Trump gets shut down in Twitter anti free speech grab

[Cancel 2018.2]

Twitter dropped its lawsuit against the Trump administration after the government abruptly withdrew its request for the identity of an anonymous account critical of the president, according to court papers filed by Twitter on Friday.

The social media company had filed a lawsuit Thursday in federal court in the Northern District of California, claiming the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly and CBP acting commissioner Kevin McAleenan in mid-March demanded Twitter reveal the person or people behind the account @ALT_USCIS.

USCIS is the abbreviation for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, which has an official Twitter account at @USCIS. The @ALT_USCIS account, which surfaced in January on Twitter, is critical of the Trump administration.

Government workers have been setting up such Twitter accounts to release information, and criticize, government agencies since Trump was inaugurated. The suit highlighted antagonisms between the administration and those using social media to challenge it, privacy experts say.

Twitter had no further comment.

The Department of Homeland Security, citing policy, declined comment on Twitter's lawsuit.

Twitter sues government over attempt to unmask anti-Trump account
In mid-March, CBP demanded Twitter produce usernames, account logins, phone numbers, mailing addresses and IP addresses associated with the @ALT_USCIS account, according to the suit. But the request constituted an "unlawful” use of government powers and threatened the right to free speech of Twitter users, Twitter's suit said.

Free-speech advocates agreed.

The right of people to speak anonymously is a "core" tenet of Americans' right to free speech — whether in opposition to the government or an employer, says Emma Llanso, director of free expression at the Center for Democracy & Technology, a non-profit that promotes an open and free Internet.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech...raws-request-id-anti-trump-account/100173630/

Good and go pound sand Trump, especially since you are the Twitter in Chief.

 

[anatta]

do you understand this? this isn't "free speech" it's "alt-speech" by pissed off bureaucrats at war with policy.

Twitter dropped the suit. Meaning they are complying with USGOV's request to unmask the alts.

 

[Element-22-Cat]

do you understand this? this isn't "free speech" it's "alt-speech" by pissed off bureaucrats at war with policy.

Twitter dropped the suit. Meaning they are complying with USGOV's request to unmask the alts.

No they aren't. The government withdrew the request, that's why Twitter dropped the suit.

 

[Mr.Badguy]

do you understand this? this isn't "free speech" it's "alt-speech" by pissed off bureaucrats at war with policy.

Twitter dropped the suit. Meaning they are complying with USGOV's request to unmask the alts.

No, they dropped the suit because the gov dropped their request. Did you not read the article?

 

[Mr.Badguy]

And how is people criticizing policy not free speech? WTF, anatta?

 

[anatta]

damn..my bad..this is the 2nd time i've misread today.

it's fine to have internal channels for disagreement. State dept has one
++
Recognizing that our members are thoughtful professionals who may find themselves in honest disagreement with a policy matter or may want to share an alternative point of view, AFSA encourages Foreign Service employees to utilize the Dissent Channel in expressing constructive dissent. As defined under 2 FAM 072, the Dissent Channel “is a serious policy channel reserved only for consideration of responsible dissenting and alternative views on substantive foreign policy issues that cannot be communicated in a full and timely manner through regular operating channels and procedures
http://www.afsa.org/dissent-channel

but bureaucrat are responsible for implementing policy -they don't have a choice in the policy.
setting up formal channels masquerading as policy is disinformation.

I know I am not allowed to publically criticize my clients that provide my work

 

[Element-22-Cat]

damn..my bad..this is the 2nd time i've misread today.

it's fine to have internal channels for disagreement. State dept has one
++
Recognizing that our members are thoughtful professionals who may find themselves in honest disagreement with a policy matter or may want to share an alternative point of view, AFSA encourages Foreign Service employees to utilize the Dissent Channel in expressing constructive dissent. As defined under 2 FAM 072, the Dissent Channel “is a serious policy channel reserved only for consideration of responsible dissenting and alternative views on substantive foreign policy issues that cannot be communicated in a full and timely manner through regular operating channels and procedures
http://www.afsa.org/dissent-channel

but bureaucrat are responsible for implementing policy -they don't have a choice in the policy.
setting up formal channels masquerading as policy is disinformation.

I know I am not allowed to publically criticize my clients that provide my work

What formal channel masquerading as policy? It's a twitter account and nobody in their right mind or remotely close to their right mind would think it was a "formal" channel. It's not masquerading as anything, it looks like a typical Twitter bitch fest.

 

[Rune]

do you understand this? this isn't "free speech" it's "alt-speech" by pissed off bureaucrats at war with policy.

Twitter dropped the suit. Meaning they are complying with USGOV's request to unmask the alts.

So you really are mentally retarded.

 

[domer76]

No, they dropped the suit because the gov dropped their request. Did you not read the article?

Like many of the RWers on this forum, annatta appears to be a functional illiterate. They have reading comprehension a skills barely sufficient to get by. They fill in the blanks with whatever BS that suits their needs.