Blasting Laura Ingraham as 'Neo-Nazi Fan Favorite,' Ocasio-Cortez Says Twitter Users Entitled to Vile Opinions But Not Abuse
Damn right! I read AOC’s outburst as a message to all of us: it’s okay to hit back at the bastards. This is such a novelty (Democrats hardly ever stoop so low as to assert any personal dignity) we hardly know what to make of it. She called Ingrum what?
Luddite that I am, I have no idea what “blocking” actually does in the Twitterverse. Preventing someone from speaking sounds like a stone-cold 1st-Amendment violation, which I assume the Congresswoman would be well aware of.
Let us try a different viewpoint.
A bully writes demeaning and maybe even threatening messages through the U.S. mail.
threats may get the sender a visit from the postal inspector.
the recipient can go to court and get a peace warrant, no contact.
apparently, a tweet is a short message dispatched electronically.
No different than a postcard, which can be read by anyone who comes in contact.
Not a free speech issue when the writer threatens of demeans the person addressed.
So you don’t know what “blocking” is either.
Yes I do.
I played football.
all you have to do is block and tackle.
Again, you do have the right to hang up the phone when an annoying robo call from Trump rings. You just violated his free speech rights ! Right??
Hello GuildF312S, Do you get any spam calls? How do you deal with those calls? Do you answer them or try to stop them from ringing your phone? If the latter then you are blocking the spammer. The same principal applies with electronic communication with the universe of assholes making life extremely unpleasant for the rest of us. Here’s a bit of new about spam phone calls. Now they are 5 billion per month and if nothing is done about this then the phone system will only have spam phone calls. The spam phone calls keep on rising geometrically so each month there will be more spam calls than the last month. Capisce?
I couldn’t agree more. I used to call Laura Ingraham “Ann Coulter Lite” but over the last few years she has morphed into something even more right-wing and contemptible. Her racist, intolerant blatherings on Fux Noise are garbage. Here’s an example of how this loathsome person has been this way for many years - she and good friend fellow right-wing idiot Dinesh D’Souza, went to Dartmouth and they used to “out” gay students to their families and other students, Yeah, that must have been big fun to this sanctimonious POS. No wonder she ended up working for Fux Noise. She is a hard-core reactionary and she is blonde. BTW, fellow asshat D’Souza was convicted of campaign finance fraud and sentenced to jail or home detention wearing an ankle tracker. However, our POS “president” pardoned D’Souza so he could continue to make his horrible propaganda films for the regressives. These are genuinely awful people. It is shameful that so many Uh-meriKKKans still get so much of their “news” from Fux.
Sorry, no. I already know how to block numbers on my phone, so that’s not what I’m asking.
What exactly did A O-C do to Laura Ingraham (that’s the technical part), and does it or does it not violate her free speech rights (that’s the Constitutional law part)?
So, the courts rule that Trump can’t block people on Twitter, but AOC claims she can…
Sorry, but you can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Just to be clear, AO-C is not blocking Laura Ingraham.
And “blocking” is a setting on your Twitter account that allows you to deny posts to your threads submitted by other users.
Or so I think, I don’t do social media
Thanks for that. After rereading the article, I see my mistake was in thinking Ingraham was among the 20 or so users AO-C has blocked. So if I block you, you can’t post comments to my page, correct? That would have to pass the “shouting fire in a crowded theater” test to be Constitutionally correct, unlike Twump’s blocking those who simply criticize him.
It’s not a double-standard; you just misread it.
Blocking users because they express opposing viewpoints – not allowed.
Blocking users because they post threatening or harassing tweets – allowed, even for Trump.
I think there remains an unspoken element here. That is the fact that ‘third - party’ eyes and their inherent continuum are the third dynamic in the twitterverse. The message is lifted from its original space and poster, carried away, and any control over its utilization is then, in effect, null and void or at least subject to the whims of change of the ‘lifter’.
Its ironic that we have intellectual property rights, but that an abuse of a message/image and its identified source face this kind of abuse. Cui bono? In my opinion - not unlike the economy that is running ON DEBT, chaos and abuse spiral out from the turgid premises the economic predation sets as systemic standard.
Actually, it’s complicated. Twitter is a private company and they can decide upon their own criteria for completely deleting accounts. The rightwing is up in arms about conservative posters being deleted, however, most of those conservatives who were deleted were posting just the kind of lewd and sexually abusive stuff that AO-C is sick of being harassed by, and which is explicitly banned by Twitter. Also, much of that stuff was just plain falsehoods – Twitter tries to avoid posting of bullshit.
As for the ruling on Trump not being able to block critics, the recent court ruling doesn’t prevent him from blocking abusers. Also, Trump has #realdonaldtrump, his private Twitter account where he posts from his own whackadoodle imagination to 62 million followers, and #POTUS, an account started by Obama and now to be on from POTUS to POTUS. that account has 26 million followers. I get the impression that the court ruled Trump couldn’t block critics on either account because of their importance as public debate forums.
And incidentally, if you haven’t seen the sexually explicit stuff that gets posted on social media, it’s graphic and thoroughly abusive.
Sorry, that should read: …“now to be PASSED on from POTUS to POTUS.”
Trump is an abuse to our senses every single day. I wake with fear of climate change and nothing being done and Trump is reversing strides to reverse fossil fuels pollution et al.
Trumps language is abusive quite often.
The problem is not this abuse on Twitter, but the very existence of this cognition-destroying idiotic thing called “Twitter” at all! Since when does the First Amendment provide any right to “tweet”?
Ms. Cortez should close her Twitter account altogether and communicate to her constituents through e-mail, letters, a website, and especially, the floor of the House chamber. I know too much to ask from a smartphone-and-tweet-addicted millennial.
What AOC called Laura Ingraham, " A NEO-NAZI FAN FAVORITE" was the truth! The Ingraham Angle is exactly that!
No, you don’t realize: Ingrum’s swastika twists the other way. It’s a reference to Mayans, or something.