But if US citizens are allowed to block president's twitter, then there is an im...

smichel17 · on Dec 2, 2017

I don't understand this argument. This seems like the equivalent of not attending said public forum. I'm not aware of any law against that, although I personally think it is a bad idea.

_csoz · on Dec 2, 2017

what's the point of forcing the president to accept a grievance if it's not possible for him to respond?

throwawayjava · on Dec 2, 2017

By your logic, city councils should not host any public Q&A sessions if even a single citizen in the city says they will refuse to attend.

That's clearly an absurd position.

_csoz · on Dec 2, 2017

no the analogy would be that if a citizen has a request the mayor is obliged to listen, but also the citizen should not run away right after making the request or wear earplugs. i am trying to follow the argument eff is making here and i also see that it leads to absurd conclusions

but i don't like analogies in general, analogies suck

throwawayjava · on Dec 2, 2017

> if a citizen has a request the mayor is obliged to listen, but also the citizen should not run away right after making the request

Well, presumably at least some of the people in the lawsuit didn't block Trump.

> but i don't like analogies in general, analogies suck

It's not an analogy, it's a general principle and the application thereof to a multitude of circumstances to test that principle's reasonableness.

The constitution does not and never will have a special subsection of the first amendment on Twitter and Social Media.

URSpider94 · on Dec 3, 2017

There is a built-in asymmetry in public service - what you describe would certainly be odd, and rude, but the obligation is on the mayor, and the citizen has no corresponding obligation to listen in reply.

icebraining · on Dec 2, 2017

No, under the US Constitution (and probably most others) the government is restricted in ways that private citizens aren't.