Today was the oral argument on the cross-motions for summary judgment in the @knightcolumbia lawsuit against Trump for blocking people on Twitter. Here's a first report —>https://twitter.com/AP_Politics/status/971835079973621761 …
I think the it suggests the more troubling part of this to the judge is being cut off from his presidential communications — and not the ability to respond.
-
-
Muted accounts' replies won't show up. By continuing to tweet from his personal account he fuzzes the issue but because that account is archived I don't think it's appropriate for him to mute-silence detractors.
-
Again, y'all are having a great discussion, but my point is simple: If the judge sees the only real issue being access to presidential communications, and NOT the responses/communications from private individuals, then muting could be an acceptable solution to the judge.
-
I'm not saying the judge is right or not; I'm just saying, that's how you could reach that conclusion.
-
Oh, yeah, I got that. I could even see how access would be the important factor to a judge but I'd disagree with that being the only factor that ought to be considerd given how he uses Twitter. I must admit I didn't read the actual argument. Maybe later :)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I thought govt could not make content-based distinctions between pamphlets or posters though: if anyone posted, all could. Seems better to require he block all posters.
-
Muting would not mean that people could not post.
-
But I don’t think anyone at all can see the response. I think the only site that muted me is Breitbart, which took all the fun out of posting gory stories of crimes committed by Bubba every time it posted a story of crime committed by brown people.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.