Judge rules Trump can't block Twitter users

Couldn't care less about Trump, but this is actually a huge win for conservatives on social media platforms.

Because if the President can't block people on social media, then FB, Twitter and Instagram have no rights to censor conservatives for their opinions, limit or restrict their accounts, or block/ban them on social media.

The libs manic desperation to undermine the President in any fashion is ruining everything else they're trying to do and accomplish.

I've never seen a dumber group of morons work so hard against their own political agenda and their so called progress.

These idiots are coyote uglying their own arms to spite themselves. [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23] But hey, keep up the good work.

#DemocRATS[emoji232]
#LiberalismIsAMentalDisorder


https://www.denverpost.com/2018/05/2...le-on-twitter/

Quote:

---

President Donald Trump’s decision to block his Twitter followers for their political views is a violation of the First Amendment, a federal judge ruled Wednesday, saying that Trump’s effort to silence his critics is not permissible under the U.S. Constitution because the digital space in which he engages with constituents is a public forum.

The ruling rejects administration arguments that the First Amendment does not apply to Trump in this case because he was acting as a private individual. In a 75-page decision, Judge Naomi Buchwald said Trump, as a federal official, is not exempt from constitutional obligations to guard against “viewpoint discrimination.”

“No government official – including the President – is above the law,” wrote Buchwald for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The decision marks a victory for free-speech activists representing seven Twitter users who alleged that their rights had been infringed after they tweeted at Trump critiquing his policies. Trump blocked them on Twitter, preventing them from seeing his tweets or interacting with them.

The government does not dispute that Trump blocked the Twitter users after they criticized him. But the Justice Department had argued Trump was largely acting in a personal capacity, much like “giving a toast at a wedding or giving a speech at a fundraiser.”

But through his Twitter bio and the way in which he frequently uses the medium to comment on public policy, Trump portrays his account as presidential “and, more importantly, uses the account to take actions that can be taken only by the President as President,” Buchwald wrote.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

---

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

She's a judge in New York appointed by Bill Clinton... I don't think she was acting in his best interest.

But it may backfire on her, I'd love to see twitter go down in a ball of flames because celebs can't block anyone.
Or he just deletes his account... either way I'd be happy... oh who am I kidding, I don't give a rip about Twits on Twitter

the implications are actually larger than twitter and facebook.

This could prevent ANY online service from silencing or suppressing the voices of conservatives for simply have conservative viewpoints (which is exactly what is happening on FB and twitter right now) and it's been spilling over to forums, comments sections on media sites (Denver Post, Washington Times, etc).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Seems to me like what's being said is that Trump, as President, tweeting with in an official capacity (or at last the appearance of such), cannot then act as if he is speaking personally and take blocking measures in the same.

Why? Because he is a public official.

I wouldn't hold my breath for this to swing in favor of so-called conservatives at an unofficial level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CavSct1983

Seems to me like what's being said is that Trump, as President, tweeting with in an official capacity (or at last the appearance of such), cannot then act as if he is speaking personally and take blocking measures in the same.

Why? Because he is a public official.

I wouldn't hold my breath for this to swing in favor of so-called conservatives at an unofficial level.

---

But it's the free speech aspect of this ruling which could give conservative users of social media a victory. There currently is a lawsuit against Twitter in California over the censoring of conservatives.

He doesnt use his POTUS acct as much as he uses his own personal account, so I find the ruling a bit curious. But one can never fully understand libtard logic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is bullshit becuase the founding fathers could never have envisioned twitter. The First admentment was only meant for print and spoken word.

Like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scanker19

This is bullshit becuase the founding fathers could never have envisioned twitter. The First admentment was only meant for print and spoken word.

---

I see what you did there.

Does that mean we'll have to stop banning racists on here?

You're reading WAY TOO much into this COGirl...

Saying Trump can't block another user has ZERO, I repeat ZERO, effect on Twitter, FB, etc blocking conservative's/guns/etc on their internet based medium.

This does nothing but say that an anti-trump judge in NY is trying to defend anti-trumpers...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grant H.

You're reading WAY TOO much into this COGirl...

Saying Trump can't block another user has ZERO, I repeat ZERO, effect on Twitter, FB, etc blocking conservative's/guns/etc on their internet based medium.

This does nothing but say that an anti-trump judge in NY is trying to defend anti-trumpers...

---

^This.

The "Free speech" argument only applies here (and loosely at that, IMO) because one party is a government official.

Private companies will continue to block/censor whomever they want and this court rulling will not change that.

This is a loss no matter how you look at it. Twitter, FB, and any of those other platforms may be leftist but they are private. No one says you have to participate on those fora so you don't have a "right" to express yourself on them --- nor does anyone have to put up with trolls and argumentative idiots on them, even a government official. No one has blocked anti-Trumpers from saying what they want about Trump on Twitter, FB, or any other platform (witness NPR, MSNBC, etc.) but Trump clearly felt (and I agree) that he doesn't have to enable their responses on his account.

This judge is just another example of how legal reasoning has decayed in the past 3-4 decades.

Lots of good posts.

As people said companies has rights to ban/block/unblock comments of their own CEO or founder of the company if they want.
I just hope some companies would not be bias and pick on people based on political views, sex, religion, race, and/or nationality.

Anyone that thinks this ruling will be used to benefit conservatives or harm liberals really hasn't been paying attention to the last half century.

The original post actually has a quote that explains why this is a special case. And he mostly did it to himself. The blocking seem reasonable. I'm pretty sure my right to free speech does not compel people to listen to me.

I personally think this judge is overstepping, and I will be surprised if this is upheld in appeals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ben4372

The original post actually has a quote that explains why this is a special case. And he mostly did it to himself. The blocking seem reasonable. I'm pretty sure my right to free speech does not compel people to listen to me.

---

No, the OP has a quote showing the judge's rationalization. There is no "special case" here except that liberals -- judges or not -- hate Trump and are willing distort every rule of jurisprudence to attack him or block his agenda. Freedom of speech has never EVER meant that someone else had to carry your speech, just that you are free to find your own forum or printing press to issue it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter

No, the OP has a quote showing the judge's rationalization. There is no "special case" here except that liberals -- judges or not -- hate Trump and are willing distort every rule of jurisprudence to attack him or block his agenda. Freedom of speech has never EVER meant that someone else had to carry your speech, just that you are free to find your own forum or printing press to issue it.

---

You're right. I didn't word it very well. The explanation I was referring to, was the judges rationalization. Thanks for clarification. Either way this is a flawed judgement IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hollohas

The "Free speech" argument only applies here (and loosely at that, IMO) because one party is a government official.

Private companies will continue to block/censor whomever they want and this court rulling will not change that.

---

This ruling may not specifically or directly. However, the ruling may be a foothold in this lawsuit here, especially if Twitter loses in court.

https://yournewswire.com/conservativ...er-censorship/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by foxtrot

Not at all. Not related. Public gov't accounts in media companies do not equal everybody else in media companies. The ruling was the gov can't block citizens from it's official accounts. That has nothing to do with the first amendment ability of a private company to do whatever the hell they want. Including blocking people they disagree with.

---

I dont have time to find the case this weekend, but years ago, a judge ruled that people posting on Twitter and Facebook are indeed members of the press. I think it had something to do with an ireporter photographing or videoing something and then posting it.

Any competent lawyer drags that case into it as a reference and it could tie in along with the ruling above.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk