Calling the officer out by name.

Death threats ensued.

Footage was released

Where we are right now, the law firm hired to peruse the matters has apologized.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/399768565038972928/448826525891035137/image.jpg

Also @Timcast here is another of those backfire policy stories. https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/labour-self-identification-transgender-woman-david-lewis-womens-officer/

You did predict this will happen

Still, both the officer, and another unrelated officer who shares the same name, as well as their families, are facing death threats.

"A man has been suspended from Labour after he attempted to subvert the party’s rules on gender self-identification. Party activist David Lewis claimed he identified as a woman “on Wednesdays”, and so was eligible to stand for the constituency Labour Party’s (CLP) women’s officer position, as the election happened to fall on a Wednesday."

Nice chrono trigger avatar BTW.

Frog needs a beanie.

Probably the best way to reverse the stupid gender stuff that's been going on is just make a huge joke out of it.

Like that meme going around that if Trump said he was a women for a day to become the first women president lol.

The far left would fall apart.

They would

"I, President Donald J. Trump, now identify as your first woman President"

The Far-Left and a lot of people on the Left in general would just.. Go into full breakdown

They would have to admit that either people can't just choose their own gender or that Trump is the first female president.

I have long hair, and as part of a celebration of some of my Scottish ancestry, have access to kilts . If I opted to shave my beard and wax my legs, I wonder how hard it would be to pretend to be trans for like a month or so to prove how easy it is to exploit this law.

You don’t even need to go through all that effort.

It would make things easier

Theoreticaly its all about what you claim

Thats why it is so stupid

Well clearly it's not. Even if that is what is written.

It's what people believe about your claim (also stupid)

But given activist judges and the fact actually trans people get kicked out of the left, it would be a better proof of point.

Also, it would make them question anyone else who claims to be trans. Which then makes them transphobs

https://twitter.com/TwitterMoments/status/999332795406172160

So this happned

S M O K E O U T C H A L L E N G E

I think the ruling about Trump is that Twitter is a public forum so Trump can’t block people. If Twitter is now considered a public forum instead of a private one then twitter themselves can’t remove people from the platform either. Should be interesting how this plays out.

I hope someone with some pennys kicking around can take this to court.

he will appeal and win, prolly

well, the question begs, is it a public form in the eyes of a government official, but a private entity. I.E. you can't block the public but the public can block you kind of deal

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/999357298861486080

oof

Trump's Twatter account is a private account. Even after becoming POTUS this fact didn't change. As a private citizen on that front he have a right to block people

hahahahaha. Elon spittin some truth.

@Yakamaru are you a private citizen while president?

Uhh, yes

Even as a public servant you are not exempt from social platform's CoC/ToS

They apply equally across the board

He is using the account in a private manner

what does CoC/ToS have to do with being allowed to block people, exactly? aside from giving him the ability to on their end

i was not aware not blocking people violates twitters ToS.

there is two sides here. Twitter giving him the ability, and if he should be allowed to exercise it

it certainly doesn't look good for any public servant to prevent any member of the public from contact them

even if it may be justified at times

as it sends a message of "your concerns are not valid to me"

And what if they are doing nothing but screech at them?

Being an asshole?

It's protected.

being an asshole and determining if their screeching is valid is subjective.

hence why it never looks good, regardless of how justified it might be

I wonder if Twitter artificially bumping up negative replies on Trumps Twitter and hiding positive ones also violates 1A rights if his Twitter is a public space.

i think there is a difference between twitter blocking their users from talking and trump doing it.

its their platform, their rules.

