Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 06-12-2017, 12:49 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 57,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Yes.
Then what's the problem-were they not adorable enough for you?
  #102  
Old 06-12-2017, 12:50 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
Ok. So do you agree that, assuming this Twitter account is a government forum at all (which I realize is very much in dispute), it is more likely a limited public forum than a nonpublic forum given the ability (of some people) to append comments to the posts?
Yes.

Quote:
So two of those three factors are unknown but may well point to government action (actions on government-paid phone by government-paid staff), while the third unequivocally does not (who created the forum).
Nope.

The "government paid staff" excludes the individual person in question. That was the whole point of the Loudon County decision: the individual who created the Facebook page was a government employee purportedly acting in her private capacity. There's no question, in other words, in this type of inquiry that we have a single government-paid person in play; the question is whether or not others are involved as part of their duties.

Nor is it a government device: Trump is using the same equipment he used as a private citizen.

Quote:
As in the cases Volokh cites, the key determinant seems to be the content of the posts. The more you talk about work and make official pronouncements, the closer it gets to state action. And there is a pretty good argument that Trump does a lot of governing by tweet.
No, that wasn't the key determinant.

Quote:
I think you risk a lot by putting too much emphasis on the origins of the forum. It makes it easy to launder private property into public use to avoid the First Amendment. If a public school wants to let Christians use its auditorium on Sundays but not atheists, can it just purchase a private auditorium? I don't think so. By contrast, school officials can arrange to rent a space to have a baccalaureate without having to hold ceremonies for other faiths. ISTM, the difference lies in who pays and how the space is actually used and controlled.
Trump pays, Trump controls. Not the US government: Trump. No filters, ni spellchecks, no committee to keep on message as opposed to ranting controls this media. Trump does.

Last edited by Bricker; 06-12-2017 at 12:50 PM.
  #103  
Old 06-12-2017, 02:19 PM
Richard Parker Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 11,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
The "government paid staff" excludes the individual person in question. That was the whole point of the Loudon County decision: the individual who created the Facebook page was a government employee purportedly acting in her private capacity. There's no question, in other words, in this type of inquiry that we have a single government-paid person in play; the question is whether or not others are involved as part of their duties.

Nor is it a government device: Trump is using the same equipment he used as a private citizen.
There is lots of evidence that paid staff post tweets on Trump's account. For a while, even post-election, you could tell which ones were staff tweets by which device they came from (and the content, natch). And I don't think you actually know either way whether the government is paying for Trump's device and/or phone account. Knowing Trump, he is probably billing the crap out of us.

So I think your "nope" is less correct than my "unknown but may well point to government action.'

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
No, that wasn't the key determinant.
Here's what Volokh posted, and I have no reason to disagree:

Quote:
When the Facebook page is run by an individual officeholder, such as Phyllis Randall, chair of the Board of Supervisors, it might — under the right circumstances — be viewed as not a government project, and thus not subject to First Amendment constraints. “The mere fact that Defendant Randall holds public office does not subject every social media account she controls to First Amendment scrutiny.” “Defendant Randall’s discussion of matters related to her work can, by itself, render an otherwise private Facebook page governmental for purposes of the First Amendment.” . . . But I note again that this falls near a borderline that has not been mapped in detail. (emphasis mine)
I have not read the cases, so I cannot say if that quote is taken out of context, but it sure seems to suggest that the content of the posts is really important to deciding whether this crosses the line.

In any event, I remain of the view that this is a colorable, if ultimately wrong, claim. I'm curious why you disagree with Volokh on that. Where do you think he has gone wrong in his analysis?
  #104  
Old 06-12-2017, 03:45 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
Knowing Trump, he is probably billing the crap out of us.
It should be uncontroverted that in October 2016, Trump owned a smartphone and operated the Twitter account without billing the government.

If you contend that changed after November of after January, it's for you to point to some evidence for the claim beyond "Well, if I know Trump," speculation.

Quote:
So I think your "nope" is less correct than my "unknown but may well point to government action.'
So I think the reverse is true. Show your evidence if you want to make a claim that things changed.

