Trump Violates First Amendment by Blocking Twitter Users From Feed, Judge Says

[AirPo]

One can immediately see the anti-Trump bias of Fake News leader the New York Times. The title of the article is inflammatory. "Trump violates First Amendment..."

How is that inflammatory?

 

[Hammster]

His use of Twit degraded the office.
Ringo

Maybe. But not relevant.

 

[Ringo84]

We're talking about how he can't ban users on Twit, right?
Ringo

 

[Hammster]

Poor comparison. A Twitter account allows people to reply to official statements, barring some people from responding to those statements is a violation. Giving a speech, is giving a speech, but if you're allowing some people to ask questions about your speech while blocking others, it is violating their free speech rights.

How is blocking them from a Twitter account violating their free speech rights?

 

[Always in His Presence]

Projectiles are not mentioned in the first amendment.

Nope, digital communications isn’t either

Oh, I think I get it. You mean email is still available to those whose free speech was violated by blocking their twitter. Their free speech was still violated.

How? They can post anything they want on their twitter accounts. Think about it 7 out of 53,000,000 are complaining.

Free speech doesn't mean I can walk into you house.

Twitter feed is proprietary to the account holder.

 

[Rion]

Actually, I hope Trump doesn't fight this, so that it opens a Pandora's box on twitter.

Looking up the Judge, she was appointed by Bill Clinton, and once made a statement while presiding over a case on an autistic child about how Sarah Palin was using her down syndrome kid as a prop. In 2016 Preet Bharara called her the "worst federal judge" at a dinner party.

 

[wing2000]

I don't buy the reasoning....if the President is speaking at a public forum and I am denied an opportunity to address his him or his comments, are my First Amendment rights violated?

The plaintiffs, who were joined in the suit by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, had argued that Mr. Trump’s Twitter feed was an official government account and that blocking users from following it was a violation of their First Amendment rights.

In her ruling, Judge Buchwald, who was appointed to the federal bench in 1999 by President Bill Clinton, agreed.

“The viewpoint-based exclusion of the individual plaintiffs from that designated public forum is proscribed by the First Amendment and cannot be justified by the president’s personal First Amendment interests,” she wrote.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Note that ruling that a social media site is a "designated public forum". This is ammunition that can be used against Facebook, YouTube and Twitter when they attempt restrict what they designate as "hate speech". A minor inconvenience for Trump. Potentially a huge, splitting headache for the deep state.

 

[TLK Valentine]

And then Donny discovers the Mute option and nothing changes.

Do you honestly think Donald is capable of "mute"?

 

[TLK Valentine]

IMO, this ruling wouldn't hold up if challenged.

An agent of the government -- heck, the agent of the government -- is blocking citizens from accessing public communications from the government based solely on their political views. Pretty sure that wasn't going to fly...

 

[Rion]

Do you honestly think Donald is capable of "mute"?

I don't know if he's even the one who blocked him. I think that he has people tweet out for him sometimes.

 

[Arcangl86]

I don't buy the reasoning....if the President is speaking at a public forum and I am denied an opportunity to address his him or his comments, are my First Amendment rights violated?

The plaintiffs, who were joined in the suit by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, had argued that Mr. Trump’s Twitter feed was an official government account and that blocking users from following it was a violation of their First Amendment rights.

In her ruling, Judge Buchwald, who was appointed to the federal bench in 1999 by President Bill Clinton, agreed.

“The viewpoint-based exclusion of the individual plaintiffs from that designated public forum is proscribed by the First Amendment and cannot be justified by the president’s personal First Amendment interests,” she wrote.

It seems the reasoning is that it has to be all or nothing. You can't exclude some people because you don't like their viewpoint but allow others you agree with.

 

[Hammster]

An agent of the government -- heck, the agent of the government -- is blocking citizens from accessing public communications from the government based solely on their political views. Pretty sure that wasn't going to fly...

How exactly is he blocking them? I can find every tweet by Trump without every opening Twitter.

 

[Rubiks]

I don't use twitter, but I'm assuming this is analogous to blocking certain users from responding to your own threads on Christian Forums. Freedom of speech simply means the government can't prosecute you for saying things they don't like. It has never applied to social media; they are free to create whatever rules they want.

 

[TLK Valentine]

How exactly is he blocking them? I can find every tweet by Trump without every opening Twitter.

And I can hear every story by CNN without turning on my television.

But if Donald ordered the FCC to pull CNN off the air for being too liberal, that might be a problem... well, I would see a problem with that, anyway. (Yes, yes, I know the FCC can't crack down on cable TV -- but you get the point)

 

[Always in His Presence]

Do you realize that means if you have someone on ignore here on CF you are violating their constitutional rights!

 

[TLK Valentine]

I don't know if he's even the one who blocked him. I think that he has people tweet out for him sometimes.

And some folks have designed a program to figure out when that is...

How to Tell When @RealDonaldTrump Is Really Donald Trump

 

[Hammster]

And I can hear every story by CNN without turning on my television.

But if Donald ordered the FCC to pull CNN off the air for being too liberal, that might be a problem... well, I would see a problem with that, anyway. (Yes, yes, I know the FCC can't crack down on cable TV -- but you get the point)

Cool story, bro. But that’s not what’s happening. And it doesn’t answer my question.

 

[Hammster]

Do you realize that means if you have someone on ignore here on CF you are violating their constitutional rights!

We also have Christian Only areas.

 

[Always in His Presence]

We also have Christian Only areas.

Whaaa?????