Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> Politicians demand censorship all the time, as is their right.

Sorry, but that just won't fly.

> A federal appeals court in Manhattan says President Trump cannot block critics from his Twitter account, calling it "unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination."

In a 29-page ruling on Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld a lower court's decision that found that Trump violated the First Amendment when he blocked certain Twitter users

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/09/739906562/u-s-appeals-court-r...

Trump may have wanted to silence criticism, but he didn't get away with it, even on his own personal account.



Blocking isn't censorship; it does not prevent you from speaking.

Blocking wasn't permissible because it restricted access by citizens to official announcements; it's like banning someone from coming to a town hall meeting or visiting Congress's website.


> Blocking isn't censorship

Trump was blocking those who replied to his comments with takes that were critical of himself or of his policies.

He was silencing critics.

It wasn't allowed.


That's not what the ruling said. Trumps actions weren't impermissible censorship, they were impermissible for other reasons. You can't just assume a court ruling was done for the reason you believe.


> Trumps actions weren't impermissible censorship, they were impermissible for other reasons.

They were impermissible as viewpoint-based censorship of a designated public forum in violation of the First Amendment, you are wrong that it was “for other reasons”.


>Trump may have wanted to silence criticism, but he didn't get away with it, even on his own personal account.

This is a misrepresentation of the facts. Trump was only using his "personal" twitter during his presidency so the court considered it his de-facto presidential account.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: