Constitution Wins...Trump Loses

[koshergrl]

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.

The reason you put *speaking* in quotes is because you know that blocking trolls and spies and criminals on twitter is not preventing anybody from *speaking*.

 

[Aba Incieni]

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.

They can speak on their own accounts, and block who they will. Just like the owners of this board.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

I disagree. Your premise suggests that Twitter falls under government jurisdiction as well.

No, only that government behaviors done on or via Twitter are subject to the same constitutional limitations that apply to the rest of government behavior.

The courts forget the President has constitutional rights too.

If Donald were only using his account for personal matters then his personal free speech rights would be relevant. But he uses this account for governmental purposes. As the decision explains:

Since the President’s inauguration, the @realDonaldTrump account has been operated with the assistance of defendant Daniel Scavino, “the White House Social Media Director and Assistant to the President [who] is sued in his official capacity only.” Stip. ¶ 12. “With the assistance of Mr. Scavino in certain instances, President Trump uses @realDonaldTrump, often multiple times a day, to announce, describe, and defend his policies; to promote his Administration’s legislative agenda; to announce official decisions; to engage with foreign political leaders; to publicize state visits; to challenge media organizations whose coverage of his Administration he believes to be unfair; and for other statements, including on occasion statements unrelated to official government business. President Trump sometimes uses the account to announce matters related to official government business before those matters are announced to the public through other official channels.” Stip. ¶ 38. “For example, the President used @realDonaldTrump to announce on June 7, 2017, for the first time, that he intended to nominate Christopher Wray for the position of FBI director.” Stip. ¶ 38. Since the parties’ stipulation, the President has also used the @realDonaldTrump account in removing then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson4 and then-Secretary of Veterans Affairs David Shulkin.5

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000163-8e16-dd91-abe7-8f3f5f050001

 

[S.J.]

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

But private citizens can? Like TK said, it's a flawed ruling.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

But private citizens can?

Maybe we need to get into first amendment basics. Government cannot pass laws or take action to prevent free speech. Government.

Government.

Government.

See the difference?

The ruling is flawless and appropriate.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Trump is the head of the Executive Branch of GOVERNMENT.

Thus, Trump = Government

Any action by TRUMP (Government) to limit the free speech of citizens is unconstitutional.

The ruling is proper.

Just get over it. Trump can't block people while he is the POTUS. That's the burden of serving in government.

 

[jc456]

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.

exactly what I said I guess on another thread. And goes for youtube or facebook.

 

[S.J.]

But private citizens can?

Maybe we need to get into first amendment basics. Government cannot pass laws or take action to prevent free speech. Government.

Government.

Government.

See the difference?

The ruling is flawless and appropriate.

Hmm, wasn't Obama government too?
Obama Calls for Amendment Limiting Free-Speech Rights

 

[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.

exactly what I said I guess on another thread. And goes for youtube or facebook.

You are not the Govt, thus you do not have to provide freedom of speech...have you ever even read the Constitution?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[jc456]

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.

exactly what I said I guess on another thread. And goes for youtube or facebook.

You are not the Govt, thus you do not have to provide freedom of speech...have you ever even read the Constitution?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

sure I am where do they get the money to run it?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Hmm, wasn't Obama government too?
Obama Calls for Amendment Limiting Free-Speech Rights

Obviously, Obama is a fucking commie authoritarian shit-stain. So, that doesn't surprise me.

 

[Timmy]

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 gov can’t use a private org to violate people’s rights .

 

[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.

exactly what I said I guess on another thread. And goes for youtube or facebook.

You are not the Govt, thus you do not have to provide freedom of speech...have you ever even read the Constitution?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

sure I am where do they get the money to run it?

You giving them money to run it does not make you part of it, unless giving money to your local grocery store makes an employee


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Donald turned his personal account into an outlet for governmental actions and communications. He announced major policy plans, he fired administration staff through Twitter, he has said he prefers Twitter as his means to communicate with his constituents. By blocking people, he is taking averse actions against citizens in his official capacity as President to silence their dissent.

It's just one of those things liberals like to do to remind folks who it is that controls the courts, what will probably happen now while the left smirks and pats itself on the back thinking they've actual won something is trump will just use another private account and the lefties will run to their judge again to try and get that stopped, and/or trump will have others post/tweet for him and the left will run to their judge again to try and get it stopped and they will try to shut down avenue after avenue of ways to prevent unfettered use of this type of communicating all so they can "protect our first amendment rights to freedom of speech"...if the gun control debate has taught us anything it is how the left really views our constitution, they like their freedom, no one else's.

 

[WEATHER53]

Ludicrous to try an assert that a human being must allow and must view responses made to their internet postings
Absolutely void of fact assertion but filled with liberalism emotion that Trump must accept and view written assaults upon him.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You guys are focusing on the wrong part of the First Amendment.

This isn't about "freedom of speech", this is about the right to petition the government.

 

[WEATHER53]

Difference between rights vs requirements and liberals never get that or want to make it a one way street

 

[Aba Incieni]

Uhm...It is declaratory relief, not injunctive relief. Trump can legally ignore it.

 

[mudwhistle]

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?

No...i think it means that no one can ban users from responding to their tweets..unless they can prove egregious abuse.

And you think this is difficult????

 

[martybegan]

You guys are focusing on the wrong part of the First Amendment.

This isn't about "freedom of speech", this is about the right to petition the government.

But it's through a private medium that declares it's right to ban users as it sees fit.

So if it is indeed a public forum, and it is considered a method to petition government, shouldn't twitter be required to provide access to anyone who wants it, and be prevented from restricting that access?