SCOTUSblog's Best Trolling Of People Who Think Its Twitter Account Is The Supreme Court Itself

from the the-failures-of-autocomplete dept

Tue, Jul 1st 2014 3:03pm — Mike Masnick

We've written a few times about SCOTUSblog and the trouble it's been having getting a press pass for the Supreme Court due mainly to institutional jealousy from reporters at more mainstream publications -- who rarely do nearly as good a job covering the Supreme Court. However, for years, SCOTUSblog has faced a different issue: the fact that many people on Twitter quickly assume that the @SCOTUSblog account on Twitter is actually the Supreme Court itself, rather than a private news organization that covers the Supreme Court.

That can create some ridiculous situations, especially when lots of people have a rather passionate opinion about a particular Supreme Court ruling and (of course) rush to Twitter to vent their frustrations (or joy). Assuming you haven't been living under a rock, you may have heard about the Supreme Court's ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. That ruling hits on a whole variety of hot button issues likely to bring out very strong opinions: religion, health care, health insurance, women's rights, free speech, regulations on how companies can act, etc. And, not surprisingly, this lead a bunch of people to lash out at the SCOTUSblog Twitter account, without recognizing that it wasn't actually the Supreme Court itself. And, then, SCOTUSblog decided to play along, retweeting some of the crazy attacks and responding to them in a hilarious, trolling fashion. Here are just a few of the best ones:

Um…… -Amy. RT @VictoriaaC0418: Hey @SCOTUSblog … Thanks for treating women like second class citizens.
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014

Noted. -Scalia MT @ypiddle: @SCOTUSblog You sided with the crazies. Good job!! Tell your boys to keep their thingies in their pants.
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014

When you start reading our description. MT @ProgressivesWin: @SCOTUSblog When will you start honoring the constitution. #5OldBigots
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014

File a petition MT @yenisargueta: Thanks for not giving me the choice to my own body @SCOTUSblog Can I get carrots banned cause I want to?
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014

Whoa, “uninformed”? MT @Nicole_Cameron: Wow. @SCOTUSblog what a way to wake up in 1950s. Giving healthcare to the uninformed, the prejudiced
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014

Or eating the cheap Kung Pao Chicken MT @NYCPainter1: Of all the bad decisions @SCOTUSblog made the last few years, #HobbyLobby is the worst
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014

Lost our copy, apologies. MT @opinali: @SCOTUSblog today you have f@cked up real hard. Go read the f@cking First Amendment again, OK?
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014

Seriously people, read MT @Devilsmirk: Does anyone actually read how @SCOTUSblog comes to their decisions? Read the actual ruling.
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014

Come at us, bro MT @mazurslovedogs: @SCOTUSblog manages to screw up or endanger everyone’s life. Maybe someone needs to discuss impeachment!
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014

Needed a place to put it MT @TheResPublicaBK: Today is the day @SCOTUSblog allowed religion to be above the law. Congratulations
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014

We prefer them as our editor & manager. RT @Allout1 I guess @SCOTUSblog wants women barefoot, pregnant and cooking dinner.
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014

Or when bloggers decide the law? MT @alyssaanton: @SCOTUSblog proves democracy cannot work when leaders are appointed instead of elected.
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) July 1, 2014

Thurs. No, wait—Fri MT @Closetrighty: @SCOTUSblog can you at least tell me when your agents will confiscating my gf’s birth control.
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) July 1, 2014

Really? Let’s let twitter decide. Ok? MT @The_Itch: @SCOTUSblog How do I become a justice? Pretty sure I’m smarter than 5 of you.
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) July 1, 2014

#2: read a twitter bio RT @bradleytroth: @SCOTUSblog things a real person can do a corporation can’t: adopt a child.
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) July 1, 2014

Affirmed: holy cows now protected MT @crashandcarry @SCOTUSblog, holy cow did you men mess up. Shame on u!
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) July 1, 2014

And then, of course, some of those same (and different) angry people started to notice the mocking tweets from the blog. And rather than recognizing their own mistakes... they doubled down, screaming about how crazy it is that the Supreme Court would tweet that way to people, leading to yet another layer of hilarity:

The passive aggressive way @SCOTUSblog is answering right now is horrible considering the position they just put women in. Not okay.
— Dumb of the Day (@WollyWollenberg) June 30, 2014

