Twitter is suing the US Government for trying to identify user behind anti-Trump account

[wiyosaya]

No one is surprised. Moreover, companies don't need to be neutral at all. People are merely calling out Twitter for saying they stand for one thing and then doing the opposite when it fits their politics.

I think what you really mean to say is that people are calling out twitter for following the law. So twitter should not follow the law? They should leave accounts that post things that fall within the bounds of illegal and unprotected speech as defined by the US Constitution, US Laws, and SCOTUS decisions?

Ethics my friend!

 

[wiyosaya]

If they want to be seen as a platform where people can excise their Free Speech, then yes, they do need to be neutral.

Like I said in a previous post to this thread, FREE SPEECH, as defined by the US Constitution, US Laws and affirmed by SCOTUS decisions, does not include saying anything and everything you please.

 

[wiyosaya]

You can bet your bottom dollar that if this account were a rogue federal employee adamantly against an Obama-era policy under that administration, Twitter would giftwrap the credentials.

How quickly some forget that the same companies, such as twitter, fought those national security letters issued by 43 and 44. I don't think you are playing a leftist card, more like the Joker in a card game that does not include them. Giving this kind of info to any administration regardless of politics is not justified. We know you did not like Obama, but get over it, and quit blaming these companies for protecting LEGAL free speech.

 

[ScubaRhys]

The govt withdrew the summons - and twitter dropped the lawsuit - http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/comp...suit-filed-over-anti-trump-account/ar-BBzxqoz

My bet is that if it was the Obama administration, they never would have issued the summons in the first place because they would have recognized free speech rights. Humpty and the current admin think they are Gods and that everyone shudders before them.
Absolutely - this IS First Amendment Rights and an overbearing administration thinking that everyone besides them is stupid and will just roll over and play dead even when they play a card that is not even in the deck.


And of course, twitter should just fall over to a bullsh!t summons. Right. Praise the lord God Humpty!

Any comparison between Milo's ponderings and this account is an egregious malapropism.

You appear to fail to have grasped my point. I'm not saying Twitter should "fall over to a summons". I'm saying when they ban commentators like Milo they are acting like hypocrites. Milo is a perfectly legitimate commentator and Twitter banned him because they didn't like the the things he said, so in the Twitter-verse there is no such thing as freedom of speech, this is no surprise or anything new. But for Twitter to turn around and defend another commentator, who acts fundamentally in the opposite vein, albeit with less credibility than Milo with the first amendment is transparent and as I said before hypocritical.

It's not a difficult point to grasp...

 

[Makson]

The greatest joke of all time.
The true meaning of the 'government' is the citizens, they are the 'government' and a government can not be sued because a government (citizens) is the foundation on which the laws of the country are built, the officers who police the laws and the judiciary who decide the punishment are Public Servants and Politicians are Public Servants, elected to serve the citizens who vote for them.
Donald Trump is the head servant of the citizens, for the citizens, 24/7.
Simply put, the owners of Twitter are threatening to sue the 'citizens' .... they should study politics instead.

 

[davislane1]

You appear to fail to have grasped my point. I'm not saying Twitter should "fall over to a summons". I'm saying when they ban commentators like Milo they are acting like hypocrites. Milo is a perfectly legitimate commentator and Twitter banned him because they didn't like the the things he said, so in the Twitter-verse there is no such thing as freedom of speech, this is no surprise or anything new. But for Twitter to turn around and defend another commentator, who acts fundamentally in the opposite vein, albeit with less credibility than Milo with the first amendment is transparent and as I said before hypocritical.

It's not a difficult point to grasp...

Pro Tip: Do not engage wiyosaya on political matters. No matter what evidence you provide, no matter how consistent and rational your argument, he's going to default to erecting armies of straw men and telling you that he sees it differently (and that you're obviously wrong). Waste of time and forum space.

 

[davislane1]

Simply put, the owners of Twitter are threatening to sue the 'citizens' .... they should study politics instead.

They did and they figured out that no nobody cares.

 

[JudasSheep]

One thing no one has pointed out, is that it is against government policy that while an employee you are not supposed to be associated with anything anti-government. More than likely that since this account claims to be part of the gov, that they are tying to find the person responsible and remove them. It isn't just about who is in office (they are the ones doing it) but it has been a long standing rule that Gov employees are to keep political and religious opinions to themselves if what they are wanting to say is against the Gov. It is no different than a solider protesting a war and saying how bad the military is because of X action in X place. That solider is breaking an article of the UCMJ (uniform code of military justice). Civilian employees have the same "rule" (in the military its a military law) when they take a government position and going against it is grounds for termination.

