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

[TLK Valentine]

In the ruling.

Can you describe it?

 

[Belk]

This might be useful to the discussion.

faqs

There are three types of public forums:

I. A "traditional", or "open, public forum" is a place with a long tradition of freedom of expression, such as a public park or a street corner. The government can normally impose only content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions on speech in a public forum. Restrictions on speech in a public forum that are based on content will be struck down, unless the government can show the restriction is necessary to further a compelling governmental interest.

II. A "limited public forum" or "designated public forum" is a place with a more limited history of expressive activity, usually only for certain groups or topics. Examples of a limited public forum would include a university meeting hall or a city-owned theater. The government can limit access to certain types of speakers in a limited public forum, or limit the use of such facilities for certain subjects. Despite these more proscriptive guidelines, however, a governmental institution may still not restrict expression at a limited forum unless that restriction serves a "compelling interest."

III. A "closed public forum" is a place that, traditionally, has not been open to public expression, such as a jail or a military base. Governmental restrictions on access to a nonpublic forum will be upheld as long as they are reasonable and not based on a desire to suppress a particular viewpoint. This standard is far more deferential to government officials.

 

[TLK Valentine]

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!

As long as they have the Government's permission to do so.

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!

The law doesn't require an effective or even a competent attempt on the government's part to stifle free speech -- any attempt, even a Donald-level one, can be considered a violation.

 

[Hammster]

Can you describe it?

You can google the ruling.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You can google the ruling.

I did. Can you describe the activism?

 

[Hammster]

I did. Can you describe the activism?

I’m surprised you don’t know what judicial activism is. I mean, I could could understand you disagreeing that it is judicial activism. But to not see how and why some folks see it as such is really baffling.

But if you really need it explained, I’ll do so.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I’m surprised you don’t know what judicial activism is. I mean, I could could understand you disagreeing that it is judicial activism. But to not see how and why some folks see it as such is really baffling.

But if you really need it explained, I’ll do so.

Please do. Explain where the judicial activism is in the judge's ruling.

I've been waiting.

 

[Bobber]

The law doesn't require an effective or even a competent attempt on the government's part to stifle free speech -- any attempt, even a Donald-level one, can be considered a violation.

Yeah right. So what free speech was stifled? None. They said their piece and it's on a public forum. Well there's no convincing you of course but you know if this story became a big thing more than it is I suspect overall the American people will say the judge's ruling is a joke, including most independents and soft supporting Dems. It might even help Trump for the nation gets over ticked off that he's not being treated fairly. That's not to say I agree with everything Trump. I never believed Twitter was or is a good platform for a President to use.

 

[Hammster]

Please do. Explain where the judicial activism is in the judge's ruling.

I've been waiting.

The whole ruling is judicial activism. There’s not one specific spot.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yeah right. So what free speech was stifled? None. They said their piece and it's on a public forum.

As I said, any attempt -- even a dismal failure of one -- to stifle free speech can be considered a first amendment violation. There is no "not guilty by reason of incompetence" defense.

Well there's no convincing you of course but you know if this story became a big thing more than it is I suspect overall the American people will say the judge's ruling is a joke, including most independents and soft supporting Dems.

Stories like this won't become a big thing unless the government does it right -- and by then, they'll be no need to "convince" anyone.

It might even help Trump for the nation gets over ticked off that he's not being treated fairly.

Somehow I'm not overly concerned about Donald drumming up a substantial amount of sympathy for himself.

That's not to say I agree with everything Trump.

Don't let him hear you say that -- your speech privileges might be next.

I never believed Twitter was or is a good platform for a President to use.

I think it's a magnificent platform, especially on a no-filter man like Donald -- it's the next best thing to having the Nixon tapes being broadcast in real time.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The whole ruling is judicial activism. There’s not one specific spot.

Still waiting... "it is because it is" is a little too circular for most people's liking.

 

[Hammster]

Still waiting... "it is because it is" is a little too circular for most people's liking.

It’s not what I answered. I answered your specific question.

 

[SummerMadness]

It’s not what I answered. I answered your specific question.

You haven't answered anything. Multiple times you've been asked to explain what about the ruling is judicial activism, yet cannot demonstrate it.

If you make a claim, back it up. Repeating the claim does not constitute backing it up.

 

[TLK Valentine]

It’s not what I answered. I answered your specific question.

Too bad you didn't answer it specifically.

Me: "Where is it?"
You: "everywhere."

 

[Hammster]

Too bad you didn't answer it specifically.

Me: "Where is it?"
You: "everywhere."

No, I said the ruling is the activism.

Maybe you should look up what judicial activism is.

 

[Hammster]

You haven't answered anything. Multiple times you've been asked to explain what about the ruling is judicial activism, yet cannot demonstrate it.

If you make a claim, back it up. Repeating the claim does not constitute backing it up.

That’s a different question

It’s judicial activism because those who were complaining sought out a favorable judge.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No, I said the ruling is the activism.

Maybe you should look up what judicial activism is.

Maybe I should wait for you to define it -- I'm getting old waiting for you to show it.

 

[Always in His Presence]

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?

Because their right to free speak has not been stopped on Twitter.

They can post on Twitter

They can hash tag the President in Twitter

They can offer their objections on Twitter

They can put up funny memes of politicians on twitter

They can call the President out on what they think is wrong on Twitter

They are open and able to criticize the government on Twitter.

So tell me again on how not being able to access one feed is stopping their rights to free speech.

 

[Belk]

Because their right to free speak has not been stopped on Twitter.

They can post on Twitter

They can hash tag the President in Twitter

They can offer their objections on Twitter

They can put up funny memes of politicians on twitter

They can call the President out on what they think is wrong on Twitter

They are open and able to criticize the government on Twitter.

So tell me again on how not being able to access one feed is stopping their rights to free speech.

Free speech is not measured by the scope of the speech being blocked but if the government is blocking speech and if it has a compelling interest in doing so. Dos the government have a compelling reason to block them from posting on that feed? The fact they can use other functionality is not relevant to the ruling.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Free speech is not measured by the scope of the speech being blocked but if the government is blocking speech and if it has a compelling interest in doing so. Dos the government have a compelling reason to block them from posting on that feed? The fact they can use other functionality is not relevant to the ruling.

Their speech on Twitter is not blocked.

Their rudeness and vulgarity had the effect of one person of the hundreds of millions on twitter to block them from getting to the personally.

Which they can still do to an extent by hash tagging the person.

They can still reach the other 973,999,999 other twitter accounts.