Drops mic. RT @sayyeslena: Have y’all seen what @SCOTUSblog is tweeting? #MyGovernmentIsBeingPassiveAggressive #Awkward
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014

You have no idea MT @ZwielichtFunkel: I’d have thought that @SCOTUSblog is a parody account. Is douchebaggery by government accounts normal?
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014

Beat heads on desks RT @USUfacts: @MattAHorton @SCOTUSblog pretty sure it’s their blog as run by their clerks. check your facts.
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014

Sry MT @calph7: Hilarious that @SCOTUSblog is mocking lay persons’ opinions. They don’t care, they’re their own branch of gov’t!
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014

FTW RT @tory_dube @SCOTUSblog decisions upset so many people & all they are doing on twitter is mocking those people. That’s just disturbing
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) July 1, 2014

Now let’s watch you try MT @noahtron watching @SCOTUSblog spin trying to cover their asses after today’s ruling is unrepentant visible smarm
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) July 1, 2014

And… scene. Goodnight MT @seanmcdh: was the @SCOTUSblog account hijacked by an angry 14 year old male? wow! So much for ”…by the people.“
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) July 1, 2014

No -Ginsburg RT @notsalome shouldn’t @SCOTUSblog sign its tweets with the justice’s name who wrote the tweet?? #tcot
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) July 1, 2014

Life in the Twitterverse can get a little wacky sometimes, it seems. Frankly, it seems that the Supreme Court should figure out a way to give SCOTUSblog a press pass just as an apology for having to deal with all of those angry tweets...

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: confusion, scotusblog, supreme court, trolling
Companies: hobby lobby, twitter

32 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

beltorak (profile), 1 Jul 2014 @ 3:18pm

> Frankly, it seems that the Supreme Court should figure out a way to give SCOTUSblog a press pass just as an apology for having to deal with all of those angry tweets...

It's more likely @SCOTUSBlog will now get sued for trademark infringement, since clearly there is a lot of confusion over who is behind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 2 Jul 2014 @ 6:15am
  
  Re:
  Twitter users replying to the wrong account and unable to read a bio is the best definition of morons in a hurry that I can imagine.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spaceman Spiff (profile), 1 Jul 2014 @ 3:29pm

Who is what's behind?
"who is behind"? Well, we know that SCOTUS is a bunch of behinds... :rolleyes:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2014 @ 3:37pm

Calling all mathematicians
Is there some formula or law that references density in relation to a bell curve of Twitter users that follow SCOTUSblog?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2014 @ 3:39pm

Prime example
Of shooting the messenger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trevor, 1 Jul 2014 @ 3:44pm

These people vote.

On issues that effect more than just themselves.

Seriously,

THESE PEOPLE VOTE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous, 1 Jul 2014 @ 3:57pm
  
  Re:
  And notice how most of these crazy comments seem to come from the liberal end of the spectrum.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jay (profile), 1 Jul 2014 @ 3:59pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Not worth much.
    
    I'm pretty sure that if SCOTUS was liberal, you'd get more people on the conservative side.
    
    Especially when they lost on Obamacare... Oh boy was that ever a cluster...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PRMan, 1 Jul 2014 @ 4:10pm
    
    Re: Re:
    That's just because the ruling is in favor of Hobby Lobby, a religious organization. If they were outlawing the teaching of scientific challenges to evolution (as UK recently did) I'm sure the comments would all be conservative.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2014 @ 11:10pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Hobby Lobby cannot be a religious organisation. It has religious people in charge, but that doesn't suddenly mean that Hobby Lobby has become a church. It means that Hobby Lobby is more interested in twisting the law in such a way as to receive all; the benefits of being a 'Religious organisation' with none of the responsibilities.
      
      Shameful.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2014 @ 3:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It has religious people in charge, but that doesn't suddenly mean that Hobby Lobby has become a church.
        
        Of course it's not a church, but I'm not sure why you think that matters. Heck, even a convent isn't a church.
        
        It means that Hobby Lobby is more interested in twisting the law in such a way as to receive all; the benefits of being a 'Religious organisation' with none of the responsibilities.
        
        Please note that the government did not contest that their beliefs were sincerely held. This is not a case of a corporation cynically claiming to hold beliefs for tactical reasons. I'm also not sure what you think the "responsibilities" of a religious organization are, but I don't think you'd change your opinion even if they held a church service every Sunday anyway.
        
        Would you prefer a world where any for-profit corporation must only pursue maximum profits and ignore any and all moral beliefs?
        
