Page 6.

```Because a retweet or a reply to a tweet is itself a tweet,
each retweet and reply, recursively, may be retweeted, replied to,
or liked. “A Twitter user can also reply to other replies. A
user whose tweet generates replies will see the replies below his
or her original tweet, with any replies-to-replies nested below
the replies to which they respond...```People used to tell me I should go into law. I'm really glad I disappointed them right now...

Is that to make it clear they are specifying twitter the company? Couldn't they just mention the parent company (if there is one).

Also.. this only applies to us citizens using twitter?

@RyeNorth we discussed this earlier. If you look at all the wording around the ruling, this is limited to only trump, and does not actually dictate was twitter can and cannot do. If you look at the first amendment, it says the government cannot restrict free speech. The wording around a public forum says what the government can and cannot due related to free speech. The judgement also says trumps twitter around, specifically his tweets, are public forums, not all of twitter. So basically, because trump is literally the government right now, he cannot block people, because his tweets are public forums, and blocking people from them would be violating A1.

however, twitter can ban whoever they like, because they are not the government

Does that also mean that Twitter can censor direct responses to the President?

Or weight them as Twitter sees fit?

in theory, yes.

More like the reasoning that led to that judgement. How long before it can be used against anyone ekse?

however, i think this ruling means that the government cannot take down twitter for any reason, even that new sex trafficking law

what do you mean

It's the rule of invention

any time you create a new weapon

that weapon can be used against you.

A precedent of sorts. The ruling may only apply to trump for now. But the reasoning could be used in the future against other govt officials in the us

idk how this is exactly much of a weapon

"hey, you can't block people. which means you'll see a lot more annoying people responding to you"

the narrative being pushed is that this is promoting the first amendment.

I remember the articles being run with interviews early on though

really, there is no reason a government official should be blocking someone. its just bad optics all around, regardless of how justified it might be

They were talking about how the president being able to block was stifiling journos who were trying to make a name for themselves in Trump's twitter replies.

yes, and he can ignore them and call them fake news like he does at a news conference

Is this a bad thing all around though?

its not really much of anything, tbh.

I mean, the first amendment is the right to speak, not the right to be heard wherever you choose.

Dosent help that some of these so called journalists are making a living of peddling this shite. They tried this before with trump interfering with their livelyhood since they get all their traffic from there.

You have a link to teh ruling on hand?

yes, but can you reply to tweets of people who have you blocked?

That is not the presidential twitter page.

This is Donald Trump's own twitter page.

i mean, it is. At what point while being POTUS, is trump not POTUS?

yes, its not the official white house presidential twitter. but it is the presidents twitter

It's Donald Trump's twitter.

Trump just happens to be the president.

He does not use that twitter to make state addresses.

yes, so while he is president, he counts as the government

He's got several other established medium for that.

So, does a Judge count as the government as well?

Congressman? Senator? Mayor? Sheriff? Dog Catcher?

At what point do we draw the line between someone being an individual in power