Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Apologizes And Unblocks Critic Who Sued Her
from the a-step-in-the-right-direction dept
Right after Donald Trump lost the case against him for blocking people on Twitter, we noted that Dov Hikind, a critic of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez launched a similar lawsuit against her for blocking him. Again -- because it's important to repeat -- the court rulings in the Trump case made it clear that politicians who used Twitter for part of their job representing the public could not block people, as that's a violation of the 1st Amendment. The specific criteria laid out by the courts were that (1) if you're a public official, and (2) using social media (3) for official purposes (4) to create a space of open dialogue, then you cannot block people from following you based on the views they express.
It appeared that the @AOC account met all of the criteria, and therefore should not be able to block critics for expressing their dislike of her stances or policies. Ocasio-Cortez, on her part, stood by her right to block people by claiming that she only blocked 20 people, none were constituents, and that they were only blocked for harassment which, she argued, was "not a viewpoint" (i.e., this wasn't viewpoint discrimination). Either way, just as the Hikind case was about to go to trial, Ocasio-Cortez has settled the case, admitted she was wrong to block Hikind and apologized:
“Mr. Hikind has a First Amendment right to express his views and should not be blocked for them,” the Queens-Bronx congresswoman said. “In retrospect, it was wrong and improper and does not reflect the values I cherish. I sincerely apologize for blocking Mr. Hikind.”
The Knight 1st Amendment Institute, which had brought the lawsuit against Trump and had sent Ocasio-Cortez a letter arguing that she was incorrect to block people with her account, announced that they were happy with this result. According to their Senior Staff Attorney, Katie Fallow:
“We applaud Rep. Ocasio-Cortez for recognizing that she was wrong to block critics from her Twitter account. As the courts have affirmed, when public officials use their social media accounts to carry out official duties, they create a public forum and can’t prevent people from participating simply because they don’t like what they’re saying. We hope that other public officials who are blocking critics from their social media accounts take Ocasio-Cortez’s lead.”
That said, while this case was settled and Ocasio-Cortez admitted to being wrong, she still seems to be standing by the idea that she can block some users:
“I reserve the right to block users who engage in actual harassment or exploit my personal/campaign account, @AOC, for commercial or other improper purposes,” she said.
There might be cases where it would not be a 1st Amendment violation to block users, but the details would matter quite a bit -- and the argument that harassment, by itself, would constitute a reason for blocking seems iffy, at best. Same with "exploit[ing]" her account "for commercial or other improper purposes." It will be interesting to see if other such cases are brought, or if the @AOC account choose to block others in the future.
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: 1st amendment, alexandria ocasio-cortez, aoc, blocking, dov hikind, free speech, public spaces, social media
Companies: twitter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Given that she was the one who needed this type of free speech when she was the outsider, it's now consistent with that that she's letting the public debate. It's basically a town hall when politicians use twitter. If they block people, that can cut off a vital part of the discussion.
This also applies to websites who sponsors are related to the discussions, or reviewed. "We ban all negative reviews" shows the problem. If they have a right to do so, customers have a right to believe that censorship makes whatever they read something they cannot trust.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
all americans are congressional constituents
this was not like a mayor or governor blocking someone from out of state
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So this is okay to force a platform to host speech it doesn't want to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Twitter could still block them. AOC isn't the platform.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
So this is okay to force a platform to host speech it doesn't want to.
That's not what this is at all. This is about a politician, a public official, creating a limited purpose open forum. As such, the 1st Amendment bars them from engaging in any viewpoint discrimination. As the courts have found, that means that politicians cannot block people from their own open forums (designated as the space beneath their social media posts).
It has literally nothing to do with private platforms being forced to host speech.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Is twitter for members only?
If it is a private club, like Facebook, she should be able to block whoever she wants.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
What scares you about my speech that you are trying to block me from posting?
Facebook is a publicly owned, private, members only club.
It is open to the public the exact same way a private golf course is open to the public.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"So this is okay to force a platform to host speech it doesn't want to."
Nobody's forcing the platform to host anything. This is a dispute between a politician and a private citizen, the owner of the property on which they had the dispute is irrelevant, as it should be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
"What scares you about my speech that you are trying to block me from posting?"
