HideTechdirt is off for the long weekend! We'll be back with our regular posts tomorrow.
HideTechdirt is off for the long weekend! We'll be back with our regular posts tomorrow.

Rep. Thomas Massie Seems To Have Skipped Over The 1st Amendment In His Rush To 'Defend' The 2nd

from the unblock-people dept

This weekend, Representative Thomas Massie got an awful lot of attention for tweeting a picture of what I guess is his family holding a bunch of guns. It generated a bunch of outrage, which is exactly why Massie did it. When the culture war and "owning" your ideological opponents is more important than actually doing your job, you get things like that. Some might find it a vaguely inappropriate to show off your arsenal of weaponry just days after yet another school shooting, in which the teenager who shot up a school similarly paraded his weapon on social media before killing multiple classmates, but if that's the kind of message that Massie wants to send, the 1st Amendment and the 2nd Amendment allow him to reveal himself as just that kind of person.

However, as someone who continually presents himself as "a strict constitutionalist," it's odd that Massie seems to skip over the 1st Amendment in his rush to fetishize the 2nd. That's why the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University has now sent a letter on my behalf to Rep. Massie letting him know that he is violating the 1st Amendment in blocking me and many others on Twitter.

To be honest, I had avoided tweeting about Massie's armory family portrait, because the whole thing was just such a blatant cry for attention. But then I saw that some other users on Twitter were highlighting that Massie was blocking them -- in some cases because they had tweeted at Massie a remixed version of the portrait, replacing the guns with penises. I made no comment on his photo, or his desperately pathetic desire to "own the libs" or whatever he thought he was doing. But I did tweet at him to inform him that under Knight v. Trump, he appeared to be violating the 1st amendment rights of those he was blocking.

He appears to meet the conditions laid out in that and other rulings on this issue. Massie is a government official, who uses his Twitter account for conducting official government business, and who is then blocking users based on their viewpoints.

In response to me pointing out that it violates the 1st Amendment for him to block people in this way... Rep. Massie blocked me.

Seems a bit ironic for a "strict Constitutionalist" to block someone for merely pointing out that public officials blocking someone via their official government accounts violates the 1st Amendment. But, I guess that's the kind of "strict Constitutionalist" that Rep. Thomas Massie is. One who will support just the rights he wants to support, and will quickly give up the other ones, so long as he can be seen to be winning whatever culture war he thinks he's waging.

This is pretty unfortunate. For all of Massie's other nonsense, he has actually been quite good in defending the 4th Amendment rights of the American public against surveillance. Perhaps he only believes in the even-numbered Amendments?

Either way, our letter points out that his actions appear to violate the 1st Amendment, and asks that he unblocks me and everyone else that he has chosen to block.

Multiple courts have held that public officials’ social media accounts constitute public forums when they are used in the way that you use the @RepThomasMassie account, and they have made clear that public officials violate the First Amendment when they block users from these fora on the basis of viewpoint. For example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reached this conclusion in Knight Institute v. Trump, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reached this conclusion in Davison v. Randall. The principles articulated in these cases apply here. In both of these cases, and in many others, courts have held that the First Amendment binds public officials who use their social media accounts in furtherance of official duties, and that public officials act unconstitutionally when they block individuals from these accounts on the basis of viewpoint.

Again, we ask that you unblock the Twitter account @mmasnick and any other Twitter accounts that have been blocked by you or your staff from the @RepThomasMassie account based on viewpoint.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: 1st amendment, 2nd amendment, blocking, social media, thomas massie
Companies: knight 1st amendment institute


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Samuel Abram (profile), 7 Dec 2021 @ 9:29am

    Massie and amendments

    This is pretty unfortunate. For all of Massie's other nonsense, he has actually been quite good in defending the 4th Amendment rights of the American public against surveillance. Perhaps he only believes in the even-numbered Amendments?

    Maybe Massie likes his Amendments like he likes his Star Trek movies.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Total, 7 Dec 2021 @ 9:36am

    "When the culture war and "owning" your ideological opponents is more important than actually doing your job, you get things like that."

    Eh. It's certainly possible to do both, and given that the Dems have a majority in the House, Massie doesn't really have much substantive to do.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    James Burkhardt (profile), 7 Dec 2021 @ 9:56am

    What gets me is....

    All they have to do is click mute instead of block.
    All they have to do is click mute instead of block.
    All they have to do is click mute instead of block.
    All they have to do is click mute instead of block.
    All they have to do is click mute instead of block.

    Its not that complicated.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Baron von Robber, 7 Dec 2021 @ 9:57am

    For a guy with an arsenal, he sure is insecure.

    That might be a bad combo.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2021 @ 10:01am

      Re:

      For a guy with an arsenal, he sure is insecure.

      He has an arsenal because he IS insecure.

      And the size of his gun is inversely proportional to the size of his insecurity.

      Just sayin....

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Bergman (profile), 7 Dec 2021 @ 10:05am

        Re: Re:

        Better to be insecure than delusional. The world is not safe, insisting that it is, is a dangerous delusion.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2021 @ 10:25am

          Re: Re: Re:

          The world is not safe, insisting that it is, is a dangerous delusion.

          The world is safe enough to where I have lived in 3 different states, traveled to 45 out of 50 states, and lived overseas in Europe for several years, all without needing a single weapon, let alone an arsenal. Oh, and I am close to hitting that half-century mark in age.

          So please tell me, what 'shithole' country do you live in where you need an arsenal of weapons just to feel "safe" from the world?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Toom1275 (profile), 8 Dec 2021 @ 12:13am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            And I'm the Queen of Australia.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 8 Dec 2021 @ 4:47am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "So please tell me, what 'shithole' country do you live in where you need an arsenal of weapons just to feel "safe" from the world?"

            Well, if the 2nd amendment crowd is to be believed, the US would be that shithole of a country.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Baron von Robber, 7 Dec 2021 @ 10:48am

          Re: Re: Re:

          And the insecurity based on a delusion?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Baron von Robber, 7 Dec 2021 @ 10:49am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Almost going on 56 years. Never needed a weapon once.

          Do you live in Somalia?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2021 @ 11:11am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Whats really gonna flip your noodle when you grow up, is that insecurity is a type of delusion.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2021 @ 1:46pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Presenting stacked false dichotomies is a dangerous lie.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          JMT (profile), 7 Dec 2021 @ 5:33pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "The world is not safe..."

          His world is pretty safe. Next you'll be telling us that M60 of his is in case of home invasion. Or is that just his hunting rifle?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2021 @ 9:58am

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      MightyMetricBatman, 7 Dec 2021 @ 10:03am

      Re:

      Ther comin' to take me Jewish Space Lasers!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That Anonymous Coward (profile), 7 Dec 2021 @ 10:14am

      Re:

      Funny, she seems to have no comment about her faithful, fueled by her insane ramblings, threatening to kill other people.

      Perhaps she should look into leaving public life & then she can block anyone she wants to.

      But she probably isn't woman enough to do that.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Upstream (profile), 7 Dec 2021 @ 10:02am

    Free speech under attack everywhere

    Free speech is being attacked by both factions of the US government, by authoritarians in other countries all over the world, and possibly even on Tor. Private entities are becoming more censorious, and, while they have the right to censor, it still may not be the right thing to do. It is becoming increasingly difficult to find places to speak freely to others. And if you just talk to yourself . . . .

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2021 @ 10:59am

      Re: Free speech under attack everywhere

      What do you want to say that you cannot say on a personal blog? Note that an implication of free speech and association is that people can gather where they are welcome, but are not guaranteed that the crowd will ever be more than one. I can't speak on <platform name> is objecting that you cannot force an audience to listen.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      btr1701 (profile), 7 Dec 2021 @ 12:37pm

      Re: Free speech under attack everywhere

      Ironically, as the major web platforms turn into ever more censorious asshats, Usenet-- the original social media, long abandoned for the MySpaces and Facebooks and Reddits and Twitters of the world-- is now becoming a bit more robust. The TV newsgroup I frequent has seen an uptick of non-spam, non-troll actual normal people posting and participating in the last couple of years. You can post what you want and say what you want and any censoring is left up to individual user. Yes, that does allow for a lot of spam, but with the a decent newsreader and judicious application of filters, I rarely see more than 5% of it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2021 @ 12:44pm

        Re: Re: Free speech under attack everywhere

        Ironically, as the major web platforms turn into ever more censorious asshats

        Here's a hint for you, if you don't like the major web platforms, don't use them!! Find a site that hosts the same ideals that you have and use their platform; Gab, Frank, Parler, etc. would all love to have you as a user, and they won't "censor" you like big tech does. (or so they say)

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          btr1701 (profile), 7 Dec 2021 @ 10:44pm

          Re: Re: Re: Free speech under attack everywhere

          if you don't like the major web platforms, don't use them

          Already there, Captain Obvious, but thanks for the tip!

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
          icon
          btr1701 (profile), 7 Dec 2021 @ 10:46pm

          Re: Re: Re: Free speech under attack everywhere

          Gab, Frank, Parler, etc. would all love to have you as a user, and they won't "censor" you like big tech does.

          Nah, I'll just stick with Usenet where there is no actual censorship because it's not a centralized platform owned by anyone.

          But thanks for the second (useless) tip!

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2021 @ 10:54pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Free speech under attack everywhere

            You do realize that the server admin for whatever news server you connect to, has the ability to censor whatever they want.

            Just because it's decentralized, doesn't mean that the server admin can't dictate what groups are received from the upstream feed.

            As somebody who has done so in the past, I made sure that I stayed up do date in filtering (technically, not accepting) any binary group that hosted underage content.

            Guess what, that was a pure form of "censorship" as you would define it, and I did it with our Usenet feed.

            So maybe you should study up a bit about the technologies you profess to know so much about before you come in and sound like a fucking idiot.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              btr1701 (profile), 7 Dec 2021 @ 11:06pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free speech under attack everywhere

              As somebody who has done so in the past

              Cool story, bro.

              The reality is that my daily experience on Usenet for oh, the last 23 years or so, is that not one post I've ever sent has failed to show up because some self-appointed overlord somewhere decided it violated some half-assed and purposely vague 'community safety guideline' (because there are none). Nor have I ever found my ability to post suspended because a new rule suddenly emerged one day that was applied retroactively to the beginning of time.

              So maybe you should study up a bit about the technologies you profess to know so much about

              LOL! I never 'professed to know so much about' anything here, you jackass. I made a comment on the fact that one can post on Usenet with little to none of the censorship found in the walled gardens of the social media titans. That's all. And that's a true statement.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Toom1275 (profile), 8 Dec 2021 @ 12:19pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Free speech under attack everywhere

            To be honest, there's no actual censorahip on any platforms.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2021 @ 1:48pm

        Re: Re: Free speech under attack everywhere

        Cause, effect, claims about these not in evidence.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Rocky, 7 Dec 2021 @ 2:30pm

        Re: Re: Free speech under attack everywhere

        You never have run an usenet-server, have you? What groups you see on most usenet-servers is what the server-admin allows you to see, nothing more.

        The whole "post what you want and say what you want" are the rallying cry for those who lack discretion. If I'm reading a group about dust mites in upper Conservatoria I don't want the asshats to pollute it with their "post what you want and say what you want" that's totally off topic.

        That you see less spam/trolls can be because the server you are using doesn't feed from the server those people are using or that some admin has squelched those users.

        And in regards to major web platforms turning into censorious asshats, none of my friends on the internet have ever had their posts "censored". The point you are totally missing is that a majority people doesn't want to see spam and assholes filling their feed and they don't want to do judicious application of filters - they expect it just to work.

        You and others blame the social platforms for their moderation decisions, but policies regarding moderation isn't birthed in a vacuum, a majority of the decision regarding their policies are a response to what the trolls and asshats do, so blame them - the real culprits.

        TL;DR: We can't have nice things because of the assholes.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
          icon
          btr1701 (profile), 7 Dec 2021 @ 10:54pm

          Re: Re: Re: Free speech under attack everywhere

          The point you are totally missing is that a majority people
          doesn't want to see spam and assholes filling their feed and
          they don't want to do judicious application of filters - they
          expect it just to work.

          Oh, well, then those people can graze around in their walled gardens with rules that pop up out of nowhere one day and find their accounts suspended over something they posted 10 years ago that was perfectly fine at the time but now suddenly violates this new and exciting rule.

          I choose to use a forum where that (and a myriad of other 'safety' guidelines) don't get in the way of people talking amongst themselves. And yes, we have great discussions, so it works just fine for me.

          Isn't that what all you Masnick remoras are always telling people? "If you don't like how the social media titans run their platforms, go somewhere else?"

          And now here I am, having indeed done just that. I've gone somewhere else and all I get is a raft of condescending shit from the usual suspects for doing exactly what they constantly say I should do.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Rocky, 8 Dec 2021 @ 12:06am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Free speech under attack everywhere

            I choose to use a forum where that (and a myriad of other 'safety' guidelines) don't get in the way of people talking amongst themselves. And yes, we have great discussions, so it works just fine for me.

            Isn't that what all you Masnick remoras are always telling people? "If you don't like how the social media titans run their platforms, go somewhere else?"

            And now here I am, having indeed done just that. I've gone somewhere else and all I get is a raft of condescending shit from the usual suspects for doing exactly what they constantly say I should do.