Quote:
In any event, I remain of the view that this is a colorable, if ultimately wrong, claim. I'm curious why you disagree with Volokh on that. Where do you think he has gone wrong in his analysis?
He didn't directly address Goulart v. Meadows and the statement that "A designated public forum can only be created by 'purposeful government action' in which 'the government must intend to make the property `generally available.'" Surely this is no less true if the forum is private non-governmental at the outset. Trump's actions never made it "generally available" for discussion; the point of the feed was to allow him to offer hsi opinions and views about events.

Last edited by Bricker; 06-12-2017 at 03:47 PM.
  #105  
Old 06-12-2017, 05:29 PM
Richard Parker Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 11,861
I'm saying "unknown" and you're saying "nope," so your attempt to shift the burden of evidence is not just unpersuasive, but logically nonsensical.

Beyond that, you've ignored the circumstantial evidence that takes unknown closer to "yep" including the multiple devices that use the account.
  #106  
Old 06-12-2017, 05:43 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
I'm saying "unknown" and you're saying "nope," so your attempt to shift the burden of evidence is not just unpersuasive, but logically nonsensical.
We start with a clear "nope," October 2016.

For every change you contend pushes us closer to "yup," (that is, into "unknown,") it;s on you to show the evidence for. You can't just speculate that the Trump is probably billing the government and therefore we're now in unknown territory.
Quote:

Beyond that, you've ignored the circumstantial evidence that takes unknown closer to "yep" including the multiple devices that use the account.
What devices are those?
  #107  
Old 06-13-2017, 06:23 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 57,144
Does it matter if the tweets from Trump's private Twitter account are official or not and/or if the President's own Press Secretary says they are?
According to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the answer is a definite "Yes".
Ain't that just adorable?
  #108  
Old 06-13-2017, 10:23 AM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Does it matter if the tweets from Trump's private Twitter account are official or not and/or if the President's own Press Secretary says they are?
According to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the answer is a definite "Yes".
Ain't that just adorable?
I can't find the portion of the Ninth Circuit saying it matters for the purpose of determining whether the Twitter account is a public forum. Can you quote the portion of the opinion that makes that finding?

I bet you can't. I bet it isn't there. I bet the court didn't actually say "yes," to that question. I bet they said yes to some other question, and not answering the subject under discussion here.

Last edited by Bricker; 06-13-2017 at 10:25 AM.
  #109  
Old 06-13-2017, 10:44 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 57,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
I can't find the portion of the Ninth Circuit saying it matters for the purpose of determining whether the Twitter account is a public forum. Can you quote the portion of the opinion that makes that finding?

I bet you can't. I bet it isn't there. I bet the court didn't actually say "yes," to that question. I bet they said yes to some other question, and not answering the subject under discussion here.
Is that how you win your arguments? "They wouldn't accept my bets-That means I'm right!" I'm not playing a game here. I am genuinely concerned as to the future of my country, and if think that something bad is in line to happen, and it does, I don't think of myself as a "winner"-I think of it as a loss to the country.
  #110  
Old 06-13-2017, 10:53 AM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,346
That isn't how Bricker wins arguments; it's how you lose them. Where in the opinion does the Ninth say it matters for the purpose of determining whether the Twitter account is a public forum?

Regards,
Shodan
  #111  
Old 06-13-2017, 10:58 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 57,144
Where is it written that only direct quotes from court cases count as cites in this forum? I linked to a news article that was reporting on the Court's decision. If that is no longer acceptable in this forum, just let me know.

Last edited by Czarcasm; 06-13-2017 at 10:59 AM.
  #112  
Old 06-13-2017, 11:04 AM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,346
Where in the opinion does the Ninth say it matters for the purpose of determining whether the Twitter account is a public forum?

Regards,
Shodan
  #113  
Old 06-13-2017, 11:10 AM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Where is it written that only direct quotes from court cases count as cites in this forum? I linked to a news article that was reporting on the Court's decision. If that is no longer acceptable in this forum, just let me know.
You linked to an irrelevant article about a case that wasn't the subject of this thread?

Isn't that a hijack?

Or you linked to a story you believed was relevant, and now can't supply the quote that shows relevancy?

Or something else?
  #114  
Old 06-13-2017, 11:12 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 57,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Where in the opinion does the Ninth say it matters for the purpose of determining whether the Twitter account is a public forum?
Since I am unschooled in the ways of laws and the workings of courts, it would be a disservice if I attempted to interpret what they wrote, don't you think? That's why I relied on a news article that that gave a brief overview of what happened and why it happened.
Now, assuming your responses so far mean you, Shodan, understand what they wrote better than I possible can and not that you are merely parroting what Bricker said, perhaps you can explain to us what that article got wrong?
  #115  
Old 06-13-2017, 11:14 AM
SingleMalt SingleMalt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Front Range
Posts: 239
For what it's worth, here is Dahlia Lithwick at Slate has to say about the implications of the 9th's opinion. It's not that the 9th directly says the President's tweets are a public forum, but rather that the "president’s Twitter commentary clearly falls in the category of speech that belongs in the legal arena." This may lend support to the "public forum" argument.

Your opinion may vary. That's what the courts are for.
  #116  
Old 06-13-2017, 11:17 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 57,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
You linked to an irrelevant article about a case that wasn't the subject of this thread?

Isn't that a hijack?

Or you linked to a story you believed was relevant, and now can't supply the quote that shows relevancy?

Or something else?
Are you saying that talking about whether the President's Twitter posts are official or not are on topic, but my responses aren't?
If this is a hijack, you are participating in it fully.
  #117  
Old 06-13-2017, 11:18 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 57,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingleMalt View Post
For what it's worth, here is Dahlia Lithwick at Slate has to say about the implications of the 9th's opinion. It's not that the 9th directly says the President's tweets are a public forum, but rather that the "president’s Twitter commentary clearly falls in the category of speech that belongs in the legal arena." This may lend support to the "public forum" argument.

Your opinion may vary. That's what the courts are for.
Thank you for the clarification.
  #118  
Old 06-13-2017, 11:19 AM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Is that how you win your arguments? "They wouldn't accept my bets-That means I'm right!" I'm not playing a game here. I am genuinely concerned as to the future of my country, and if think that something bad is in line to happen, and it does, I don't think of myself as a "winner"-I think of it as a loss to the country.
The purpose of betting is to demonstrate that your belief in a particular outcome is genuine.

Numerous studies have shown that real-world consequences imposed on political predictions and knowledge sharply decrease partisan influence and swings. In other words, when money is on the line, people have a stronger tendency to evaluate facts, not wishes. See, e.g. , "Partisan Bias in Factual Beliefs about Politics." Bullock, John G., Alan S. Gerber, Seth J. Hill and Gregory A. Huber. 2015. Quarterly Journal of Political Science: Vol. 10 (No. 4): 519-78.

The abstract in pertinent part:

Quote:
Partisanship seems to affect factual beliefs about politics. For example, Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say that the deficit rose during the Clinton administration; Democrats are more likely to say that inflation rose under Reagan. What remains unclear is whether such patterns reflect differing beliefs among partisans or instead reflect a desire to praise one party or criticize another. To shed light on this question, we present a model of survey response in the presence of partisan cheerleading and payments for correct and "don't know" responses. We design two experiments based on the model's implications. The experiments show that small payments for correct and "don't know" answers sharply diminish the gap between Democrats and Republicans in responses to "partisan" factual questions. Our conclusion is that the apparent gulf in factual beliefs between members of different parties may be more illusory than real.
  #119  
Old 06-13-2017, 11:24 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 57,144
The fact that you expect small payments for being right is rather off-putting, actually.
  #120  
Old 06-13-2017, 11:27 AM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Are you saying that talking about whether the President's Twitter posts are official or not are on topic, but my responses aren't?
If this is a hijack, you are participating in it fully.
Whether some, none, or all of the President's tweets are "official," is not dispositive to the question of whether his @RealDonaldTrump account is a limited public forum.

Even the best Dalia can do with this is a lukewarm observation that the previously less serious Knight complaint now might have "more teeth."

