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.
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 ...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.
No, I don't tweet. But I understand the difference between declaratory relief and injunctive relief.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 ...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.
You don't appear to understand how Twitter works.
We can discuss it then.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".
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.
If Trump chooses to just ignore it, as you suggest, then we'll see what happens.
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.
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.
President Trump cannot deny anyone the ability to respond to any pronouncements on Twitter ...
He doesn't have any control over their accounts ...
They can make whatever comments they want on their account.
Nothing they have to say has any official capacity as far as the government is concerned.
.
No, I don't tweet. But I understand the difference between declaratory relief and injunctive relief.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 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.
You don't appear to understand how Twitter works.
Trump can legally ignore it.
And the original tweet account can block that person's response from appearing on his account.No, I don't tweet. But I understand the difference between declaratory relief and injunctive relief.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 ...
.
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.
You don't appear to understand how Twitter works.
Trump can legally ignore it.
Well, here's a lesson. When you respond to a tweet, you don't use their account, you use your own account.
And the original tweet account can block that person's response from appearing on his account.No, I don't tweet. But I understand the difference between declaratory relief and injunctive relief.He can stop them from using his account to make them.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.
You don't appear to understand how Twitter works.
Trump can legally ignore it.
Well, here's a lesson. When you respond to a tweet, you don't use their account, you use your own account.
He has the right to protect himself from enemies, foreign and domestic.And the original tweet account can block that person's response from appearing on his account.No, I don't tweet. But I understand the difference between declaratory relief and injunctive relief.He can stop them from using his account to make them.
You don't appear to understand how Twitter works.
Trump can legally ignore it.
Well, here's a lesson. When you respond to a tweet, you don't use their account, you use your own account.
If Trump doesn't want to see people's responses, he can mute them - and then he won't see their tweets. That's fine.
But by blocking them, he's restricting their ability to see or respond to his tweets - infringing on their rights.
He has the right to protect himself from enemies, foreign and domestic.And the original tweet account can block that person's response from appearing on his account.No, I don't tweet. But I understand the difference between declaratory relief and injunctive relief.You don't appear to understand how Twitter works.
Trump can legally ignore it.
Well, here's a lesson. When you respond to a tweet, you don't use their account, you use your own account.
If Trump doesn't want to see people's responses, he can mute them - and then he won't see their tweets. That's fine.
But by blocking them, he's restricting their ability to see or respond to his tweets - infringing on their rights.
They don't have the right to harass him or the right to flood his twitter feed with garbage. Those are not constitutionally protected rights.
Poor enemy scum.
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.
President Trump cannot deny anyone the ability to respond to any pronouncements on Twitter ...
He doesn't have any control over their accounts ...
They can make whatever comments they want on their account.
Nothing they have to say has any official capacity as far as the government is concerned.
.
You don't appear to understand how Twitter works, either.
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.
President Trump cannot deny anyone the ability to respond to any pronouncements on Twitter ...
He doesn't have any control over their accounts ...
They can make whatever comments they want on their account.
Nothing they have to say has any official capacity as far as the government is concerned.
.
You don't appear to understand how Twitter works, either.
I know only the user and Twitter has control over someone's account ...
I know they are the two parties covered in the User Terms of Agreement in regards to an individual's account.
.
I'm not sure I understand your argument here.
It's not the knowing..it's the right to reply--which you would have known..had you read the link--but why would you, right?Because no one knows what Trump Tweets...
So now no one can be banned from Twitter because everyone has the right to reply to the tweets of public figures?
Twitter cannot moderate their own forums?
It's not the knowing..it's the right to reply--which you would have known..had you read the link--but why would you, right?Because no one knows what Trump Tweets...
So now no one can be banned from Twitter because everyone has the right to reply to the tweets of public figures?
Twitter cannot moderate their own forums?
Have you ever looked at Donald's Twit feed? - That would be a full time job for a staff of 12.
I'm not sure I understand your argument here.
Because I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't understand your argument ... You aren't that special either ...
.
.