 

[davislane1]

One thing no one has pointed out, is that it is against government policy that while an employee you are not supposed to be associated with anything anti-government. More than likely that since this account claims to be part of the gov, that they are tying to find the person responsible and remove them. It isn't just about who is in office (they are the ones doing it) but it has been a long standing rule that Gov employees are to keep political and religious opinions to themselves if what they are wanting to say is against the Gov. It is no different than a solider protesting a war and saying how bad the military is because of X action in X place. That solider is breaking an article of the UCMJ (uniform code of military justice). Civilian employees have the same "rule" (in the military its a military law) when they take a government position and going against it is grounds for termination.

Yes. As a matter of fact, any employee of any company in this country would be fired for publicly opposing corporate on social media. Yet, here we have Twitter saying, "we have to protect this person's free speech." If this same person came out and opposed a left wing cause (refugees, for example), there would be no protection and their response to user outrage would be, "We understand that complying with this order is a sensitive issue for our users, but we remain dedicated to blah blah blah."

 

[JudasSheep]

The thing with this rule in the government is that if you do not remove the person you set a president that others can say whatever they want about the gov while being an employee regardless of how harmful it may be. Just like in the Mil, this causes dissension and can undermine the authority. That is a big deal. Twitter has every right to, at first glance protect the user however, if they looked at it from the Gov's side as if it were themselves, then they would more than likely hand it over without issue. Free speech has a limit when a civilian employee or service member or even Gov contractor, you are supposed to know that when you take the job. I believe that regardless of the administration. One of those.... Things you just don't do.

 

[ScubaRhys]

Pro Tip: Do not engage wiyosaya on political matters. No matter what evidence you provide, no matter how consistent and rational your argument, he's going to default to erecting armies of straw men and telling you that he sees it differently (and that you're obviously wrong). Waste of time and forum space.

Lol, so what you're saying is that I got trolled...

 

[Raoul Duke]

"@ALT_uscis is believed to be run by a rouge member of the US Citizenship and Immigration Services. "
If the user is 'rouge' they ought to be easy to identify as I think they would stand out quite a bit
If the user is rogue it will be much harder.

 

[davislane1]

Lol, so what you're saying is that I got trolled...

By a master.

 

[lostinlodos]

"...it seems the microblogging site isn’t a fan of his administration."
-- Techspot's just finding this out? Twitter, as a company, absolutely hates Trump and anything/anyone that's not hard left progressive.

"...it seems the microblogging site isn’t a fan of his administration."
-- Techspot's just finding this out? Twitter, as a company, absolutely hates Trump and anything/anyone that's not hard left progressive.

I wish the right would stop calling progressives liberals and the left.
Progressives hijacked the Democratic Party, destroyed any liberal movement within it, and squashed the left.
Progressives are communists masquerading as socialists.
Period

 

[Tanstar]

Like I said in a previous post to this thread, FREE SPEECH, as defined by the US Constitution, US Laws and affirmed by SCOTUS decisions, does not include saying anything and everything you please.

My post was quoting a post that said Twitter doesn't have to be neutral. However, if you are going to claim you are a venue for "Free Speech" then you do have to be neutral.. Neither "Free Speech" nor neutral means you let people posts insults, personal attacks and such, but you do have to let both sides speak. Otherwise you have no ground to stand on when it comes to "Free Speech".

 

[Tanstar]

Yes. As a matter of fact, any employee of any company in this country would be fired for publicly opposing corporate on social media. Yet, here we have Twitter saying, "we have to protect this person's free speech." If this same person came out and opposed a left wing cause (refugees, for example), there would be no protection and their response to user outrage would be, "We understand that complying with this order is a sensitive issue for our users, but we remain dedicated to blah blah blah."

I don't see how that makes it legal for "any company in this country" to demand that Twitter reveal a user's real name. Until the corporations are openly acknowledged as being our actual government, they don't get to issue demands for this kind of data. The U.S. government has no more right to do so UNLESS A LAW HAS BEEN BROKEN. Breaking your employer's rules is grounds for termination but IS NOT breaking the law. Again, if they were posting State secrets to Twitter, or actually underming the joib (by telling illegals when Immigration would be searching an area, for instance) there would be a case. They are not, so the government is overreaching.