But if his twitter is considered a public forum it might be different.

well thats the question

https://i.redd.it/xwm7ome3hnz01.png

because him not being allowed to block people is a restriction on his conduct while on the job of president

According to that it is a public forum.

then twitter has lost control of their platform

what are the "public form" doctrines

I agree. It doesn't look good. Though it's a private account, one that he controls. If that account is going to be considered a public platform, would his be the only one being affected by it?

nope

can't

thinkabout everyone who was banned from twitter

this sets a huge prescendence

if it's a public forum, how can you be banned strictly due to speech

save for the whole digital equivilent of yelling fire

```A public forum is a place that has, by tradition or practice, been held out for general use by the public for speech-related purposes.

To determine which of the standards of student expression applies in a given case, many courts first conduct a "public forum analysis." The public forum analysis determines whether individuals may have access to places for communicative purposes.1

There are three types of public forums:

I. A "traditional", or "open, public forum" is a place with a long tradition of freedom of expression, such as a public park or a street corner. The government can normally impose only content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions on speech in a public forum. Restrictions on speech in a public forum that are based on content will be struck down, unless the government can show the restriction is necessary to further a compelling governmental interest.

II. A "limited public forum" or "designated public forum" is a place with a more limited history of expressive activity, usually only for certain groups or topics. Examples of a limited public forum would include a university meeting hall or a city-owned theater. The government can limit access to certain types of speakers in a limited public forum, or limit the use of such facilities for certain subjects. Despite these more proscriptive guidelines, however, a governmental institution may still not restrict expression at a limited forum unless that restriction serves a "compelling interest."

III. A "closed public forum" is a place that, traditionally, has not been open to public expression, such as a jail or a military base. Governmental restrictions on access to a nonpublic forum will be upheld as long as they are reasonable and not based on a desire to suppress a particular viewpoint. This standard is far more deferential to government officials.```

keep in mind, the first amendment is government censorship of free speech

no, its not

Tim even did a video on it

he did a video on free speech

and he pointed out exactly what you just said was not right

pretty sure he didn't, but lets see, its this one right? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHoBsMx-U0w

it might be that one

hes done a ton of them on free speech haha

I think he even reference the XKCD comic

wait, let me make sure that phrasing was clear. 1A is protection from government censorship of free speech. but not guaranteed free speech.

but lets look at the actual amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

the government cannot abridge free speech.

Tim pool: "First Amendment is protection of free speech from the government" <this

twitter is not the government. Trump, however IS the government.

technically its just congress cant make any laws about it... doesnt mean they wont do without making a technical law

(by they I mean the gov in general)

also Executive orders bypass congress dont they?

so that could be another route

I would need to read up on what limits an executive order may have.

it terms of the constitution, it may just count as overriding any vote to make a law. but if that law violates the constitution on what congress can pass, then it still fails

"In the United States, an executive order is a directive issued by the President of the United States that manages operations of the federal government and has the force of law.[1] The legal or constitutional basis for executive orders has multiple sources. Article Two of the United States Constitution gives the president broad executive and enforcement authority to use their discretion to determine how to enforce the law or to otherwise manage the resources and staff of the executive branch. The ability to make such orders is also based on express or implied Acts of Congress that delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation)"

"Executive orders, while considered to have the force of law, can't be used to overturn laws – but the orders themselves can be overturned by Congress. The U.S. Supreme Court has declared some executive orders unconstitutional."

so congress would probably overrule it... but it sounds like it could be done

it could be, but then it can be overruled before being officially enacted. or it could be repealed.

unless.. congress specifically makes a law somehow enforcing free speech... so it cannot be abridged... then no EO can overrule it

thats not really how it works

congress could, technically, make any damn law they want. The constitution is, after all, just a piece of paper. Laws get passed all the time which are then challenged for review and labeled unconstitutional. Thats really how it works. So any congress or EO could abridge free speech. But that doesn't mean it will be upheld upon review