            So what the fuck are you here complaining about?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              btr1701 (profile), 8 Dec 2021 @ 5:14pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free speech under attack everywhere

              So what the fuck are you here complaining about?

              Go back to my original post and you'll find it wasn't a complaint at all.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2021 @ 4:01pm

        Re: Re: Free speech under attack everywhere

        but with the a decent newsreader and judicious application of filters,

        Which is beyond the ability of most people on the net, and why Usenet has largely been replaced by services that do the filtering for their users.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          btr1701 (profile), 7 Dec 2021 @ 10:55pm

          Re: Re: Re: Free speech under attack everywhere

          and why Usenet has largely been replaced by services that do the filtering for their users.

          Whether they like it or not.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            James Burkhardt (profile), 8 Dec 2021 @ 11:11am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Free speech under attack everywhere

            I continue to struggle to apply your “this usenet group is at a perfect level of censorship” rants to the article you responded to.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2021 @ 11:33am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free speech under attack everywhere

              Because those damn kids just won't get off his Facebook lawn. And there ain't nobody under 55 on Usenet.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              btr1701 (profile), 8 Dec 2021 @ 5:15pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free speech under attack everywhere

              I continue to struggle to apply...

              When did your deficits become my problem?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2021 @ 8:33pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free speech under attack everywhere

                Time to put the magic light box down gramps. You know it’s lights out at 8:30 sharp.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                  icon
                  btr1701 (profile), 9 Dec 2021 @ 7:38am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free speech under attack everywhere

                  Cool story, bro.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    MightyMetricBatman, 7 Dec 2021 @ 10:02am

    Since Representative Massie only believes in even numbered amendments, Biden should house some troops in Representative Massie's home.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Koby (profile), 7 Dec 2021 @ 10:16am

    Moving Target

    In the past, it has been claimed that social media is not a public forum. Now, all of a sudden, it IS a public forum. If 1st amendment protections can be applied to prevent government officials from blocking comments, then it's time to admit that social media is a public forum with guarantees of speech and no blocking for all citizens.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2021 @ 10:28am

      Re: Moving Target

      In the past, it has been claimed that social media is not a public forum. Now, all of a sudden, it IS a public forum.

      There you go again, being stupid and not savvy enough to understand the details. Here let me help you:

      Multiple courts have held that public officials’ social media accounts constitute public forums when they are used in the way that you use the @RepThomasMassie account, and they have made clear that public officials violate the First Amendment when they block users from these fora on the basis of viewpoint.

      Did you not see the part about public officials' social media accounts?

      You really do suck at this, big time.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 7 Dec 2021 @ 10:31am

      Re: Moving Target

      In the past, it has been claimed that social media is not a public forum. Now, all of a sudden, it IS a public forum.

      No, Koby, this has been explained directly to you at length. Social media, in general, is NOT a public forum. However, if a government official creates a forum for official business, THAT forum is a public forum. Let me explain it to you more specifically. A restaurant is not a public forum. If Governor Koby rents out the restaurant to hold a gov't press conference, then -- for that time -- it is a public forum.

      That's it.

      That's what's happening here. A government official is using a private venue to create a public forum. It is only that part that the government official sets up that is the public forum.

      We have explained this, and I'm pretty sure directly to you in the past.

      If 1st amendment protections can be applied to prevent government officials from blocking comments, then it's time to admit that social media is a public forum with guarantees of speech and no blocking for all citizens.

      No, Koby, that's not how any of this works. That would mean any time a government official rents out a hotel or a restaurant or an arena for an event, that those private property places become public forums for the rest of time? No, only a truly foolishly stupid person could possibly believe that.

      Are you that person?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        icon
        Koby (profile), 7 Dec 2021 @ 11:56am

        Re: Re: Moving Target

        If Governor Koby rents out the restaurant to hold a gov't press conference, then -- for that time -- it is a public forum.

        That's definitely not a public forum. The government has never been required to let everyone into the event. And the government does kick out hecklers all the time. It may be an event, but there is no forum.

        That would mean any time a government official rents out a hotel or a restaurant or an arena for an event, that those private property places become public forums for the rest of time?

        The event never ended. Government officials, somewhere out there, are probably posting to social media, right this minute. If the a judge rules that it was a public forum, where you have to allow any citizens inside, and they can say anything they want, then it STILL is a public forum, right now.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2021 @ 12:10pm

          Re: Re: Re: Moving Target

          The event never ended. Government officials, somewhere out there, are probably posting to social media, right this minute. If the a judge rules that it was a public forum, where you have to allow any citizens inside, and they can say anything they want, then it STILL is a public forum, right now.

          You're correct, as long as you realize that it only pertains to a public official who uses their social media accounts for official government business.

          And what you are too stupid, ignorant or just refuse to understand, is that it applies to the public official's government account ONLY and does not extend to the entire landscape of social media.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Mike Masnick (profile), 7 Dec 2021 @ 1:50pm

          Re: Re: Re: Moving Target

          That's definitely not a public forum.

          It absolutely 100% totally is. You're just wrong.

          The government has never been required to let everyone into the event.

          It cannot discriminate based on viewpoint. That's the issue, Koby. As we stated. It can limit based on size of venue. But it cannot choose who can come based on their viewpoint or speech. Is it clicking for you yet?

          The event never ended.

          Lol, whut?

          Government officials, somewhere out there, are probably posting to social media, right this minute. If the a judge rules that it was a public forum, where you have to allow any citizens inside, and they can say anything they want, then it STILL is a public forum, right now.

          Are you having a stroke right now?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 8 Dec 2021 @ 5:05am

          Re: Re: Re: Moving Target

          "That's definitely not a public forum."

          It is, by definition, if a government official is using it to present government information to the public.

          "The government has never been required to let everyone into the event."

          If they don't then it is, by definition, not a public forum. It would be a closed government function.

          "And the government does kick out hecklers all the time. It may be an event, but there is no forum."

          It is. You can be removed from the public space as well if you misbehave. I suggest you go read up on the laws pertaining to "public disturbance".

          "If the a judge rules that it was a public forum, where you have to allow any citizens inside, and they can say anything they want, then it STILL is a public forum, right now."

          The judge didn't rule that way. Both in the case of Trump and in the case of Thomas Massi the judge determined that their particular twitter feed was a public forum when used by the president and Massi. Not the rest of Twitter.

          But you knew that, Koby.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      DeComposer (profile), 7 Dec 2021 @ 10:49am

      Re: Moving Target

      Koby – Missing the point for nearly half a century!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 8 Dec 2021 @ 5:14am

        Re: Re: Moving Target

        Very hard to hit a goal you're actively aiming to miss is all I'm saying. Koby's spent most of his time here shilling for the alt-right view that a property owner shouldn't be allowed to evict asshole guests from their own property.