It's a hijack if you offered it up knowing it to be irrelevant. It's simply a wrong argument if you had no idea.
  #121  
Old 06-13-2017, 11:30 AM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
The fact that you expect small payments for being right is rather off-putting, actually.
That's not a remotely accurate characterization of what I said.

I don't "expect," anything except to demonstrate the fleeting nature of your supposed convictions when measured with real-world consequences.

I expect small payments if I wager small amounts and then win. That's how wagering works.

Last edited by Bricker; 06-13-2017 at 11:30 AM.
  #122  
Old 06-13-2017, 11:32 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 57,144
Or maybe it's a side issue that ties into the problems with the President's Twitter account?
But thank you anyway for your "Either you are wrong or you are wrong" analysis.
Edited to add: response to post #120

Last edited by Czarcasm; 06-13-2017 at 11:33 AM.
  #123  
Old 06-13-2017, 12:08 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 36,203
Can someone explain to me what's wrong with this simple argument?

1) Factual claim: Anyone can read Trump's tweets. Twitter-blocking just limits who can reply to those tweets in the same forum, and question/rebut him directly there.

2) If the only televised questioning Trump chooses to put up with is that of Fox and Friends, is that a First Amendment violation? (I assume the answer is NO.)

3) Then how does his limiting his questioners on Twitter Constitutionally differ from his limiting his questioners on television?
  #124  
Old 06-13-2017, 12:33 PM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,346
I don't see anything wrong with it.

It's sort of like a politician appearing on 60 Minutes. Only CBS is interviewing him, but that doesn't violate the First Amendment rights of the rest of the press or the public who can't participate in the interview.

Regards,
Shodan
  #125  
Old 06-13-2017, 01:29 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Can someone explain to me what's wrong with this simple argument?

1) Factual claim: Anyone can read Trump's tweets. Twitter-blocking just limits who can reply to those tweets in the same forum, and question/rebut him directly there.

2) If the only televised questioning Trump chooses to put up with is that of Fox and Friends, is that a First Amendment violation? (I assume the answer is NO.)

3) Then how does his limiting his questioners on Twitter Constitutionally differ from his limiting his questioners on television?
I think it's generally right, but here's my best counterargument:

The age of social media has created fora that are sui generis -- that is, unique and not susceptible to analogy to traditional forum constraints.

There's a difference between inviting a single interviewer (or program) and Twitter, because Twitter amounts to a general invitation to the public. The government doesn't have to invite the public -- the President can choose to limit his interviews to selected reporters. But if the public is invited, then the government cannot discriminate on the basis of viewpoint. By blocking some Twitter users and not others, the government is engaging in viewpoint discrimination.

And of course the formerly private Trump Twitter account has transformed into a government forum because of, um, reasons. For example, we learn that White House staffers are maintaining the account and providing content.
  #126  
Old 06-13-2017, 01:53 PM
Clothahump Clothahump is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 14,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
1. I could have sworn I said that I was not qualified to judge on the legality of the situation, but was also concerned about the ethics of this situation.
The ethics are simple. First and foremost, he is a citizen. When he tweets, he is doing so as any other citizen and as such, if he wants to block someone, he's perfectly within his rights to do so. This ain't rocket surgery.
  #127  
Old 06-13-2017, 01:55 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 36,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
I think it's generally right, but here's my best counterargument:

The age of social media has created fora that are sui generis -- that is, unique and not susceptible to analogy to traditional forum constraints.

There's a difference between inviting a single interviewer (or program) and Twitter, because Twitter amounts to a general invitation to the public. The government doesn't have to invite the public -- the President can choose to limit his interviews to selected reporters. But if the public is invited, then the government cannot discriminate on the basis of viewpoint. By blocking some Twitter users and not others, the government is engaging in viewpoint discrimination.

And of course the formerly private Trump Twitter account has transformed into a government forum because of, um, reasons. For example, we learn that White House staffers are maintaining the account and providing content.
I know you're playing devil's advocate on both points, of course, but here's my take on the strength of those arguments:

The difference between inviting a single interviewer and blocking a single person on Twitter...that may have legal significance, and you'd know better than I, of course.