and if its found unconstitutional, it is thrown out immediately

in order to get around that, you'd basically have to fill the presidency, the supreme court, and most of congress with all people who support this... and then not piss them off ever.

at which point, the country is probably lost anyway

Im not even sure how you would make a law protecting free speech

back to the subject at hand If you look back to the topic at hand, the declared trumps twitter account, not twitter as a whole, a public form

On an unrelated note the Battlefield V reveal will be soon and I was all hyped till I found it would be hosted by Trevor Noah.

Trevor isn't that bad as a comic on his own. there are better by far, but some of his off the cuff stuff can be decently funny when he is not talking politics

yeah twitter seems to go from private company that can do what it likes, to public forum depending on many things... the day of the week.. the cycle of the moon, what side of the bed trump falls out of

"To determine which of the standards of student expression applies in a given case, many courts first conduct a "public forum analysis." The public forum analysis determines whether individuals may have access to places for communicative purposes."
"we hold that **portions** of @realdonaldtrump count as a public form"

basically, he cannot deny people the ability to contact him on twitter, is how i am reading this

"the interactive spaces where twitter users may directly engage with content of the presidents tweets"

which this part i think backs up https://i.redd.it/xwm7ome3hnz01.png

yet they ban people all the time for no good reason

so

well, its not twitter that can't block people, its the owner of the account.

now, it would be interesting to see what would happen if twitter banned trumps account

if twitter bans someone that has ever directly engaged with the president on his tweets, thus removing their tweet from the public pervew. are they doing the same thing?

which, didn't it get temp deleted once by a leaving employee?

well they did.. for like a day or something

even if the ban was unrelated

Yeah

this really does open up some legality questions

if twitter is a public forum, even if its only on Trumps tweets

how much control do they have of it?

legally speaking

if its a public forum then doesnt even have the right to assembly

so banning anyone is unconstitutional

reading all the public form clauses, they all say the government cannot impose limits

open forum: "The government can normally impose only content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions on speech in a public forum."

limited forum: "he government can limit access to certain types of speakers in a limited public forum, or limit the use of such facilities for certain subjects."

III. closed forum: "governmental restrictions on access to a nonpublic forum will be upheld as long as they are reasonable and not based on a desire to suppress a particular viewpoint."

once again, twitter is not the government, trump is the government

so twitter, at least the way i read this, is exempt from public forum rulings. but trump is not.

i.e., twitter can block peoples access, but trump cannot block peoples access

But let's say someone engages with a trump tweet, then later gets banned for a different reason, thus removing their engagement with Trump.. wonder what the thought would be on that?

Would this apply to all public officials?

I think it would have to

Wonder if Obama ever blocked someone before.

Feel like a bunch of instances of it happening might come up.

did obama tweet as his private account or always potus44?

Not sure.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/999367582271422464

or rather

Going to create a site where the public can rate the core truth of any article & track the credibility score over time of each journalist, editor & publication. Thinking of calling it Pravda …

""

Hmm. I think it's a great idea but curious how it would work.

Easily abused.

or you know anti-bullying doxxing

Lol Tim already commented on the tweet.

I see that now

Which is exactly why I think it could be abused.

People don't care about truth but rather what makes their side look better.

So they would add scores based on their biases.

Elon's getting fired up lately

wonder what happened

@LotheronPrime like i said, the wording seems to dictate what the government can do. Which is keeping in line with the first amendment. So if twitter decides to ban someone, even if they engaged with a tweet, they are not the government. This would be fine. However, since trump is the president, that basically makes him the government, so if he bans someone, that is the government doing something and they deemed that his tweets are public forms so the government can't do anything

what is more interesting, is how does that affect any existing or new laws that deal with social media

remember how that last sex trafficking law made websites responsible if they have a sex traffickers on their platform? Is twitter now exempt from this because if they try to take down twitter if someone is selling sex slaves and they haven't noticed, would that violate this ruling?

so can twitter ignore such behavior and be safe so long as trump has a twitter account?

