qordath

    Chengar Qordath The Final Pony Prestige

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,093
    High Score:
    1,802
    Town hall meetings do have rules governing them, though usually it's more along the lines of not being outright disruptive. People do get thrown out of Town hall meetings when they try something like constantly shouting obscenities and insults whenever the politician tries to speak. I suspect that's likely to be one of the lines of attack Trump's lawyers use though; that they're not banning/blocking people for disagreeing, but because they're being so disruptive about it that it interferes with the tweet's function while adding nothing of value.

    Though I imagine the other side will be able to present plenty of examples of people getting banned/blocked without being nearly so disruptive at that, especially since a Twitter thread is a lot harder to disrupt than a town meeting. Frex, if someone did nothing but spam "Fuck Trump!" hundreds of times in the comments, you could probably justify a ban/block on them. If it's just offering a differing opinion in a reasonably civil manner...
     
Loading...