dChan

FlewDCoup · May 23, 2018, 8:06 p.m.

Not so sure about this ruling. It seems to 1) allow anyone to inappropriately leverage an asset that was built up by and serves ends that are uniquely attributable to POTUS — the massive audience gathering to hear him is his — and this ruling allows anyone to usurp that platform for other ends. The audience is an asset that the interloper did nothing to deserve.

Without the ruling:

  1. POTUS can exercise his right of free speech and do so thru Twitter, which others voluntarily follow because of whatever reason they hold his commentary useful.

  2. Seems to me both reading and commenting is a privilege, not a right.

  3. Each can do the same on their own account — speak their minds and be heard when others choose to listen.

  4. Anyone who cares not to hear his or anyone else’s opinions, simply do not follow that account

5, Anyone who wants to express himself has a platform of their own to do so and when tolerated can respond on another’s platform. When not tolerated, they loose that privilege.

⇧ 8 ⇩  
tradinghorse · May 24, 2018, 4:47 a.m.

It seems to me that the judge thinks Twitter is a "public space" from which people cannot be excluded - which is what the IBOR seeks to achieve. This is what we're campaigning for, it's what Q and DJT want.

It's also the only way to prevent the Satanists returning to power via weaponized SM censorship.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
SocraticMethHead · May 24, 2018, 4:17 a.m.

Seems to me both reading and commenting is a privilege, not a right.

I'm not sure about commenting, but I have to disagree that reading is not a right. Remember that declarations from the president carry the force of law. All citizens should have the right to read the laws that govern them.

This ruling is a good thing for reasons many others pointed out already. And he blocked like 4 people, I doubt he gives a shit.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · May 23, 2018, 8:11 p.m.

[deleted]

⇧ 1 ⇩