Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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 are such a moron hahahahaha.You guys are focusing on the wrong part of the First Amendment.
This isn't about "freedom of speech", this is about the right to petition the government.
When they say they're defending the Constitution, they're lying.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.""
I call shenanigans. Your post has nothing to do with respect for The Constitution. If you had any, you'd be standing up for the free speech of conservatives on college campuses and for the 2A rights of Normal People.
that's the legal argument, what I addressed in my post [or was trying to address]was that the ruling does not apply to private posts/tweets or posts/tweets made by the average joe [they can still use the right to block] all trump needs to do is use one of those avenues or any numerous ways to post/tweet as a citizen [ironically enough that would require him keeping it to personal attacks and not policy]...the media is not really interested in being able to petition the government in this case as much as it is interested in shutting down trumps ability to stop them from filtering his message, so they will pursue other ways to silence him all in the name of "freedom of speech".This isn't about "freedom of speech", this is about the right to petition the government.
EXACTLY.that's the legal argument, what I addressed in my post [or was trying to address]was that the ruling does not apply to private posts/tweets or posts/tweets made by the average joe [they can still use the right to block] all trump needs to do is use one of those avenues or any numerous ways to post/tweet as a citizen [ironically enough that would require him keeping it to personal attacks and not policy]...the media is not really interested in being able to petition the government in this case as much as it is interested in shutting down trumps ability to stop them from filtering his message, so they will pursue other ways to silence him all in the name of "freedom of speech".This isn't about "freedom of speech", this is about the right to petition the government.
Yes, and nowhere does the government provide freedom of speech.exactly what I said I guess on another thread. And goes for youtube or facebook.But Trump is using the services of a private organization that isn't necessarily governed by the Constitution. How can Trump be violating anyone's first amendment rights when Twitter gave him the ability to block people following his account in the first place?
This ruling is flawed.
Exactly, so now nobody can block anyone or ignore someone like they can do here.
You are not the Govt, thus you do not have to provide freedom of speech...have you ever even read the Constitution?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
that's the legal argument, what I addressed in my post [or was trying to address]was that the ruling does not apply to private posts/tweets or posts/tweets made by the average joe [they can still use the right to block] all trump needs to do is use one of those avenues or any numerous ways to post/tweet as a citizen [ironically enough that would require him keeping it to personal attacks and not policy]...the media is not really interested in being able to petition the government in this case as much as it is interested in shutting down trumps ability to stop them from filtering his message, so they will pursue other ways to silence him all in the name of "freedom of speech".This isn't about "freedom of speech", this is about the right to petition the government.
as for the conspiracy being a theory you do not understand how the left worksAs for your conspiracy theories about "silencing" Trump's speech, you don't understand how Twitter works.
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.""
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.""
The First Amendment addresses the inability of Congress to pass a law that abridges free speech.
Twitter and whomever uses it, or who that person may or may not block ... In no way represents Congress passing a law that abridges free speech.
Nor does the President blacking another user prevent that user from exercising free speech ...
They can post whatever they want on their own account.
Judges cannot legislate from the bench ...
Nor can they reinterpret the Constitution to add provisions that don't exist.
.
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.""
The First Amendment addresses the inability of Congress to pass a law that abridges free speech.
Twitter and whomever uses it, or who that person may or may not block ... In no way represents Congress passing a law that abridges free speech.
Nor does the President blacking another user prevent that user from exercising free speech ...
They can post whatever they want on their own account.
Judges cannot legislate from the bench ...
Nor can they reinterpret the Constitution to add provisions that don't exist.
.
You're focusing on the first sentence of the First Amendment.
Read the last sentence - that's what this ruling is based on.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
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.""
The First Amendment addresses the inability of Congress to pass a law that abridges free speech.
Twitter and whomever uses it, or who that person may or may not block ... In no way represents Congress passing a law that abridges free speech.
Nor does the President blacking another user prevent that user from exercising free speech ...
They can post whatever they want on their own account.
Judges cannot legislate from the bench ...
Nor can they reinterpret the Constitution to add provisions that don't exist.
.
You're focusing on the first sentence of the First Amendment.
Read the last sentence - that's what this ruling is based on.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Nothing is stopping the ability of the user to redress their grievance ...
They can even do so on Twitter if they feel like it.
And it doesn't matter anyway ... Because Congress still didn't pass a law that prohibits the user from redressing their grievance.
.
It is declaratory relief, not injunctive relief. Trump can legally ignore it.that's the legal argument, what I addressed in my post [or was trying to address]was that the ruling does not apply to private posts/tweets or posts/tweets made by the average joe [they can still use the right to block] all trump needs to do is use one of those avenues or any numerous ways to post/tweet as a citizen [ironically enough that would require him keeping it to personal attacks and not policy]...the media is not really interested in being able to petition the government in this case as much as it is interested in shutting down trumps ability to stop them from filtering his message, so they will pursue other ways to silence him all in the name of "freedom of speech".This isn't about "freedom of speech", this is about the right to petition the government.
