If the White House cannot block twitter users (by your definition, a non-negative, non-punitive action), then oughtn't the same standards be applied?
If the White House cannot block twitter users (by your definition, a non-negative, non-punitive action), then oughtn't the same standards be applied?
I suppose the same standards should be applied, legally speaking. However I do believe the judge's ruling on Twitter was incorrect and that it will be overturned. Unless active silencing is taking place there is no wrongdoing.
I suppose the same standards should be applied, legally speaking. However I do believe the judge's ruling on Twitter was incorrect and that it will be overturned. Unless active silencing is taking place there is no wrongdoing.
The reasoning, if I understand correctly, is that anything tweeted was an official White House statement and therefore twitter became an official government communication channel. It'd be the same as the White House blocking your phone number.
The reasoning, if I understand correctly, is that anything tweeted was an official White House statement and therefore twitter became an official government communication channel. It'd be the same as the White House blocking your phone number.
This is not a positive or "active" punitive action. There have been no fines, no imprisonments, etc. They rescinded an invitation which by definition is technically inaction. They have no "right" to attend the White House.
If there had actually been punitive action taken against the players you might have a point. However, you do not.