OTOH, the mathematician in me shrugs: one operation is merely the complement of the other. There's no difference between inviting X, Y, and Z over to interview you, and disinviting everyone else; there's no difference between blocking A, B, C, and D on Twitter, and allowing everyone besides A, B, C, and D to respond to your tweets. Including only set S is the same as excluding its complement, and excluding only set S is the same as including its complement.

But that's how a mathematician thinks, and that doesn't always extrapolate well to other fields.

But the @realDonaldTrump private Twitter account: Trump's using it to make policy pronouncements to the general public a way that's indistinguishable from his use of the @POTUS handle. It may be a private account in origin, but he's using it as a tool of public statecraft. He's neither communicating privately with this account, nor is he communicating about subjects only tangentially related to his office. The one is just as much a public forum as the other.
  #128  
Old 06-13-2017, 02:39 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
...nor is he communicating about subjects only tangentially related to his office.
As I look at a selection of tweets from Trump prior to his assuming office, and a selection tweets following, I don't quite see the massive change. In other words, before he became President, his tweets did not look all that different in terms of subjects. (Or coherency, or grammar, but that's a side note). His tirades against "fake news," for example, are tangential to his office, and seem to occupy his attention.
  #129  
Old 06-13-2017, 02:45 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 34,696
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
That's not a remotely accurate characterization of what I said.

I don't "expect," anything except to demonstrate the fleeting nature of your supposed convictions when measured with real-world consequences.

I expect small payments if I wager small amounts and then win. That's how wagering works.
You literally just agreed with him in your last post. Because of how wages work, you inherently are setting things up where you get money (or don't lose money) if you are right. And a lot of people have a problem with that.

It's a dishonest tactic. It allows you to pretend you to use your own stubbornness as a tool, instead of just making good arguments. You know that, as a matter of principle, most people will not take you up on the bets. So it makes you seem more right, without actually having to make stronger arguments.

It also assumes that the person making the argument is dishonest. I don't want to bet, but you do. That makes it seem like you honestly believe what you say, while I don't. But that's not true. There are so many other factors, like whether I think it's even moral to waste money in this manner, rather than use it for good.

It would be one thing if you PM'd people, so they could turn you down without that rhetorical effect. But you don't. Because you want that effect. You want to seem like you clearly right because the other person will not bet.

And that's just not true.
  #130  
Old 06-13-2017, 02:56 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
It also assumes that the person making the argument is dishonest. I don't want to bet, but you do. That makes it seem like you honestly believe what you say, while I don't. But that's not true. There are so many other factors, like whether I think it's even moral to waste money in this manner, rather than use it for good
But it wouldn't be wasting money. You would have TWICE as much money to use for good if you are correct, which you say you are. So by not betting, you are letting money go to waste.

Quote:
It would be one thing if you PM'd people, so they could turn you down without that rhetorical effect. But you don't. Because you want that effect. You want to seem like you clearly right because the other person will not bet
By not betting, you are not confident in your opinion. Seems plain enough to me.

I use the "Wanna bet on it?" game all the time IRL to determine if a person is just bullshitting or not.
  #131  
Old 06-13-2017, 03:18 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
You literally just agreed with him in your last post. Because of how wages work, you inherently are setting things up where you get money (or don't lose money) if you are right. And a lot of people have a problem with that.
Oh, no!

Quote:
It's a dishonest tactic. It allows you to pretend you to use your own stubbornness as a tool, instead of just making good arguments. You know that, as a matter of principle, most people will not take you up on the bets. So it makes you seem more right, without actually having to make stronger arguments.
What principle is that, exactly?

Quote:
It also assumes that the person making the argument is dishonest. I don't want to bet, but you do. That makes it seem like you honestly believe what you say, while I don't. But that's not true. There are so many other factors, like whether I think it's even moral to waste money in this manner, rather than use it for good.
How is it a waste, specifically?

Quote:
It would be one thing if you PM'd people, so they could turn you down without that rhetorical effect. But you don't. Because you want that effect. You want to seem like you clearly right because the other person will not bet.

