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

[Hammster]

...it's not there. Thank you for proving my point.

Thanks for the insight on how you think.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Thanks for the insight on how you think.

Where's the activism, again?

 

[Hammster]

Where's the activism, again?

You don’t see it, so it isn’t there. You’ve made that clear.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You don’t see it, so it isn’t there. You’ve made that clear.

Apparently not clear enough -- My meaning was that I think you're bluffing. I still do, of course, but I'll try to be more explicit in the future to avoid any further confusion.

So, assuming you're not bluffing: since I don't see it, where is it?

 

[Hammster]

Apparently not clear enough -- My meaning was that I think you're bluffing. I still do, of course, but I'll try to be more explicit in the future to avoid any further confusion.

So, assuming you're not bluffing: since I don't see it, where is it?

How am I bluffing?

 

[TLK Valentine]

How am I bluffing?

Where's the activism?

 

[Belk]

The judge is tech illiterate.

All one has to do to see Trumps posts is log out. It's not rocket science.

The judge claims that twitter is a public forum, it's not it's a private entity just like this forum. Now I'm pretty sure Jack is feeling a bit nervous over the whole "public forum" stuff, I can see lawsuits from that for twitter banning people.

A news paper is a private entity as well. I believe it still constitutes a public forum. If Donald Trump had blocked anyone with a critical opinion from contributing to a newspaper he liked to read would that constitute a violation of free speech in your mind?

 

[Always in His Presence]

The fact that the "judicial activism" panic button has been pressed isn't surprising.

The facts are:

• There is no shortage of people who wish to exercise their first amendment rights to air their grievances to the government

And they are free and able to still do so on Twitter. They can go n their own feeds and air any grievance they want. Their ability to Tweet is still there.

• To the surprise of absolutely nobody, our current government's leadership doesn't want to hear it.

Our current Government has been one of the most accessible in recent history and that has been reported by numerous news agencies.

• To that end, the government took steps (tiny steps, to be sure, but steps nonetheless) to block these people from airing their grievances -- only those who support the government were allowed to participate.

Absolutely wrong, as stated earlier, they are still able to participate on Twitter. They can starts whatever feed they want, just not impinge on the Presidents

• The judge determined that such actions, small as they may be, were in violation of the First Amendment, which, indeed, explicitly prohibits the government from abridging the freedom of speech.

Again, they have a wide variety of other venues to use including Twitter. The facts do not line up with reality.

One fact that is missing is the fact that these seven people out of 53,000,000 were blocked because of the vulgarity and abusvie nature of their post.

 

[AirPo]

Nope, digital communications isn’t either

Speech is, that's the point.

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

Being blocked from Trump's twitter account.

Twitter feed is proprietary to the account holder.

Not the President's

 

[super animator]

What a stupid ruling.

 

[rjs330]

The Judge thought otherwise.

It would seem that any attempt to limit the people's ability to petition the government for a redress of grievances, be it on Twitter or on a street corner, should be held to the highest scrutiny. The judge decided to favor we the people over the authority of the government establishment.

Are you going to say the same thing if the judges ruling is over turned?

 

[rjs330]

A news paper is a private entity as well. I believe it still constitutes a public forum. If Donald Trump had blocked anyone with a critical opinion from contributing to a newspaper he liked to read would that constitute a violation of free speech in your mind?

Forgive me my ignorance here I don't use Twitter, but isn't Twitter a private company and if you have a Twitter account isn't it your personal private account?

 

[Bobber]

My assertion is that Donald violated the First Amendment right of the American people.

What a bunch of nonsense! If a group wanted to protest physically at the White House and did so that by no means has to mean the President regardless of who it is has to listen to them. They could take a trip, go to another location anything they want to do! In the cyber world these detractors rights were not compromised. Were they not given the right to express themselves? YES! Anyone can go on Trump's twitter feed and see all of any discontents opinions!

 

[Hammster]

Where's the activism?

In the ruling.

 

[Belk]

Forgive me my ignorance here I don't use Twitter, but isn't Twitter a private company and if you have a Twitter account isn't it your personal private account?

Twitter is a private company. I don't know about "Personal private" account. I think those terms would need to be defined from a legal standpoint since you don't actually own the account. My point is that I don't think the ownership of the medium is necessarily relevant to the law. There is nothing in the first amendment that limits it to government owned forms of communication that I am aware of. The determining factor is did the government limit my expression and if so was it a legitimate reason?

I think this ruling is rather tricky because this is not the official government account so the determining factor is much more murky. The argument was that Donald uses this account to communicate official policy decisions therefore it is being used in a government capacity. The judge appears to have agreed.

 

[Always in His Presence]

A news paper is a private entity as well. I believe it still constitutes a public forum. If Donald Trump had blocked anyone with a critical opinion from contributing to a newspaper he liked to read would that constitute a violation of free speech in your mind?

So in the example of blocking someone from contributing to a newspaper.

Are they blocked from Twitter ?

Can they no longer post on Twitter? Can they not hashtag the President?

If those abilities have not been impinged, then their voice is still on Twitter. Isn’t it?

 

[super animator]

What stupid about this ruling is that it declares that twitter a public fourm!!! Does it mean that people who are banned from there can sue against them?

 

[Always in His Presence]

I submit this possibility:

They are not upset that the President isn’t responding, they are upset at using an audience of 53,000,000 people that follow the President.

 

[Belk]

So in the example of blocking someone from contributing to a newspaper.

Are they blocked from Twitter ?

Can they no longer post on Twitter? Can they not hashtag the President?

If those abilities have not been impinged, then their voice is still on Twitter. Isn’t it?

As far as I am aware they are still able to post on twitter, yes. Just like in my example they are not blocked from writing letters to other news papers. How do you feel this changes the nature of the case?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Are you going to say the same thing if the judges ruling is over turned?

Obviously not. I'm going to say that that judge decided to favor the government establishment over we the people.

Opposite effect, opposite analysis. See how that works?