He says, having posted twice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Muting vs. Blocking...
I also wonder about the distinction between blocking (i.e., removed from followers and/or unable to tag @aoc in tweets) and muting (he can post whatever he wants, but AOC filters them out of her feed). First amendment grants free speech but doesn't require people to actually listen. Otherwise protests at the capitol would be handled quite differently from the way they are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
'No one can hear you on my page' vs 'Only I can't hear you.'
As I remember that distinction came up during the lawsuit regarding Trump over blocking people on social media, with the note that while blocking isn't allowed due to him being a member of the government muting would be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The real kicker of course is that if they're getting caught in the spam filter and that's delaying the posting(which assumes that there even is a delay and they're not just lying yet again) the very people they are accusing of trying to 'block' them are the ones clearing their comments and allowing them to be posted.
The very fact that their posts are making it through disproves their assertions, which is just a delightful own-goal, but I suppose they've been showing how dishonest and/or foolish they are for years at this point so why stop now?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: 'No one can hear you on my page' vs 'Only I can't hear you.'
"blocking isn't allowed due to him being a member of the government"
It's always worth clarifying - the issue with Trump was not that he was a member of government. The problem was that he started using his personal Twitter account as a means to announce policy and communicate government business. Blocking people there then means that they are unable to read official public government communications, and they are unable to air grievances in return.
If he had kept to the official @POTUS for government business and carried out his childish tweet rants on his own account, there may not have been a problem. But, once the White House confirmed that the personal account was considered an official channel, it has to be treated the same as any other - which means no blocking people because you disagree with them politically.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Facebook is a publicly owned, private, members only club.
It is open to the public the exact same way a private golf course is open to the public."
I'm not entirely sure exactly what it is you are attempting to communicate here, perhaps if you were to elucidate your concern(s) and make your point(s) in a clear and concise manner.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Muting vs. Blocking...
"First amendment grants free speech but doesn't require people to actually listen."
Or - more correctly,
1st amendment blocks the government from interfering with free speech, (it grants nothing).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It ain't private if you can waltz right on in without an invitation. And you can do that on Facebook. Get a better argument, Blue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Apart from Facebook not being publicly owned, private, members only or a club good effort.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: 'No one can hear you on my page' vs 'Only I can't hear y
Maybe, if he'd kept his childish tweet rants to topics like Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson. But a significant number of those rants concern the presidency, Congress, and other governmental affairs, so I think the court would have determined that the account is used for official government business even if the White House hadn't said as much.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
What? Large parts of Facebook are only available to members, and membership requires adherance to a large set of rules, but this case was about Twitter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
You're free to have an opinion about what she should be able to do, but the law says she can't (while operating the account in her capacity as a public official).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The real story here is that she APOLOGIZED
One of the key traits of a good leader is being able to admit when they are wrong. Why is that so hard for our leaders to do today?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Trump vs AOC
So she apologized and unblocked the people. Did Trump? Following his case I can more easily imagine him just unblocking the people but never saying sorry and unblocking. This is probably because the pact he made with the devil has a clause that says if he ever admits he's wrong he'll be dragged to hell.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike is still upset that AOC was mean to one of his bosses, I assume?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
So does Twitter, but that doesn't make it a private service. If you have two services - Yellow and Purple, let's say - and both let you generally see some of what's on the service, but Yellow lets you sign up with little issue and Purple requires an invitation from someone on the service or approval from the owner, why would you ever think Yellow is private?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Commercial speech
Imagine what would happen if someone were to stand up in the middle of a town meeting -- or the gallery overlooking the Senate -- and start shouting an advertisement for genital enlargement.
They would be escorted out and not allowed back in so long as they insisted on shouting their ads. AOC absolutely could do the same with her social media accounts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Commercial speech
That wouldn't be completely analogous either, as you don't hit "block" on a scurillious spammy post in your feed, you hit "report as spam" instead as simply blocking a spammer leaves the service bereft of the fact there's a spammer on the loose in your feed, meaning they can't adjust their anti-spam algorithms to catch that spam next time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Bitch ass AC still has an unrequited crush on Mike, I assume.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
“What scares you about my speech”
How bloody ignorant of the most fundamental parts of your own government you are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The real story here is that she APOLOGIZED
Because most of them are narcissistic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Commercial speech
They literally don’t block nazis until it becomes a pr nightmare. This is even with proof of abusive language, threats and more. So this isn’t a mistake that people resort to blocking like AOC who gets a ton of vitriol. Mike Masnick is a standard first amendment troll honestly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lawyers stink.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Never!