        Shameful.
        
        What's shameful is forcing people to violate their religious beliefs because you think 20 types of contraceptives should be free and someone objected to 4 of them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2014 @ 11:47pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Why isnt that unlawed for that matter? Evolution isnt a theory but scientifically proven, irrefutable fact.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Baron von Robber, 2 Jul 2014 @ 6:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        There are the facts of evolution that make it a theory. 'Guess' in the common use is akin to 'hypothesis' and not 'theory'.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2014 @ 7:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        A theory by definition is a hypothesis supported by facts without the being proven true or false. The problem with the previous comment isn't with the definition of theory. It's with the use of the word evolution as it can have two distinct meanings and his comment conflates the two. Yes, it is a fact that evolution - the process by which living things change to adapt to their environment - exists. However, evolution - the explanation for the entire history of life on the planet, is still a theory albeit a very strong one supported by many facts.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Rich, 2 Jul 2014 @ 7:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Theories do not "graduate" into facts. Theories are our best explanations for facts. Evolution is an observable fact. The Theory of Evolution is the explanation. It's the same with gravity.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous, 2 Jul 2014 @ 2:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Unlawed"? Don't believe I've heard that one before. Is that Newspeak or Nadsat?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2014 @ 9:28pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Last year it was the same deal after Prop.8.
    
    Idiocy doesn't draw party lanes.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2014 @ 11:34pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Which is sad because normaly it's the Inbred sisterfucking Whiskey-Tango West Virginia Republicans who provide the stupid arguments.
    
    A republican oftentimes either a poor-as-fuck trailer trash southerner, or a rich-as-fuck Corporate dictator.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2014 @ 3:52pm

The term "confusingly similar" springs to mind.

Is @TechdirtBlog still available?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brian Walsh, 1 Jul 2014 @ 3:57pm

Trademark infringement
Obviously didn't pass the moron in a hurry test.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2014 @ 4:07pm

Because the issue itself is funny
Just think of the lulz to be had by someone who shares the same name as the next serial rapist / killer to make the news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PRMan, 1 Jul 2014 @ 4:11pm

Hmm...
Probably not the best way to get a press pass...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Agonistes, 1 Jul 2014 @ 4:15pm

And I thought everyone said the Supremes were tech-unsavvy...Tweeting live while making history, what? yeahjklol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 1 Jul 2014 @ 4:15pm

Scary that these people vote, and more terrifying is that they think Twitter rage can change anything.
They can totally solve all of the worlds problems with an online petition, FB likes, or tweeting loud enough.

Perhaps that is the greatest trick that was ever pulled, we got them to sit at home and grump online rather than lift a finger and do anything in the real world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 1 Jul 2014 @ 4:42pm
  
  Re:
  > Scary that these people vote, and more
  > terrifying is that they think Twitter rage
  > can change anything. They can totally solve
  > all of the worlds problems with an online
  > petition, FB likes, or tweeting loud enough.
  
  Well, when you have the actual State Department responding to humanitarian crises and terror attacks with "hashtag diplomacy" instead of actual diplomacy, this is what you get.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2014 @ 4:49pm
  
  Re:
  Is grumping online about the world's problems any worse than grumping online about people grumping online?
  
  Is it better to be an idiot and vote than to be an idiot and not vote?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2014 @ 1:59am
  
  Re:
  Scary that these people vote...
  
  On November 7, 2016 SCOTUSblog could always just send a reminder that people can vote online by tweeting their choice for president to @YourOfficialPollingPlaceWeSwear.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
art guerrilla (profile), 1 Jul 2014 @ 5:46pm

*THAT* is twitter-speak ? ? ?
okay, i really haven't been missing anything...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joma (profile), 2 Jul 2014 @ 12:12am

Not worth much...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2014 @ 8:39am

Tom Cruise ditches Scientology to jon the Hobby Lobby Creation Center Church.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eldakka (profile), 2 Jul 2014 @ 5:36pm

Living under a rock...
Assuming you haven't been living under a rock,
Or that I'm not American so don't get US news outside of what I read on techdirt and similiar special interest news/blogs therefore don't really give a damn...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sacredjunk (profile), 2 Jul 2014 @ 8:19pm

Well, the first thing you read on the website scotusblog.com is "Supreme Court of the United Status Blog"

This doesn't really make it clear that it's a press blog
[ link to this | view in chronology ]