Packingham’s residual effects may impact Facebook, Twitter, even President

Viewing 4 reply threads
  • Author
    • #23877 Reply
      Robin Vander Wall
      Robin Vander Wall

      By Lincoln Caplan . . . DONALD TRUMP’S TWITTER account now has 40 million followers. It ranks 21st worldwide among 281.3 million or so accounts. It’s
      [See the full post at: Packingham’s residual effects may impact Facebook, Twitter, even President]

    • #23933 Reply
      Tim L

      Honestly, I would have voted for the Don’t had I not been on probation for failure to provide information as a sexoffender. I willfully refused and spent 2.5 years fighting the obligation in our local district court. The court is located in Janesville WI. The courthouse is a stones throw from the Main office of Paul Ryan, who is the Speaker of the House of reps. It was my hope to get some publicity about my case. I already know I was actually innocent in 1992 I wrote to the Janesville Gazette hoping to stir the pot. My letter must have fell on deaf ears because I got no response. They are cowards only interested in maintaining the status quo.

      So it is the message they don’t want to hear that counts. Just like the Don blocks messages via twitter demonstrates the dishonesty of echo chambers! The Don blocks the confrontational messages from those who disagree with him to protect his political security.
      Here we have yet another misuse of the database (albeit a private one) by government agents. They want what they want and will utilize any means necessary to achieve it. This is the way of elite tyrants. So to be sure the Don blocks those because he is afraid of their messages. If they were insignificant he would not bother!

    • #24087 Reply

      And still, I cannot have a facebook page

    • #25657 Reply

      It’s a shame that the Author of this article made sure to display his Political Speech instead of Facts,

      Does this Platform belong to Democrats or not?

      This source should be Non-Political!

    • #25896 Reply
      Jeremy from Indiana

      I am going to dissent against the argument presented here. The issue with Trump’s account and the decision in Packingham are not directly comparable. Packingham was denied use of the entire site and not due to content whereas Trump denied access to his feed from particular individuals due to content. I think there are two totally different legal arguments there. Now, if Trump told Twitter to ban anyone connected to specific media sources from using their platform, then it would be the same. I don’t see a connection here and I think the courts will agree.

Viewing 4 reply threads
Reply To: Packingham’s residual effects may impact Facebook, Twitter, even President
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points provided that they stay on topic - keeping in mind...

  • *You must be 18 or older to comment.
  • *You must check the "I am not a robot" box and follow the recaptcha instructions.
  • *Your submission must be approved by a NARSOL moderator.
  • *Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • *Comments arguing about political or religious preferences will be deleted.
  • *Excessively long replies will be rejected, without explanation.
  • *Be polite and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • *Do not post in ALL CAPS.
  • *Stay on topic.
  • *Do not post contact information for yourself or another person.
  • *Please enter a name that does not contain links to other websites.

Your information:

<a href="" title="" rel="" target=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <pre class=""> <em> <strong> <del datetime="" cite=""> <ins datetime="" cite=""> <ul> <ol start=""> <li> <img src="" border="" alt="" height="" width="">