Never block, always mute.
Muting is an American right, established by the very intellectuals that support the ??AA teams. Because TV remotes have mute button, Q.E.D.
Sadly, not Quid Pro Quo.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Commercial speech
god
I can't tell if you believe the crap you're spewing.
Real Nazi's and the first amendment can't exist in the same regime. You can either have the right to religion and assembly or you can have illegal Jews and illegal synagogues. You can't have both.
You are apparently some kind of fascist troll for equating human rights for repugnant groups with endorsing repugnant groups.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Since when did the government own Facebook?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
WTF are you talking about?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
People on a tech site never heard of VPN?
Don't understand public and private even when thinking about a router?
Think Facebook is an ISP?
Mike, you going to man up and tell them you are trying to block me?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
What is the difference between a public golf course and a private golf course genius?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Too bad no Lawyers frequent the site.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Publicly owned is not public property.
Is facebook your ISP?
Don't let Stephen confuse you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Muting vs. Blocking...
It is amazing, isn't it, how many people think rights are granted by the government.
If it's granted by the government, it's not a right. It's a privilege and a privilege can be revoked just as easily as it was granted.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Keep crying like a bitch. Your tears are delicious.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am not lying.
I am unique.
So unique, they have to invent a new gender just for me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bro the only one confused is you. Let me lay it out for ya real clear like. The 1st Amendment only applies to Governmental Actors. It doesn’t matter one iota if Facebook is a publicly traded company or a private members only club.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, at least it's a third transphobic joke, so I'll give you credit for that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Both can require fees for entry. Only one lets any Joe Schmoe on the street walk in and pay those fees.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Publicly owned is not public property."
That's exactly what it means.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even if it is publicly traded, it's still privately owned because the government doesn't own it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Than TRUMP should be able to Block anyone he wants!!! He can't thanks too the Leftists that forced that point in court, and so it holds true for AOC and everyone else also!!! Can't have it both ways. Looks like their TRUMP hate backfired. If Trump has to put up with all the leftist TDS hate, then so does AOC which is a fraction of what Trump is getting. Quite frankly, I find it pretty funny.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Well, Trump was forced to put up with all the leftist HATE on twitter and not ban anyone. There is ZERO difference for AOC or anyone else then. It's a private platform, I get it, but if it's going to be used by politicians, then I guess it either has to ALL be allowed, or all be BANNED. That means if you ban TRUMP, you ban every single other Politician on that platform including AOC. Then you don't have to worry about that court ruling.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The real story here is that she APOLOGIZED
She was forced to admit she was wrong, while at the same time saying it's still OK to ban other users she doesn't like!!! She is talking out of both sides of her mouth. She is NO leader. She is dumb as a rock. She shouldn't have been banning anyone after TRUMP was forced to stop banning people. That was because these leftists forced it in court and won. Then after winning, doing it themselves. I find that disgusting and hypercritical of AOC.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Commercial speech
You can have NAZI's and they are protected by the first amendment just like everyone else is. They can SAY all the nasty stuff they want. They just can't act on the things they may be saying.. It's against the law for anyone to put people in a gas chamber and kill them as an Example. Just like the KKK can say whatever they want. They just can't hang Black people, or any other type of action against anyone as that would be breaking the law. But they have every right to say what they want and are protected under the 1st amendment.