And that's just not true.
It isn't. But I don't claim that it is. What is true is people are very willing to make less grounded claims when there are no real world negatives to the claim, and less willing when there is a tangible benefit or loss in play, as numerous studies have demonstrated. I cited one above.
  #132  
Old 06-13-2017, 03:21 PM
Really Not All That Bright Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 67,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clothahump View Post
The ethics are simple. First and foremost, he is a citizen. When he tweets, he is doing so as any other citizen and as such, if he wants to block someone, he's perfectly within his rights to do so. This ain't rocket surgery.
When he plays golf, he's doing so as any other citizen, and not entitled to Secret Service protection, right?
  #133  
Old 06-13-2017, 03:30 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
When he plays golf, he's doing so as any other citizen, and not entitled to Secret Service protection, right?
Not as a matter of constitutional law, correct.
  #134  
Old 06-13-2017, 03:43 PM
Really Not All That Bright Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 67,742
Well, nobody is entitled to Secret Service protection as a matter of constitutional law; it's a statutory enactment. But the point is that in many important respects, the POTUS is never an ordinary citizen so long as he remains in office. I could have used executive immunity as an example instead, but I didn't think Clothahump would understand that one.
  #135  
Old 06-13-2017, 04:05 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
Well, nobody is entitled to Secret Service protection as a matter of constitutional law; it's a statutory enactment. But the point is that in many important respects, the POTUS is never an ordinary citizen so long as he remains in office. I could have used executive immunity as an example instead, but I didn't think Clothahump would understand that one.
So the question is: does the President surrender his First Amendment right as a citizen to use a Twitter account the same way other citizens do (that is, free from the requirements to observe viewpoint-neutral moderation)?
  #136  
Old 06-13-2017, 04:10 PM
Really Not All That Bright Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 67,742
No, the question with regard to Clothahump's post is whether the matter is as cut-and-dried as "he's just acting as a private citizen."
  #137  
Old 06-13-2017, 04:15 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 57,144
So if someone hacks this Presidential Citizen's Twitter account and releases a bunch of insulting and/or havoc causing tweets in his name, aimed at various influential persons and world leaders, then the worst that person should expect in the way of punishment is possible loss of their Twitter account, right?

Last edited by Czarcasm; 06-13-2017 at 04:16 PM.
  #138  
Old 06-13-2017, 04:18 PM
Really Not All That Bright Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 67,742
No. Hijacking an online account is criminally punishable under the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act and various state laws, regardless of whether the target account belongs to POTUS or Joe Schmoe.
  #139  
Old 06-13-2017, 04:23 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 57,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
No. Hijacking an online account is criminally punishable under the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act and various state laws, regardless of whether the target account belongs to POTUS or Joe Schmoe.
And what kind of punishment is usually doled out for hacking some citizen's account?
  #140  
Old 06-13-2017, 04:29 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
No, the question with regard to Clothahump's post is whether the matter is as cut-and-dried as "he's just acting as a private citizen."
Well, inasmuch as he was posting in this thread, I read his claim as including "....with respect to his Twitter account," as opposed to a more sweeping declaration.

I could be wrong, of course.
  #141  
Old 06-13-2017, 04:34 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
So if someone hacks this Presidential Citizen's Twitter account and releases a bunch of insulting and/or havoc causing tweets in his name, aimed at various influential persons and world leaders, then the worst that person should expect in the way of punishment is possible loss of their Twitter account, right?
I'm not sure that's true, but then again, I'm not sure that would be true if someone hacked Lady Gaga's account, or Justin Bieber's account. I suspect if that happened, law enforcement might get involved -- not because Lady Gaga is the President, mind you, but because prosecutorial discretion is often exercised in high-profile cases to pursue convictions that wouldn't be sought in more minor incidents, even though the laws violated are the same. In the case of a Lady Gaga, Justin Bieber, or RealDonaldTrump hack, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act at 18 U.S.C. § 1030 would likely cover such an act.
  #142  
Old 06-13-2017, 04:37 PM
Ludovic Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 28,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
It also assumes that the person making the argument is dishonest. I don't want to bet, but you do. That makes it seem like you honestly believe what you say, while I don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
I use the "Wanna bet on it?" game all the time IRL to determine if a person is just bullshitting or not.
It also assumes that the person offering is also honest. It's barely a worthwhile use of my time to set up and track an honest bet, let alone wonder, if they aren't positively known to be scrupulously honest in both spirit and letter, if they will either try to weasel out of the bet with wording or just not pay at all.
  #143  
Old 06-13-2017, 04:45 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,359
Moderating

Stop the hijack about the efficacy of wagering.

If you want to make a wager, offer a wager, or decline a wager, that's fine. Discussion about the merits of wagering and the reasons for and against, not fine in this thread.

[/moderating]
  #144  
Old 06-13-2017, 04:49 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
And what kind of punishment is usually doled out for hacking some citizen's account?
You're welcome to read the federal sentencing guidelines reachable through this link. Violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act are covered under § 2B1.1 with a base offense level of 6 (unless the hack was a repeat violation).

Now, the base level is affected by the circumstances of the hack, and this is the feature that makes the Gaga/Bieber/Trump hack eligible for a bigger sentence than hacking Ed Mokeser down the street. § 2B1.1(b) adjusts the guideline based on the financial damage done by the hack. Mokeser's financial damages, with his 33 followers, will likely be far less than the damages incurred by those whose follower numbers are six or seven figures. "Financial loss," in these cases, includes:

Quote:
...[the] cost of responding to an offense, conducting a damage assessment, and restoring the data, program, system, or information to its condition prior to the offense, and any revenue lost, cost incurred, or other damages incurred because of interruption of service.
There's also a "sophisticated means" enhancement in § 2B1.1(b)(10) and a "special skills" enhancement in § 3B1.3 which would probably apply to any hacker who used more devious means than simply guessing a password -- which is the more likely possibility for Mokeser's breach.

Note that these are not predicated on the Presidency in any way -- merely the fact of a high-profile Twitter account and would likely be equally in play if the victim were Bieber, Gaga, or Trump.

Last edited by Bricker; 06-13-2017 at 04:50 PM.
  #145  
Old 06-13-2017, 05:39 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 19,977
An article by one lawyer that comes out with a strongly pro-First Amendment Counts Here position:

https://lawfareblog.com/blocking-twi...tial-account-0
  #146  
Old 06-13-2017, 05:54 PM
Fenris's Avatar
Fenris Fenris is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 13,153
Shit--I had a great post then saw Bone's Mod Note.

So....deleted.

Last edited by Fenris; 06-13-2017 at 05:55 PM.
  #147  
Old 06-13-2017, 06:03 PM
Fenris's Avatar
Fenris Fenris is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 13,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
And what kind of punishment is usually doled out for hacking some citizen's account?
That's a fascinating question. Perhaps you could go look it up and share the answer with us, unless this was a particularly sad attempt at Socratic questioning and you really don't care to know*

Otherwise, why are you spending your time in this thread trying to get who oppose your obvious point of view to research your side of the argument and make it for you?



*If it is an attempt at Socratic questioning, you're doing it completely wrong!
  #148  
Old 06-13-2017, 08:16 PM
Richard Parker Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 11,861
In answer to Bricker's request for info upthread:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.cnbc....unsecured.html
  #149  
Old 06-13-2017, 08:58 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
In answer to Bricker's request for info upthread:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.cnbc....unsecured.html
That suggests he's used both an iPhone and an Android device. No statement about who owns them; the fact the NYT says they are unsecured suggests they are NOT government supplied.
  #150  
Old 06-13-2017, 09:53 PM
Richard Parker Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 11,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
That suggests he's used both an iPhone and an Android device. No statement about who owns them; the fact the NYT says they are unsecured suggests they are NOT government supplied.
I don't agree that those are fair inferences, much less the only reasonable ones. As the article states, it is most likely a staff device.

But I've lost interest. I think we agree on the basic legal framework (still being widely misunderstood in this thread) and just disagree about what evidence exists to show state action.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:09 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017