        His view is that the Klansman is entitled to scream the N-word on Facebook, the nazi is entitled to proclaim their ideology in the bar...and, by the same logic, the creepy lech is entitled to the right to a woman's body.

        Because having to treat people equally is a terrible infringement of the rights of the poor, poor bigots he keeps carrying water for.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2021 @ 11:32am

      Re: Moving Target

      I'm beginning to suspect you have a kink for being publicly shamed.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Baron von Robber, 7 Dec 2021 @ 11:35am

      Re: Moving Target

      Why is it that you can't remember things, Koby? Is it a physical thing? Like you got damaged?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 8 Dec 2021 @ 4:56am

      Re: Moving Target

      "In the past, it has been claimed that social media is not a public forum. Now, all of a sudden, it IS a public forum."

      Koby, what part of 1A did you simply not understand?

      Thomas Massie is a government official. He is not allowed to block people from partaking of his communications - they count as public, because they're governmental.

      Much like the way Il Duce Arancia's twitter feed was judged a public forum when he was prez.

      Do we have to tell you, once again, why government official is restricted by 1A but private citizen is not?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    McKay (profile), 7 Dec 2021 @ 11:05am

    I think this action could get him in serious trouble

    Congresspeople should know better, but perhaps they don't, so I'm willing to give them a little of the benefit of the doubt, but blocking someone who says "it's illegal for you to block people", puts them in the clear realm of no longer being able to claim ignorance? Is that clear grounds for a 1st amendment suit?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Glenn, 7 Dec 2021 @ 11:30am

    So, why does twitter even allow a block function for accounts that are used for official government business?

    On a different topic...

    Why do people who are afraid of guns and blame guns for violent behavior always trying to stigmatize people who aren't and don't use them for illegal purposes?

    Plenty of hypocrisy to go around.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Baron von Robber, 7 Dec 2021 @ 11:44am

      Re:

      "So, why does twitter even allow a block function for accounts that are used for official government business?"

      Twitter bends over backwards to favor officials in government.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      James Burkhardt (profile), 7 Dec 2021 @ 11:46am

      Re:

      So, why does twitter even allow a block function for accounts that are used for official government business?

      That's a fucking wild ask.

      Twitter hasn't developed custom software to eliminate the button on "official" accounts of public employees and I don't think that is unreasonable? It doesn't improve the financials to dedicate people to scanning the various accounts of public officials and making moderation decisions on whether the account is the 'official' account of the office at the same time those officials are looking for an excuse to punish twitter.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2021 @ 1:53pm

      Re:

      Not sure where the hypocrisy is on #2 there. Overreaction, maybe?

      As for #1, why should Twitter code admin settings to remove block buttons from some accounts? Why shouldn't those account holders have the freedom to reveal themselves as First Amendment haters (and potential violators)?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    deezil (profile), 7 Dec 2021 @ 1:03pm

    This fuckwaffle

    happens to be my rep and every time he opens his stupid mouth, I just get angry.

    KY is probably going to lose the only Democrat-side seat we hold in Washington in 2022 and while we do have a great person running to unseat Rand Paul (also a fuckwaffle), most Kentuckians are going to look at his skin tone and pass him by. Kentucky, more than most other states votes for people who are against our own self-interests every time we have a choice. It's maddening. I'm here until a kid graduates HS and then I hope to never have to live in this backwards-ass state again.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 8 Dec 2021 @ 5:20am

      Re: This fuckwaffle

      "Kentucky, more than most other states votes for people who are against our own self-interests every time we have a choice. It's maddening."

      Except for North and South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Arizona, Texas, Georgia, Tennessee and Florida, you mean?

      It's not like you aren't in good company.

      What really busts my chops, looking in from outside is that when politics is divided neatly into "The deranged" and "Everyone not stark raving mad" that doesn't provide high incentive for the democrats to any more than just "business as usual".

      Which, sadly, appears to be to satisfy their campaign contributors.

      A healthier body politic tends to consist of about half a dozen parties vying for power - and at that point it's not enough to just make the right noises, you have to deliver in order to remain competitive.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    migi (profile), 7 Dec 2021 @ 2:13pm

    Fair weather friend

    Given his lack of consistency between supporting different rights, my guess is that Rep Massie defends the 4th amendment because he thinks it owns the libs or fights back against the tyrannical commies or some such BS.
    I bet if the shoe was on the other foot he'd dump the 4th amendment just as quickly as the 1st.
    In a just and fair world Reps who don't support all rights for all people should be kicked out at the next election.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 7 Dec 2021 @ 3:53pm

    That's not what that word means, that's not at all what it means

    'I'm a strict constitionalist, I support all the rights that I agree with in any given moment to the extent that doing so will benefit me!'

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    anon, 7 Dec 2021 @ 10:55pm

    really?

    "To be honest, I had avoided tweeting about Massie's armory family portrait, because the whole thing was just such a blatant cry for attention. "

    You think that was a cry for attention? I think it was a demonstration of firearm safety. Apparenly you're under 60, and probably under 50 (and I'm not going to bother checking wikipedia). When my grandparents wen to school, they carried their rifles because they might shoot dinner on the way home. When my parents went to school, their schools still had firing ranges on campus. When I went to school it was still normal to have a hunting rifle handing in the back window of your pickup, if you drove one. Ten years ago, schools had police on staff, as it were, to arrest the student drug dealers carring automatic pistols (at least at the HS down the street.)
    The problem is people. Albino, Black, Brown, Tan, White, Yellow -- it doesn't matter what color they are. Guns aren't the problem because, as you know, you can kill just as many people with an SUV, and as Alec Baldwin proved, you don't have to be a redneck, a minority or a teen to be stupid with a gun.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Upstream (profile), 8 Dec 2021 @ 4:16am

    Keep your eye on the ball

    The key point to remember in all this is that when one congresscritter (or other government functionary) occasionally "gets it right" it is not a validation of that individual, their office, or the government system of which they are a part. It is almost always merely an example of the "blind squirrels / stopped clocks" phenomenon.

    By "gets it right" I mean saying or doing something meaningful in support of individual rights and liberties. Political grandstanding, pandering, lip service, symbolic horse$#!t and the like do not count here.

    The present case is a clear example of Massey pandering, in addition to showing pure contempt for free speech and the court precedents saying he cannot block people from an official account. His blocking of Mike Masnick for pointing this out is simply contemptuous lagniappe. We can only hope some version of the Striesand Effect comes into play here.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Hugo S Cunningham (profile), 8 Dec 2021 @ 4:57pm

    Massie a buffoon, but courts got social media decisions wrong

    Until very recently, it was understood that individuals, whether private citizens or politicians, had a right to engage their followers without getting flooded out by trolls and hecklers. (Exceptions applied, of course, to accounts maintained or serviced with public money, or used to transact official business.)

    Thomas Paine was not required to allot 50% of his <i>American Crisis</i> series to arguments in favor of King George. Abraham Lincoln was not required to allocate 50% of the Gettysburg Address to Copperheads arguing for Confederate Independence. Harriet Beecher Stowe was not required to allot 50% of <i>Uncle Tom's Cabin</i> to defenders of slavery. (Though Stowe would release a second book <i>A Key to Uncle Tom's Cabin</i> to engage and refute pro-slavery criticisms of <i>Uncle Tom's Cabin</i>.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 9 Dec 2021 @ 10:27pm

      Re: Massie a buffoon, but courts got social media decisions wron

      Until very recently, it was understood that individuals, whether private citizens or politicians, had a right to engage their followers without getting flooded out by trolls and hecklers. (Exceptions applied, of course, to accounts maintained or serviced with public money, or used to transact official business.)

      You are misunderstanding (or misread?) the ruling here. It said politicians can still mute or ignore people. The issue is when they block those people from speaking entirely in the public forum the government officials create for official business based on the speaker's viewpoint.

      Thomas Paine was not required to allot 50% of his <i>American Crisis</i> series to arguments in favor of King George. Abraham Lincoln was not required to allocate 50% of the Gettysburg Address to Copperheads arguing for Confederate Independence.

      What? That's got literally nothing to do with any of this. The rulings don't say that the politicians have to "allot 50%" of anything to those who disagree with you. All it says is that if you create a public forum as a government official, you can't discriminate and block people based on their viewpoints in that forum.

      That's got nothing at all to do with what a politician says. Also when was Harriet Beecher Stowe a government official?!?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Lostinlodos (profile), 9 Dec 2021 @ 6:16pm

    Two problems

    The fact that politicians are using social media for official business is a joke and needs to stop. That is not the proper place to communicate with your population.

    But I also have a serious problem with courts saying they can’t block people on a social service because of opinion. It opens it up to trolling and stalking and all sorts of crimes and should-be-crimes. And o have to suffer rather than block.

    Something about that premise is dangerous and scary!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2021 @ 12:47am

      Re: Two problems

      But I also have a serious problem with courts saying they can’t block people on a social service because of opinion.

      Up until it happened to Donald Trump, and it took you an hour to undo the knot you twisted in your grandmother's panties. Followed by another hour to clean off the piss.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        icon
        Lostinlodos (profile), 10 Dec 2021 @ 8:47am

        Re: Re: Two problems

        WTH are you talking about.
        The idea that you must allow someone to follow you is dangerous!
        Doesn’t matter who the users are.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2021 @ 8:43pm

          Re: Re: Re: Two problems

          You don't really have to put up a facade. When Trumpy got kicked off of social media platforms you and out_of_the_blue and Koby threw such an epic tantrum they felt it on the other half of the planet. But don't worry. If there's one thing y'all MAGA chumps are good at it's keeping the faith.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Lostinlodos (profile), 12 Dec 2021 @ 11:11pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Two problems

            You’re really out there sometimes!
            This has absolutely nothing to do with Trump being tossed from any platform.

            This Is a matter of a court saying, no exceptions, a person can’t block someone else based on political opinion.
            Wonder what your opinion will be when a few sheet heads decide to follow some far left anti-white racist.

            Apparently unlike you, my opinions do not stop at a partisan door.
            This sets a precedent that comes with very real dangers.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 13 Dec 2021 @ 3:13am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two problems

              "This Is a matter of a court saying, no exceptions, a person can’t block someone else based on political opinion. "

              No, it's a matter of the court saying government can't block someone else based on political opinion. That's actually 1A, right there. In the particular instance where Massie communicates as a congressman he is, in fact, no longer a person. He's government.

              "Wonder what your opinion will be when a few sheet heads decide to follow some far left anti-white racist."

              Please, lostin, blow that dog whistle just a bit harder, m'kay?

              For the record, though, if a public official turns out to be a racist you've got bigger problems. Also, the KKK will declare someone like MLK racist because to them, him preaching equality, is racism against white people.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Lostinlodos (profile), 13 Dec 2021 @ 12:27pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two problems

                I wasn’t replying to you. I was replying to a particular poster who despite being anonymous has an easily detectable cadence and is a known entity.
                A liberal version of kobi just poking at anyone.

                It wasn’t a “dog whistle”. It was a direct reply to ‘but Trump’.
                I like you. Don’t fall into the trap of not taking context-of-post-placement into account.

                Let me respond to your claim though.
                I draw a line between official government service and using private service for government-related use.
                Politicians on both sides are facing direct threats. Real world threats.
                And a blank order of no-block can be very dangerous.

                Both parties have small but militant extremes. Small groups of armed people bent of violence.
                This ruling just gave them a safe-space of sorts to harass and ridicule and monitor and track with impunity.

                Scroll up a bit and look at my initial comments on this. It’s not about speech, it’s about removing use of a feature that has know safety ramifications.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 14 Dec 2021 @ 7:57am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two problems

                  "It wasn’t a “dog whistle”. It was a direct reply to ‘but Trump’."

                  The term some far left anti-white racist isn't a realistic one. Not by a mile. Take it from someone who actually knows what "far left" is - you hardly have any of those across the pond to begin with. And left-wing racist is a bit of an oxymoron as well.

                  See, it's a bit hard to commit to the philosophy where individualism takes a back step to the common good and simultaneously insist there's a demographic which is lesser.

                  Racism is inherently the natural domain of the far right and the centrists. The more left you go the less likely you are to be able to justify discrimination based on race or ethnicity. No, the left has other natural drawbacks, prejudices and flaws they fall for...but racism isn't one of them. Leftie bigotry is easy to discern - find whoever makes possession of wealth itself an automatic target of prejudice.

                  If the extreme right is predisposed to finding scapegoats in races, ethnicity, origin and religion, the extreme left is predisposed to finding their scapegoats among the wealthy.
                  And that's more ideological than it is the simple desire to look down on someone else, the way LBJ described it. No, with the extreme left it's pure Marx where they insist that any beneficiary of an unethical system is part of the problem and needs removal. But this can not justify prejudice based on ethnicity.

                  (That's also, incidentally, how you can tell China's never been communist. No actual communist can justify celebrating "the working class, the peasantry, the urban petite bourgeoisie, and the national bourgeoisie" as China does on it's national flag.)

                  On a tangent here, one problem the US really has is the willingness to conflate words which have distinct meaning. Liberals, for instance, aren't by default leftist. THAT is a conflation conservatives lacking actual policy tried to make to nail progressives to the communist scare of Hoover and McCarthy. And then confuse the issue until the current situation, where the average MAGA hat wearer has no clue about anything except that, apparently, liberals are governed by lizard people who eat babies.

                  Your problem right here is that with your oft-stated belief republicans are the lesser evil compared to democrats people will read into your assertions statements which may or may not be there. The average Trump voter, after all, is exemplified by wilful ignorance, malicious hatred, fear of the other...and there will always be judgment based on the company you keep.

                  "I draw a line between official government service and using private service for government-related use. "

                  I honestly don't see why. I mean sure, there's an overlap. But as #45's day in court showed there's a problem when a government employee starts to primarily use unofficial channels to pound out their message to the voters. It may not be kind to deny a politician the same discretionary power people not in government service have but...there's literally no other way.

                  That all said the real idiocy by Massie here is that although the courts are clear blocking someone from his channel should be a no-go, no one said anything about muting.

                  "Both parties have small but militant extremes. Small groups of armed people bent of violence. "

                  They really don't. You're just tossing half a dozen very different factions into the pot there and calling it soup. At least take the boot and the rusty nails out before you serve it, kay? Those don't belong.

                  Liberals and progressives don't have militias. They, after all, are the ones who keep believing everything can be settled in debate. They don't have training camps, armed militias, or large groups of the confused, ignorant and angry fully convinced the illuminati and/or the elders of zion are running the nation.

                  The actual socialists in existence in the US? They do have armed people - look up the SRA (Socialists Rifle Association) or Redneck Revolt - but those are normally almost as hostile to liberals and progressives as they are to right-wingers. The people who took Marx's call for armed civilians to heart, as it were. What those do not have is political representation. You won't find them under even the democrat big tent.

                  And then you have the wingnuts - Nation Of Islam and similar organizations. I'll grant you, that one is as racist as racist gets. Which might be why civil rights organizations brand it a hate group. Those are, however, hard to take any more seriously than the scientologists. I mean, once they start talking about God descending on a UFO to wipe out the Big Bad and lift the Chosen to safety then you're just talking about another iteration of some abrahamic doomsday cult. I put their limits of organized action between rifles and water towers, honestly.

                  This leaves us with the far right. And looking at the FBI's repeated warnings about the far right being the single greatest internal threat...they're not saying that for no reason. Putting whatever armed leftist we can find on one side of the scale and right wing militants on the other the balance looks like you tried to weigh the Weisse Rose against the Wehrmacht. Just another way you really can't make a "both sides" argument - it's so lopsided it's ridiculous. Pee-wee doesn't belong in the ring with Mike Tyson.

                  "This ruling just gave them a safe-space of sorts to monitor and track with impunity. "

                  Fixed that for you. What the ruling referred to says is that blocking access to communications isn't allowed where said communications can be considered governmental. Twitter does, however, have a Mute button as well and I don't think the ruling covers that.
                  I mean, it shouldn't. Even in a public meeting there's ample precedent that the heckler or the disruptive can be ushered out. But barring them from attendance or quietly partaking? That's where I draw the line.

                  Which brings us to the TL;DR?

                  No, an injunction against a government entity blocking attendance is not really a problem. If the injunction referred to muting attendees I'd see a problem here. But there's a world of difference between those two options.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Lostinlodos (profile), 14 Dec 2021 @ 9:37am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two problems

                    communist scare of Hoover and McCarthy

                    I remind you gently that it is the west as a whole, including Europe, that engaged in that religious crusade.

                    lizard people

                    The reptilians? Not sure if interdimensional reptiles exist or not.
                    Not sure I really care either!

                    your oft-stated belief republicans are the lesser evil compared to democrats

                    Oh no! American politics is evil. “Left” or “right”.

                    Liberals and progressives don't have militias

                    I’m not sure what you would call ANTIFA and the New Black Panthers then.

                    illuminati

                    ? Well, prior to 2016 there are few who would call me anything but a gun loving far left liberal… and I believe there’s definitely a cut from the same cloth ruling group.
                    In the past I would point at NATO and the UN but one in the US need only look at “Turncoat Liz” to see there’s definite crossover.
                    Part of what made Perot and Obama so popular is they weren’t “one of them”.

                    The actual socialists

                    I was at one point registered as DSPNY and ASPNC when living in those states.
                    I’ve also registered as LPIL and NLP-NV.
                    I’m serious when I say I’m no fan of either party.

                    I'll grant you, that one is as racist as racist gets.
                    NOI, NBP, BPR, DAN, there’s quite a few. Racist ideology cuts across all parties.

                    water towers

                    I’d be more concerned about those of the Watch Tower but yes. Nutz just the same!

                    Twitter does, however, have a Mute button

                    I wouldn’t know. If true things change a bit. Not much but a bit.

                    The problem I see is letting a nutter follow you by mandate only to have them show up and shoot you following an event.
                    Targeting politicians appears to be a theme of late. I worry the judge just put a bullseye on people.
                    Nothing less and nothing more.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 15 Dec 2021 @ 3:17am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two problems

                      "I remind you gently that it is the west as a whole, including Europe, that engaged in that religious crusade."

                      Trust me, not to that same extent. Not even close. You could walk the streets in Europe being a communist without becoming a registered terrorist or a subject of national interest. Case in point, we've had a communist party siting at roughly 5-7% in our parliament since forever, usually acting as a social conscience/counterweight to the ultra-right libertarians on the other side.

                      "I’m not sure what you would call ANTIFA and the New Black Panthers then. "

                      Antifa (literally; Anti-fascism) is a philosophy, not an organization.
                      There are right-wing militias which are fascist. Doesn't mean Fascism is a militia. And the conflation between Antifa and militant extremists is a pretty good indicator you've been buying snake oil from bad faith vendors. Antifa as a philosophy doesn't really lend itself to violent extremists bent on acting against the common good.

                      And the New Black Panthers, pegged as an actual hate group by liberals, isn't exactly a liberal militia. They're a nationalist movement firmly in the same pole as the neo-nazis, with the minor exception of who they want as a scapegoat.

                      "I’d be more concerned about those of the Watch Tower but yes. Nutz just the same!"

                      The one good thing about the Witnesses might just be they tend to annoy you individually more than nationally. Which is lamentably more than can be said about other, sadly far more popular doom cults, like the seventh day adventists still trying to fix the Great Disappointment.

                      "Targeting politicians appears to be a theme of late. I worry the judge just put a bullseye on people. "

                      I'm not sure if this calms you down or upsets you...but that judge only confirmed the status quo which has been established constitutional principle since the founders put pen to paper. Becoming a public figure, let alone a political one, has ample precedent on how their interaction with 1A must be handled.

                      The fact that politicians today need to worry about being targeted...I can only refer back to our previous debates around violence being an intrinsic part of the US cultural identity. It's just one more of those topics where the judge confirming that "Yes, 1A applies irrespective of medium" is only really an issue because there are so very many people around who think the proper response to dissenting opinion is a bullet.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2021 @ 3:51am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two problems

                        ultra-right libertarians

                        That is an absurd contradiction and betrays a deep ignorance of the proper meanings of "ultra," "right," and "libertarian."

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          Toom1275 (profile), 16 Dec 2021 @ 12:24am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two problems

                          [Projects facts not in evidence]

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • icon
                            Lostinlodos (profile), 16 Dec 2021 @ 1:22am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two problems

                            Not really when you look at the methods of communism in practice.

                            In practice socialism is as far left as you can get.

                            Communism is the opposite. It’s where you wind up as capitalism is drawn in and drawn down to one person/group/organisation.

                            And save it Devil, life doesn’t depend on a textbook definition.

                            Regardless of what was defined in 1910,1890,1840,1746…:
                            A decides b-z
                            One entity decides equality for all.
                            The one with the money decides what everyone else gets and what they can do with it. In practice it a wat every attempt at communism leads to and that is the ultimate of far right economics.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 16 Dec 2021 @ 5:03am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two problems

                          "That is an absurd contradiction and betrays a deep ignorance of the proper meanings of "ultra," "right," and "libertarian.""

                          You know that bit about where it's wiser to be silent and thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt?

                          On the right-left scale of fiscal politics libertarianism is as far to the right as it gets - it's where all fiscal power is in the hands of the individual.
                          Communism would be the literal opposite, where all fiscal power is held by government.

                          Your comment perfectly demonstrates my oft-repeated assertion the average american is so uneducated s/he is functionally illiterate.

                          TL;DR?

                          Do you even English, motherfscker?

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2021 @ 6:32am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two problems

                            Political positions are far too complex to be represented on a one-dimensional, linear scale. Two dimensions, while still inadequate, provide a much better system.

                            You might want to take the 1 minute quiz here. You can then view your results in two dimensions on the next page (you do not have to register or provide any information, just scroll down a bit and click "Continue without saving"). The two-dimensional results provide a much better representation of the relationships between the common major political categories of Progressive (Left), Conservative (Right), Libertarian, Authoritarian, and Moderate.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • icon
                              Lostinlodos (profile), 16 Dec 2021 @ 12:27pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two problems

                              Epic fail:

                              Your political character type:
                              Progressive

                              SHARE YOUR RESULTS
                              SHARE TWEET
                              Personal Issues Score:
                              70
                              Economic Issues Score:
                              20

                              Compare your results

                              You scored as a Progressive

                              Check to see how others who have taken the World's Smallest Political Quiz have scored below.

                              Ready to take the latest test for Progressives?

                              The Human Respect Test is designed for Progressives just like you to measure if your beliefs are Respectful or Coercive.

                              Take The Test
                              About Progressives

                              Your type is progressive. As a progressive you generally embrace freedom of choice in personal matters, but advocate for government intervention to control the economy and to redistribute wealth. You tend to tolerate alternative lifestyles, but favor a government-funded "safety net" to help the disadvantaged or reduce inequality. Most progressives support rigid regulation of business, as well as strict environmental regulations. You generally think the government should actively promote equal opportunity, but you might want some limits on free

                              Uh huh.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • icon
                            Lostinlodos (profile), 16 Dec 2021 @ 11:11am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two problems

                            Here I agree with you to some extent.
                            Personally I think prefer the quad cross for political representation.

                            Maybe there’s some subconscious thing to it for me I’m not fully aware of but it tends to make it easier to figure out where Americans actually are.

                            A person like me can easily be placed on a left right scale for any one issue. And nowhere on all issues.
                            On the five point scale libertarianism falls far north slightly east.
                            Communism falls far north and far east. Socialism far south and far west.

                            They are reaching the same end through completely opposite means.

                            If it means anything to you most European countries fall far south and slightly west.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • icon
                            Toom1275 (profile), 16 Dec 2021 @ 11:47am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two problems

                            Libertarians are Republicans who are just barely self-aware enough to realize that admitting to being Republican isn't smart.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • icon
                              Lostinlodos (profile), 16 Dec 2021 @ 1:47pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two problems

                              I’m not sure that’s all that accurate.

                              Libertarians by and large believe in the freedom of thy self. Freedom of thee.
                              How they get there can be very conservative and in this country usually is.
                              But it can also be very liberal.
                              Take my view of universal social coverage, including a base-level financing of all citizens.
                              When every starts even and equal and safe I have no problem implementing something where one can have a “got mine” moment. Because any ‘got mine’ isn’t a matter of survival.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • identicon
                                Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2021 @ 3:23pm

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two prob

                                Definitely not accurate, just a common misconception and a lame attempt at a joke.

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        Lostinlodos (profile), 15 Dec 2021 @ 11:51am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two problems

                        …is a philosophy…

                        When those who share a philosophy come together you have a group. And much as was pointed out that many communists are actually communist….

                        Whatever ‘they’ were at the beginning they now represent armed anarchists.

                        I caution you not to dismiss such situations simply because your nightly news doesn’t discuss it.

                        Criminal acts are not politics. This is civilian violence targeting civilians.
                        Smash and grabs are happening less than two miles from my residency.
                        Armed hijackings are happening on or primary through roads.
                        That the BLM and AntFia stickers and flags are often part of such cases… shows the problem is bigger than the headlines make out.

                        Be it the Republican / Democrat Party as a whole or any small group: there is a real criminal element in these.
                        Finding a false flag doesn’t negate the problem of others.

                        Good on you with the reference.

                        Ultimately the concern here is beyond speech and the first amendment.
                        Because this has a real world (not text) equivalent.
                        You talk of mute. Yet that is not practiced at White House briefings or political rallies. Or school board meetings.
                        You could mute. You place tape over one’s mouth. Mute.
                        But the general reaction to a contrary view is removal.

                        Yet I doubt we’re going to change anything on a larger stage here.
                        If democrats can remove republicans from political rallies where they discuss politics, why can a Republican not remove one single person.

                        Why can a man not confront the publicly elected school board paid by public funds, a branch of government, about his daughter who was raped under a school’s new policy.

                        Why does a board leader get to say “fuck you, get him out” but not a Republican politician?

                        For me it’s not the protection of 1A. It’s the application of it.

                        This ruling has now turned private communications that happen to be of government into public forum.

                        The equivalent here would be a private office meeting between a member of the government and a constituent requiring the entry of all of the public.

                        The use of non-official communication is itself a problem. But, turning private communication into public by default because it happens to include government communication is a major concern.
                        A major security concern. Addresses, birthdays, personal-private relations… all must be open to all of the public because they hey happen to be sandwiched between policy commentary?
                        Is a dangerous step to take.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 16 Dec 2021 @ 5:55am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two problems

                          "That the BLM and AntFia stickers and flags are often part of such cases… shows the problem is bigger than the headlines make out. "

                          Indeed. The fact that the FBI investigated it even when Trump was still prez and found those organized acts of violence turned out to be primarily boogaloo boys bullshit and provocations by other right-wing extremist groups only supports the fact; That right-wing extremism remains the largest problem the US faces internally while left-wing violence doesn't even blip on the FBI radar.