There are no HATE Speech laws here. Thank goodness for that. These dumb laws are used to throw people into jail in other countries for dumb things. Maybe you're not worried NOW, but some new party gets in office and puts out their own things that ar Hate Speech to them, and now your butt is in jail!!! Ops!!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The real story here is that she APOLOGIZED
It's not hypocritical. She can legally block any user on Twitter that isn’t one of her constituents. Trump can’t legally block any American citizen until after he's out of office because, as the president, he serves all Americans.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
"if you ban TRUMP, you ban every single other Politician on that platform"
I'm down for that. Anyone else down for that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don’t know what’s sadder about you Trumpers. That you’re ignorant fuckwits. Or that your so very proud of being ignorant fuckwits.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
That was kinda the original point that Mike made, you ignorant fuckwit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The real story here is that she APOLOGIZED like an adult
She was an adult and apologised for being wrong. Unlike your boi who acts like a three year old throwing a temper tantrum.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: The real story here is that she APOLOGIZED like an a
Objection. Three year olds may throw tantrums but they are capable of saying sorry and actually showing remorse.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Commercial speech is still protected speech bro
Please honestly define “standard first amendment troll” for us plebs. Unless it means “keeps saying things that you don’t like” which we ALL know is what it really means.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're just jealous
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Scare is the wrong word, as you are annoying everybody by claiming that you can force them to listen
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're just jealous.
People are still pirating, does that mean they aren't trying to stop them?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What does any of this conversation have to do with piracy?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"What is the difference between a public golf course and a private golf course genius?"
Depends on whether the first one is owned by the government or not. If so, the difference is that the first one is public property and the second private property. If the course itself is owned by private individuals in both cases, then the difference is that the owners have placed different criteria on who they allow on their property, as is their right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think he's getting confused between publicly owned and publicly traded.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: 'No one can hear you on my page' vs 'Only I can't he
Possibly, but I think there's a fine line. He could rant all he wants about whether he just watched on Fox News or saw in a public hearing without causing issues. It's classless and paints the whole country in a bad light, but him expressing such things are not necessarily any different from you or I doing so (albeit with greater potential consequences)
It's when he starts revealing potentially sensitive information or discussing actual policy decisions that it becomes problematic. That's where it crosses from "this guy, who happens to be the president, has this opinion stated here" and "the president is communicating official government business with this channel". May your next president again be someone where the difference is clear.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Well, Trump was forced to put up with all the leftist HATE on twitter and not ban anyone."
Because he uses his account to host official government communications. However, Twitter were not forced to do anything at all.
"There is ZERO difference for AOC or anyone else then"
Yes, which is what the above decision confirms.
Yet again, you seem to have a major problem addressing what the article and comments actually say, rather than the version you wish existed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, but the decision should come from the government and not Twitter. If a vote is passed through saying "only the following forms of communication are acceptable for official government business", and that list does not include Twitter, there will be complaining but at least everyone's on the same level. If the decision comes from Twitter, you can bet there will be a lot of complaining, followed swiftly by Trump's army of morons gathering around a different social network as their outlet, and we're back to square one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Semi related: It seems like a bad idea to me to have 'public forums' (as the politicians are making their twitter/facebook spaces), locked behind the ToS of a third party.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What is "public"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 'No one can hear you on my page' vs 'Only I can'
Maybe, but I don't think so. Your read is a valid read of the court opinions, given that they spend a lot of time looking at things like Trump's use of Twitter for official functions such as hirings and firings and statements to foreign leaders, White House staff's use of the Twitter account, and plain statements that Trump's statements on his personal account are official presidential statements. All that stuff is certainly important. But I think even the lower threshold of simply discussing government business would still be enough to classify his account as a limited public forum. From the opinion (pages 4-7):
Following that, the court does go into several paragraphs of detail regarding White House staff and the National Archives stating outright that Trump conducts official government business on his Twitter account. That certainly helps Knight's case, but it's not necessary to it; Trump discussing government business on the Twitter account in and of itself would have been enough to qualify it as a limited public forum.
Here's more, from later in the opinion (page 18, following further discussion of the points you mention about the government repeatedly acknowledging the account as official):
There's more in the lower court ruling. Pages 53-55 (note that page 54 is cited in the above quotes of the appellate opinion):
Note that other officials' use of the account, his use of the account to engage with foreign leaders, and his official announcements on the account are only some of the factors used to determine that @realDonaldTrump is a public forum, and that other factors include defending his policies, promoting his legislative agenda, and criticizing his coverage by the press.
So I don't agree with your conclusion that he would have been fine if he'd stuck to ranting about what he just saw on Fox News or in a public hearing. If he were ranting about, for example, the Mueller Investigation, the wall, his tax and healthcare policy -- all of those things are directly related to his position as President of the United States. Do you really think that if he'd posted about those topics but the White House had denied that these were official statements, the courts would have ruled differently?
