Constitution Wins...Trump Loses

[depotoo]

Which circuit did it come out of?

 

[WTP]

Trump can't block users from his Twitter feed, federal judge rules

free speech..it's a thing:

"President Donald Trump cannot block Twitter users for the political views they have expressed, a federal judge in Manhattan ruled on Wednesday.

Blocking users from viewing his Twitter account — a feature offered by the social media platform — is unconstitutional and a violation of the First Amendment, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald wrote in her ruling.

"While we must recognize, and are sensitive to, the President’s personal First Amendment rights, he cannot exercise those rights in a way that infringes the corresponding First Amendment rights of those who have criticized him," Buchwald wrote.

The government had argued that blocked individuals could still access the president’s tweets. The judge agreed but said that even considering the president's First Amendment rights, preventing users from interacting directly with him on Twitter represented a violation of a "real, albeit narrow, slice of speech.""

You'll have nothing more than crickets with this one.

So does that mean Twitter now has to allow everyone onto their platform regardless of their political views or posting content?

Lol! Just as you failed to debate statutes, you are also grossly uniformed about the Constitution as well.

If Trump can't block people no one can (did you hear that Jake?)...but do not fear this will be challenged and over ruled....

By who? Total ignoramuses to the Constitution?

This is a far more clear topic, not your "trump brokes the lawszes!" screed.

The judge is a Clinton appointee with an axe to grind.

And so, as the First Amendment is written, where exactly is the "axe"? ; Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[S.J.]

An Obama appointee?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

An Obama appointee?

No, Clinton


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Harpy Eagle]

But Trump is using the services of a private organization that isn't necessarily governed by the Constitution. How can Trump be violating anyone's first amendment rights when Twitter gave him the ability to block people following his account in the first place?

This ruling is flawed.

Exactly, so now nobody can block anyone or ignore someone like they can do here.

The ruling was about the nature of Trump’s tweets, not about twitter. The White House and the DOJ say that Trump’s tweets are Official Statements from the White House


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Wyatt earp]

But Trump is using the services of a private organization that isn't necessarily governed by the Constitution. How can Trump be violating anyone's first amendment rights when Twitter gave him the ability to block people following his account in the first place?

This ruling is flawed.

Exactly, so now nobody can block anyone or ignore someone like they can do here.

The ruling was about the nature of Trump’s tweets, not about twitter. The White House and the DOJ say that Trump’s tweets are Official Statements from the White House


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

They are spinning it, write a letter to the editor then..

 

[TemplarKormac]

The ruling was about the nature of Trump’s tweets, not about twitter.

Unless those tweets carry the full weight of law, the nature of his tweets are irrelevant. Courts are supposed to rule on what law governs this type of situation, not on the nature of the statements made by government officials. I feel like the medium in which the statements were made should have more of an impact.

 

[iceberg]

Nice to see a judge that cares about our first amendment rights!

Trump wants to destroy them and all his so called base can do is jump off that cliff!

great so you were ok with conservstives speaking at berkley?

you were against the violence to them when they tried to speak out?

 

[WTP]

Nice to see a judge that cares about our first amendment rights!

Trump wants to destroy them and all his so called base can do is jump off that cliff!

great so you were ok with conservstives speaking at berkley?

you were against the violence to them when they tried to speak out?

No, I am not okay with it. Conservatives should have had their say. It was wrong to not let them speak.

 

[S.J.]

An Obama appointee?

No, Clinton


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Same thing. Liberal activist judge using his position for political purposes.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Trump can't block users from his Twitter feed, federal judge rules

free speech..it's a thing:

"President Donald Trump cannot block Twitter users for the political views they have expressed, a federal judge in Manhattan ruled on Wednesday.

Blocking users from viewing his Twitter account — a feature offered by the social media platform — is unconstitutional and a violation of the First Amendment, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald wrote in her ruling.

"While we must recognize, and are sensitive to, the President’s personal First Amendment rights, he cannot exercise those rights in a way that infringes the corresponding First Amendment rights of those who have criticized him," Buchwald wrote.

The government had argued that blocked individuals could still access the president’s tweets. The judge agreed but said that even considering the president's First Amendment rights, preventing users from interacting directly with him on Twitter represented a violation of a "real, albeit narrow, slice of speech.""

Hmmmm...twitter can censor...and everybody else can block whomever they please for any reason..

But the President of the US must be prevented from blocking the trolls and stalkers that insult and attack him on twitter.

He can mute them..in fact, the judge recommended just that..but he cannot block them..because he is the President..our leader...and we have the right to access his official record. He has claimed that it is..and now he's stuck with the consequences.

Bullshit. The president has NO OBLIGATION TO LISTEN TO THE HECKLERS.You have a right to "speak." Nobody is obligated to listen.

That is exactly correct.

Which is why Trump can mute people on Twitter - which will prevent him from seeing those tweets - but can't block people, because that prevents them from "speaking" at all.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

But Trump is using the services of a private organization that isn't necessarily governed by the Constitution. Private organizations are corporate entities upon themselves, essentially defined by law as people. How can Trump be violating anyone's first amendment rights when Twitter gave him the ability to block people following his account in the first place?

This ruling is flawed.

The constitutional restrictions on the government's conduct remain applicable regardless of whether they use a a platform operated by a private company. When the government uses private prison companies the same constitutional obligations still apply.

 

[Darkwind]

Nice. Time to flood the twitter accounts of Chuck-u Schumer and Nancy Pelosi and the hundreds of other government Democrats.

After all, we cannot be blocked because we have a right to know what it is that the government is doing in our name.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

An Obama appointee?

No, Clinton


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Same thing. Liberal activist judge using his position for political purposes.

Trump is more liberal than Bill was as POTUS


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Same thing. Liberal activist judge using his position for political purposes.

Actually, the precedent was pre-existing. Prior cases had already established that government social media accounts cannot block individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the government official or agency. To be more specific, that any such blocking has to pass strict scrutiny because such a government action violates the individual's free speech rights. The controlling question in this instance was whether Donald's personal account would apply.

 

[Darkwind]

Trump can't block users from his Twitter feed, federal judge rules

free speech..it's a thing:

"President Donald Trump cannot block Twitter users for the political views they have expressed, a federal judge in Manhattan ruled on Wednesday.

Blocking users from viewing his Twitter account — a feature offered by the social media platform — is unconstitutional and a violation of the First Amendment, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald wrote in her ruling.

"While we must recognize, and are sensitive to, the President’s personal First Amendment rights, he cannot exercise those rights in a way that infringes the corresponding First Amendment rights of those who have criticized him," Buchwald wrote.

The government had argued that blocked individuals could still access the president’s tweets. The judge agreed but said that even considering the president's First Amendment rights, preventing users from interacting directly with him on Twitter represented a violation of a "real, albeit narrow, slice of speech.""

Hmmmm...twitter can censor...and everybody else can block whomever they please for any reason..

But the President of the US must be prevented from blocking the trolls and stalkers that insult and attack him on twitter.

He can mute them..in fact, the judge recommended just that..but he cannot block them..because he is the President..our leader...and we have the right to access his official record. He has claimed that it is..and now he's stuck with the consequences.

Bullshit. The president has NO OBLIGATION TO LISTEN TO THE HECKLERS.You have a right to "speak." Nobody is obligated to listen.

That is exactly correct.

Which is why Trump can mute people on Twitter - which will prevent him from seeing those tweets - but can't block people, because that prevents them from "speaking" at all.

It closes down their accounts? Who knew.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

An Obama appointee?

No, Clinton


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Same thing. Liberal activist judge using his position for political purposes.

Her, not his


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Completely agree with the ruling.

Me too.

 

[TemplarKormac]

When the government uses private person companies the same constitutional obligations still apply

I disagree. Your premise suggests that Twitter falls under government jurisdiction as well. If that's the case, it would mean any time that Trump tweets, Twitter is subject to government regulation.

Like I said, the ruling is flawed.

The courts forget the President has constitutional rights too.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Exactly, so now nobody can block anyone or ignore someone like they can do here.

No government official who uses a twitter account to conduct government business can shut down free speech by blocking other tweeters.

This ruling is entirely appropriate.