                          Your claim that political activists would perform clearly visible crimes in front of witnesses while proudly showing off the badge of their movement tells me only one thing; That the guys planning to have the "lefties" shoulder the blame are utter morons or rely on every other american being an utter moron.

                          But I guess there are just that many americans willing to believe this is a both sides issue. That almost every act of violence in this whole mess isn't, in fact, engineered courtesy of 1 in 4 americans today being a pseudo-organized fascist or fascist sympathizer.

                          This is indeed a bigger problem than headlines make it out to be.
                          Again, Lostin, scale. Left-wing violence can be handled by ordinary police action because there's so little of it. Right-wing violence falls under biggest internal terror threat.

                          Those are just the facts, no matter how much a lot of very loud people want BLM and Antifa to turn out to be the Big Bads - they aren't. They aren't even Small Bads.

                          "Smash and grabs are happening less than two miles from my residency. "

                          Yeah and none of those are aligned with politics beyond Oh, look, chaos, disorder..and an unguarded storefront.
                          Or you'd expect the feds to cart off busloads of what amounts to domestic terrorists - yet oddly enough they ones they cart off seem to primarily to have been very well known rightwingers wearing antifa stickers.

                          "You talk of mute. Yet that is not practiced at White House briefings or political rallies. Or school board meetings."

                          Did you sleep all over the reign of #45...or, for that matter, any other press briefing? Now admittedly #45 is the only one to have selectively tried to block press from his briefings but every president has held those briefings with rules (which you can find under a quick google for "office of press operations information for journalists").

                          Public venue doesn't mean it's a free for all. But there are restrictions. Whatever rules are imposed must be demonstrably impartial. No rule should impact an attendees ability to hear the message. If a debate is had at all then that must be open to everyone. If it's an announcement being made then questions for clarification need to be allowed equally.

                          "Why can a man not confront the publicly elected school board paid by public funds, a branch of government, about his daughter who was raped under a school’s new policy. "

                          Not aware of this particular case but it seems pretty clear to me; I'd advise differently under european law but under US law it sounds as if the man should have directly filed a suit and gone to the press. Because a school board may indeed be part of government yet I can see no US state where, irrelevant of political alignment of the board, a board primarily consisting of petty empire builders wouldn't try to toss the guy out.

                          That's not a question of politics. It's a question of face-saving bureaucrats with egg on their face.

                          "A major security concern. Addresses, birthdays, personal-private relations… all must be open to all of the public because they hey happen to be sandwiched between policy commentary? "

                          Err...you know, I hope, that all of your examples are already publicly available information?

                          This isn't restricted to politicians or government employees. Essentially you give up on certain considerations of privacy when you decide to become a public persona. Celebrities have similar issues and, I believe, were the first established precedents of this in law.

                          "But, turning private communication into public by default because it happens to include government communication is a major concern. "

                          Yet that is how US law works, and a US president figured heavily in the first precedent made by the US court of appeals on how a private communications channel works when a public persona uses it to establish public communications.

                          Had Massie's channel been private there'd be no issue. Yet, he used it to address the public and as a platform to bear his political message as part of the US government.

                          That members of the US government has less rights in reality than private citizens isn't, imho, that bad a concept. If anything I see it as one of very few signs of health in government-citizenry interaction recently.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • icon
                            Lostinlodos (profile), 16 Dec 2021 @ 11:42am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two problems

                            Yeah and none of those are aligned with politics beyond…

                            An environment that has sidelined the police forces in this country.
                            Something else o note is only one white person has been identified in these local cases. They aren’t organised trump supporters.
                            The right-wing boogeyman.

                            The recent Gold Coast theft on Chicago shows something. No gun violence because the thieves didn’t escalate it to gun violence.
                            The owner let the police handle it despite the staff being armed.

                            We, as a nation, aren’t at the tipping point yet and it can still be handled.
                            Once we reach the point where we have to fight back to survive…
                            I can only expect the media to turn real and actual crime and defensive from it into a racial issue.

                            It’s not like the wait for facts: as seen perfectly in calling an Arab shooter white. Only to change him to a raceless shooter when they were to make a correction.

                            Now admittedly #45 is the only one to have selectively tried to block press from his briefings

                            A single disruptive man known to cause chaos in such environments.

                            Not aware of this particular case

                            https://nypost.com/2021/10/26/virginia-teen-found-guilty-of-sexual-assault-that-sparked-volati le-school-board-meeting/

                            I’m not surprised. National media did everything it could to not cover this accurately.
                            What little coverage there is tends to leave off that there were two prior assaults against this poor girl.

                            This was my long standing concern in the methodology of self-identification.
                            It ignores the science.
                            I’ve never been against inclusion but I’ve written multiple times, here, elsewhere, and published editorial…
                            Such a drastic change in status of access needed safeguards. It was bound to be abused in the beginning and that concern was ignored.
                            And when abuses did happen: Virginia, California, Illinois, NY, Florida, … they were shoved under the rug.
                            Trans issues need to be discussed, elsewhere.
                            Here we have school boards, public government, around the country arresting people for speaking on the issue.
                            Our local high school flat out admitted it was going “to include CRT in all” aspects of lessons.
                            And then turned meetings into closed to the public events.

                            And I’m not going to discuss that
                            issue here either. My thoughts are known to be mixed.

                            It is once again government cutting off access to the public discussion.

                            Which again brings me back to the very old phrase that happens to be a(n), accurate, Republican talking point today.
                            ‘Rules for thee, not for me!’

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2021 @ 10:59pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two problems

              Wonder what your opinion will be when a few sheet heads decide to follow some far left anti-white racist.

              Unlike you, I won't be holding my breath waiting for it to happen.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 10 Dec 2021 @ 7:35am

      Re: Two problems

      "The fact that politicians are using social media for official business is a joke and needs to stop. That is not the proper place to communicate with your population. "

      Indeed. If a politician starts a blog and painstakingly divorces his private life from his official job, then sure. Off the clock his rights are, with caveats, the same as any other citizen.

      "But I also have a serious problem with courts saying they can’t block people on a social service because of opinion. It opens it up to trolling and stalking and all sorts of crimes and should-be-crimes."

      It depends on what I asserted right above; If a judge makes the case said politician is using that blog for political purposes then that politician, being government, can only see people tossed from it for the same reasons those people could be evicted from a public gathering.

      "It opens it up to trolling and stalking and all sorts of crimes and should-be-crimes."

      Which is still less bad than the alternative. This is one of those choices where the options to select from is "bad" or "really bad".

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.