You're basically right - if Trump hadn't made his Twitter feed an official organ of the White House, this ruling would likely have come out the other way.
Nothing is preventing the user from saying whatever they want on their Twitter account ... Unless they screw up and Twitter bans them ...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.""
The First Amendment addresses the inability of Congress to pass a law that abridges free speech.
Twitter and whomever uses it, or who that person may or may not block ... In no way represents Congress passing a law that abridges free speech.
Nor does the President blacking another user prevent that user from exercising free speech ...
They can post whatever they want on their own account.
Judges cannot legislate from the bench ...
Nor can they reinterpret the Constitution to add provisions that don't exist.
.
You're focusing on the first sentence of the First Amendment.
Read the last sentence - that's what this ruling is based on.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Nothing is stopping the ability of the user to redress their grievance ...
They can even do so on Twitter if they feel like it.
And it doesn't matter anyway ... Because Congress still didn't pass a law that prohibits the user from redressing their grievance.
.
The First Amendment is fully incorporated. It applies to all branches of government, state and federal. It is not limited to the legislative branch.
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - Wikipedia
Nothing is preventing the user from saying whatever they want on their Twitter account ... Unless they screw up and Twitter bans them ...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.""
The First Amendment addresses the inability of Congress to pass a law that abridges free speech.
Twitter and whomever uses it, or who that person may or may not block ... In no way represents Congress passing a law that abridges free speech.
Nor does the President blacking another user prevent that user from exercising free speech ...
They can post whatever they want on their own account.
Judges cannot legislate from the bench ...
Nor can they reinterpret the Constitution to add provisions that don't exist.
.
You're focusing on the first sentence of the First Amendment.
Read the last sentence - that's what this ruling is based on.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Nothing is stopping the ability of the user to redress their grievance ...
They can even do so on Twitter if they feel like it.
And it doesn't matter anyway ... Because Congress still didn't pass a law that prohibits the user from redressing their grievance.
.
The First Amendment is fully incorporated. It applies to all branches of government, state and federal. It is not limited to the legislative branch.
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - Wikipedia
.
It is declaratory relief, not injunctive relief. Trump can legally ignore it.that's the legal argument, what I addressed in my post [or was trying to address]was that the ruling does not apply to private posts/tweets or posts/tweets made by the average joe [they can still use the right to block] all trump needs to do is use one of those avenues or any numerous ways to post/tweet as a citizen [ironically enough that would require him keeping it to personal attacks and not policy]...the media is not really interested in being able to petition the government in this case as much as it is interested in shutting down trumps ability to stop them from filtering his message, so they will pursue other ways to silence him all in the name of "freedom of speech".This isn't about "freedom of speech", this is about the right to petition the government.
You're basically right - if Trump hadn't made his Twitter feed an official organ of the White House, this ruling would likely have come out the other way.
He can stop them from using his account to make them.Nothing is preventing the user from saying whatever they want on their Twitter account ... Unless they screw up and Twitter bans them ...The First Amendment addresses the inability of Congress to pass a law that abridges free speech.
Twitter and whomever uses it, or who that person may or may not block ... In no way represents Congress passing a law that abridges free speech.
Nor does the President blacking another user prevent that user from exercising free speech ...
They can post whatever they want on their own account.
Judges cannot legislate from the bench ...
Nor can they reinterpret the Constitution to add provisions that don't exist.
.
You're focusing on the first sentence of the First Amendment.
Read the last sentence - that's what this ruling is based on.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Nothing is stopping the ability of the user to redress their grievance ...
They can even do so on Twitter if they feel like it.
And it doesn't matter anyway ... Because Congress still didn't pass a law that prohibits the user from redressing their grievance.
.
The First Amendment is fully incorporated. It applies to all branches of government, state and federal. It is not limited to the legislative branch.
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - Wikipedia
.
By blocking people on Twitter, Trump is denying them the right to respond to his official government pronouncements. He doesn't have to read those responses, but he can't stop people from making them.
Isn't now what we're talking about?It is declaratory relief, not injunctive relief. Trump can legally ignore it.that's the legal argument, what I addressed in my post [or was trying to address]was that the ruling does not apply to private posts/tweets or posts/tweets made by the average joe [they can still use the right to block] all trump needs to do is use one of those avenues or any numerous ways to post/tweet as a citizen [ironically enough that would require him keeping it to personal attacks and not policy]...the media is not really interested in being able to petition the government in this case as much as it is interested in shutting down trumps ability to stop them from filtering his message, so they will pursue other ways to silence him all in the name of "freedom of speech".This isn't about "freedom of speech", this is about the right to petition the government.
You're basically right - if Trump hadn't made his Twitter feed an official organ of the White House, this ruling would likely have come out the other way.
For now.
