Hacker News Reader

Comment by dpbriggs | Hacker News Reader

Isn't it clear that Trump has violated the TOS several times by now, but who's going to ban the president?

They added the 'Public interests exception' rule for a reason.

Everything is a TOS violation. The main idea is that with subjective standards you are able to manipulate the actions as you like.

My gripe is less that subjective standards apply, and more about the pious claims to contrary. 'Fairness' is just another F-word.

OTOH, if Trump is actually bothered by Jack, then Trump has only a bazillion options open for sidestepping the media and going straight to his audience.

Therefore, the back-and-forth should be seen as so much theater, to be enjoyed or rejected at audience will.

Genuinely curious regarding the issue taken with the above reply.

Your response ignored the comment you responded to, and went on a political diversion.

When Trump eventually loses his position as POTUS (as everyone does), will Twitter ban his account for previous TOS violations, or violations after POTUS?

I wonder how this will play out once he one longer holds the 'in the publics interest' badge.

This one part of the overall very, very interesting question how the US is handling things once Trump leaves office ultimately. It will also define a lot of things for democracy in general, world wide.

We understand the need for strict scrutiny in 1A restrictions. No trolling by yelling "Fire!" in a crowded non-combusting, crowded theater.

So the question of whether the 'Public interests exception' should apply for a website where any reasonable user knows the content is dodgy on its best day.

Stop SAYING this! Goodness HN has stopped caring about facts.

This ruling was not upheld. Please stop using this example, HN.

What specific case, then? I come here to learn. Please educate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

Schenk v US was partially overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio.

We've come around, though, as Holmes' line of reasoning is very common today.

Some details in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...

To add some more commentary: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...

Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is protected by the 1A as long as it passes the Brandenburg Test of "imminent lawless action".

It's not accurate, it was an argument used in a SCOTUS case that has since been unanimously overturned.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...

Brandenburg v Ohio established the current standard for free speech, and it's extremely permissive.

> We understand the need for strict scrutiny in 1A restrictions. No trolling by yelling "Fire!" in a crowded non-combusting, crowded theater.

This is a recurring favorite bad legal take for @BadLegalTakes: https://twitter.com/BadLegalTakes

Reply on news.ycombinator.com