If he had a Twitter account where all he posted was cat videos, then sure, he could block whoever he wants. But he's talking about government business in his capacity as an elected official.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I wouldn't expect you to understand.
Is it possible, in your world, to try something and to be unsuccessful? Or, if unsuccessful, does that mean you didn't even try?
Is it a logical conclusion that if I can bypass the blocks that no one is trying to block me? Is that how your logic works?
I miss the Logician, John Fenderson and all the other intelligent non-hypocritical posters that used to post here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: The real story here is that she APOLOGIZED
Baloney. There's nothing in the 1st Amendment that limits a person's right to redress the government for their grievances to only the member of Congress that represents them.
Every member of Congress votes on and passes legislation that affects every citizen in the country. Therefore every citizen has a 1st Amendment right to address them with their concerns.
If the government of Texas banned anyone but Texas residents from protesting an abortion law (or a gun law or a climate change law or whatever), and arrested anyone from out of state who showed up to a protest, that would be wildly unconstitutional, yet that's exactly what you're arguing for here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: suns gonna clear up the rain
Don’t worry blue or whoever when you like start liking trump again when another subject about the internet comes up in a few days here you will feel a whole lot better lol
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'No one can hear you on my page' vs 'Only I
That's all true, I just think it was untested and it wasn't really controversial until he started announcing government business on there. It's a weird issue because most previous presidents were statesmen enough to keep their private opinion out of things, but with the toddler in chief we do have to deal with things differently it seems.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No. You free speech advocates don't know the difference between publicly owned, which is owned by individuals and public property, which is owned by the public.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Are you free speech advocates only intolerant of nazis?
You've proven my point about the paradox of tolerance BS.
Keep hiding speech, proving it more. You are as bad as nazis. Worse, because you pretend to be even better than them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"Are you free speech advocates only intolerant of nazis?"
Nope, they're just the most obvious example of indefensible naked hatred. The fact that you apparently think that having your idiotic opinions hidden is worse than the slaughter of millions of innocent people is just an example of wilful stupidity, and thinking people tend to be pretty intolerant of that as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[Asserts facts mot in evidence]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Strange. I seem to recall the Nazis did a lot more than making some speech hidden from immediate view but being easy to find if you have even the slightest desire to see what was hidden. For one thing, I’m pretty sure that they killed or imprisoned dissidents; I don’t recall that ever happening here.
So even if you’re right about us being hypocritical about free speech, I’m not sure how you could think that we’re remotely close to the Nazis by any measure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
By definition, publicly owned is public property.
If it is property—tangible or not—owned by anyone at all and it is not owned by the government, then it is private property. Any other property is public property and is owned by the government if it is capable of being owned.
And just to head off this argument, “owned by a publicly traded company” is not the same as “publicly owned”.
If by ISP you mean a service that provides internet connections, then no, Facebook is not my ISP. Not that that’s even remotely relevant to this discussion.
In the context of, say, §230, Facebook is an ISP in that it provides a service over the internet that collects and displays user-generated content. It isn’t my ISP as I don’t own it. Though, again, I’m not sure how that’s relevant.
Notwithstanding the fact that he’s been completely right on this subject, Stephen had nothing to do with anything I said. I learned it from Social Studies, the dictionary, and independent research into the relevant laws and concepts. I believe the only one confused here is you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Uhhh, what? How is this backfiring? In case you hadn’t noticed, we’ve been saying that Democrats like AOC shouldn’t be able to block people like that even before the ruling on Trump came out. We’ve always been saying that no politician shouldn’t be able to block people under these circumstances.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, Twitter is able to block anyone that it wants, as can any private individual using the service. A government employee commenting on government matters on Twitter is a completely different story.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Another complete non sequitur, huh?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Public property” is defined as property that is publicly owned. There is a difference, though, as property is not the only thing that can be publicly owned (e.g. a company or organization).
“Publicly owned” emphatically does not mean “owned by individuals”. In fact, that is the opposite of what it means: “Publicly owned” literally means “owned by the public”. I have no idea where you got that idea from. “Privately owned” means “owned by [private] individuals or non-government entities”.
[ link to this | view in thread ]