Constitution Wins...Trump Loses

[Indeependent]

In my experience con forums are second to dim forums in banning but they are both intolerant.

There are a lot of self-identified cons who really aren't con at all..but truly think they are.

Neo-Cons are slightly to the right of Cons.
Neo-Cons are as insane as Liberals.

Neo cons are liberals. Liberals who call rightwingers "neo cons" as an insult are imbeciles.

Neo-Cons and Liberals have some things in common, such as Open Borders, Off-Shoring and Business Visas.
Neo-Cons, however, don't give a damn about who staves to death and Liberals want the rich to starve to death.

Liberals don't care who starves to death. They're perfectly fine with *acceptable die off* , euthanasia (with or without consent), abortion, assisted suicide, you name it.

You don't think Liberals truly despise successful people?
And don't think for second I think most successful people are angels...they're not.

 

[koshergrl]

There are a lot of self-identified cons who really aren't con at all..but truly think they are.

Neo-Cons are slightly to the right of Cons.
Neo-Cons are as insane as Liberals.

Neo cons are liberals. Liberals who call rightwingers "neo cons" as an insult are imbeciles.

Neo-Cons and Liberals have some things in common, such as Open Borders, Off-Shoring and Business Visas.
Neo-Cons, however, don't give a damn about who staves to death and Liberals want the rich to starve to death.

Liberals don't care who starves to death. They're perfectly fine with *acceptable die off* , euthanasia (with or without consent), abortion, assisted suicide, you name it.

You don't think Liberals truly despise successful people?
And don't think for second I think most successful people are angels...they're not.

I know they despise them. They despise life itself.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I don't know why you're crying tears for him losing the ability to vindictive online.

I'm not. This is hardly something to cry over.

To me this presents a conundrum, because both arguments make sense!

Surprise!

As far as I'm concerned, the whole issue is monumentally dumb, but also an interesting legal question.

 

[BlackSand]

You're right, my opinion is equally as worthless as yours.

But I'm not sharing my opinion- I'm sharing the judges opinion.

And guess who's opinion actually matters?

Yeah ... We'll see how much it matters ...
Especially since she cannot legislate from the bench and make up crap that isn't in the Constitution ...

.​

 

[ATL]

Snowflake conservatives don't know how the 1st amendment works, or remember when Trump uses Twitter for official government business...what a fucking stupid mass of idiots they are.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Snowflake conservatives don't know how the 1st amendment works, or remember when Trump uses Twitter for official government business...what a fucking stupid mass of idiots they are.

This is where you're wrong. His personal Twitter account carries no more weight than making a speech. It is his personal account and not official government business.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

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.""

Why the fuck is a judge ruling on a privately owned social media site ?

 

[WEATHER53]

He can talk but he can’t be made to listen

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Interestingly enough, he has two Twitter accounts, one set up under the previous administration for explicit use of the president, and his personal account.

Which account was the judge referring to? If was the presidential one, I can agree with the opinion, if it was his personal account, then I can't. That account was made long before he became president, made when he was a private citizen. Are we saying he can't block anyone from his personal account?

I didn't realize he had two so that's one way he could separate them but then again I'd be really surprised if he could actually keep his personas separate.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I'm guessing she means the "personal" one, because its the only one he uses.

If this is the case then shouldn't there be the same amount of concern about his communications as there were about Hillary Clinton's "private" email server? I mean the whole point of the setup is so that all business being conducted by our government can be documented and archived so that when the government is served with a subpoena duces tecum or receives a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request then they can fully comply. That's kind of hard to do if the custodian doesn't have access to everything because it's being held by a private third-party entity.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

When I said it wasn't fair earlier, this is what I meant. I don't think government should have the right to tell him what to do with an account he had before he became the president.

Honestly, he probably shouldn't be using his personal account to conduct government business, particularly if he has another "sanctioned" presidential account that he could use instead. I would imagine that he doesn't want to lose his fan base that's associated with his original account.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

What about people who are banned from twitter? They can't reply to the tweets, is Twitter now responsible for letting them back on?

How can only Twitter approved users have 1st amendment rights?

Yeah, I was wondering the same thing.

Twitter is not a public space. It's a private business.

How exactly, can you say only those people who want to reply to a Trump Tweet, have first amendment rights, but no one else?

So.... strange....

 

[martybegan]

Because no one knows what Trump Tweets...

It's not the knowing..it's the right to reply--which you would have known..had you read the link--but why would you, right?

So now no one can be banned from Twitter because everyone has the right to reply to the tweets of public figures?

Twitter cannot moderate their own forums?

Twitter has "forums"?

added an "s" at the end by accident.

 

[Correll]

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.""

Wow. That's insane bullshit.


That's utter complete made up shit, just to hamper the Judge's ideological enemy's Speech.

 

[martybegan]

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.

What about people who are banned from twitter? They can't reply to the tweets, is Twitter now responsible for letting them back on?

How can only Twitter approved users have 1st amendment rights?

Yeah, I was wondering the same thing.

Twitter is not a public space. It's a private business.

How exactly, can you say only those people who want to reply to a Trump Tweet, have first amendment rights, but no one else?

So.... strange....

Which is why I think it would get overturned on appeal.

 

[DrLove]

Nonsense. He is a president but he's still an individual. He doesn't have to give up his individual rights just because he's a president.

Yes, except he's using the Twitter platform to tweet about "the people's" business that he's conducting as POTUS. HE's the one who set precedence on this.

Yeah what a brilliant guy - Using the Twit to conduct foreign policy while insulting & threatening his enemies including judges and his own Justice Department.

 

[DrLove]

This don't make sense it's a private forum..whats next the judge rules trumps personal phone number be released ?

There is nothing "private" about it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

When I said it wasn't fair earlier, this is what I meant. I don't think government should have the right to tell him what to do with an account he had before he became the president.

Honestly, he probably shouldn't be using his personal account to conduct government business, particularly if he has another "sanctioned" presidential account that he could use instead. I would imagine that he doesn't want to lose his fan base that's associated with his original account.

That's true.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Nonsense. He is a president but he's still an individual. He doesn't have to give up his individual rights just because he's a president.

Yes, except he's using the Twitter platform to tweet about "the people's" business that he's conducting as POTUS. HE's the one who set precedence on this.

Yeah what a brilliant guy - Using the Twit to conduct foreign policy while insulting & threatening his enemies including judges and his own Justice Department.

This is where you're wrong. His personal Twitter account carries no more weight than making a speech. It is his personal account and not official government business.

 

[EverCurious]

So based on this new ruling (or at least upon the premise of said ruling) when the local media has cameras on my representative; the media is /required/ to watch/record (and show?) my response?

This sounds a bit, oh, far fetched to me...