yall seen this elon musk tweet? https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/999357298861486080

remember, the government just decided they are not allowed to mess with people's access to trumps tweets

yes, and i find it funny MSM jumped right to Trump when it was clearly just Elon ragging on bad press/hit pieces on Tesla

as if we needed more proof it is all about politics and not news

well, i guess is should say a senior report for verge. idk if that counts as MSM

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/999367582271422464

guess musky hasn't heard of the knife media https://www.theknifemedia.com/

also, someone suggested snopes and politifact hah

"They need some sort of program to get women into stem"

I wholeheartedly believe that by and large women do not want stem careers

which explains the gap

I would love to see it, being in a stem field myself.. they just don't seem to want to..

even in my stem company, women are not in the mroe technical positions.. but in the more social position... marketing, management, project management, account management

that pesky thing called personal preference

I know

hmm, does software engineering count as STEM?

and there's nothing wrong with it

im sure it does

you mean software development/programming

?

yes

Yeah that's STEM

wonder if cyber security counts too then.

yes

Science, Technology, Engineering, Medicine

idk why, but forgot the t stood for technology

sure as fuck doesn't stand for Trap, or Tranny

so given that i am a software engineer, you still sure its STEM? because aren't people in STEM supposed to be smart or something? lmao

what kind of software engineer?

erm, yes.

right now full stack/enterprise

ah

working mostly in C#, although supporting legacy C++ applications

I know a ton of people in STEM that aren't necessarily smart

but can follow directions

true

i.e. half my classmates

when i was in school

the other half were smart but couldn't follow directions

or more accurately wouldn't

also, in programming

you dont necessarily have to be smart to do it either

you can cobble stuff from the web and put something together

and pass by

can? you mean do

lmao

yes

that

hell I do it

because I'm not a programmer

first and foremost, but I can get stuff done

programmers are notoriously lazy.

and by that, i mean efficient

no need to reinvent the wheel.

lazy programmers who don't use comments are annoying

sometimes they use comments and they are still annoying, because they say nothing

Looks like people are upset that women are in BF V since it goes against historical accuracy. Prepare for lots of articles saying that people are discriminating against women.

`//fix me`

//I'm a comment, I should have something useful in it, but I don't

//I say nothing, but somehow reading the code is easier to understand than the wiki instructions

haha yeah

that too

I hate coding pages

that give you the code one line at time

instead of the whole damn thing

and say this code block does this

but instead builds it up

@RyeNorth you got into the latest video https://youtu.be/OkFczMHve1c?t=654 👌

Neat.

Does anyone know if culture war is on google play?

And if so, does anyone have a link to it?

bring on the matriarchy I guess? https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/05/17/us/politics/women-primary-races.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes

if its anything like the uk... the first female president of the US will be conservatice

whether that means a more conservative dem or just your basic (maybe slightly more centred) GOP .. who knows

if every senator every congress and the pres were all female.... some women would probably still claim theyre being oppressed 😛

the gop is pretty damn centrist right now

and conservatives in general

oof.. Elon musk story tomorrow Mr Tim?

Or Twitter story.

I think the response to Elon will be clear.. and interesting

That what Elon is suggesting is impossible?

more the accusations of him being alt-right or something

has anyone looked into how many people hillary clinton has blocked?

is that even possible?

Or Obama.

You’d have to have been blocked by them to know.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/254746-white-house-denies-blocking-13-year-old-critic-on-twitter

phew, glad thats sorted.. https://twitter.com/qikipedia/status/999424740988203010?s=20

So there seems to have been a case of it happening but it was denied by the White House.

Google, Facebook, AI and Starcraft II what could go wrong.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44217246

could the US gov make their own "Twitter"?

When I was younger I thought it would be a good idea if countries could settle their differences by having their leaders play chess instead of going to war. Save lives and you elect the smartest person to the top. I wonder if this can be moved on to just have AIs beat the fuck out of each other in SC2, best programming wins and we get to watch the most epic games of all time. win win.

you only go to war when all the civilised stuff is over with

if you are civilised enough to play a game of chess... you were never going to war in the first place

We are going to fighting with robots anyway. Why not just cut out the physical stuff and have it all online.

@wacka and I came to realize that you don't have to be smart to be good at chess so that idea fell out pretty quick anyway.

Then countries would blame everything on lag