Constitution Wins...Trump Loses

[Theowl32]

The OP, like every other stupid ass demented virtue signaling hypocrite, has no idea what the contitution says, nor do they care.

We have a right to free speech, you dumb moron. We are not FORCED to listen to it by the constitution you stupid ass demented ignorant morons.

 

[BlackSand]

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 ...

.​

.​

Wanna try reading.my post again?

Okay ... Read again ... My bad.

I think the part about my argument you may not understand is the part were no one is denying a user from free speech, nor the ability to redress a grievance.

They can utilize their Twitter account to express whatever opinion they may have.
They can utilize their Twitter account to redress any grievance they may have.
The Constitution doesn't grant anyone the right to view someone else's Twitter account.

No one is prohibiting free speech ... Much less does any of it have anything to do with Congress passing a law to do so.

.​

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Donald turned his personal account into an outlet for governmental actions and communications. He announced major policy plans, he fired administration staff through Twitter, he has said he prefers Twitter as his means to communicate with his constituents. By blocking people, he is taking averse actions against citizens in his official capacity as President to silence their dissent.

It's just one of those things liberals like to do to remind folks who it is that controls the courts, what will probably happen now while the left smirks and pats itself on the back thinking they've actual won something is trump will just use another private account and the lefties will run to their judge again to try and get that stopped, and/or trump will have others post/tweet for him and the left will run to their judge again to try and get it stopped and they will try to shut down avenue after avenue of ways to prevent unfettered use of this type of communicating all so they can "protect our first amendment rights to freedom of speech"...if the gun control debate has taught us anything it is how the left really views our constitution, they like their freedom, no one else's.

In the future please limit your sentences to no more than 10,000 words.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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.

exactly what I said I guess on another thread. And goes for youtube or facebook.

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

Yes, and nowhere does the government provide freedom of speech.

It is a natural right and is not provided by a government.

You are correct, that was poor wording on my part. But the Constitution only applies to the Govt when it says that it will not prohibit or abridge free speech.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

In the future please limit your sentences to no more than 10,000 words.

lol...legitimate request...will work on it.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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 ...

.​

.​

Wanna try reading.my post again?

Okay ... Read again ... My bad.

I think the part about my argument you may not understand is the part were no one is denying a user from free speech, nor the ability to redress a grievance.

They can utilize their Twitter account to express whatever opinion they may have.
They can utilize their Twitter account to redress any grievance they may have.
The Constitution doesn't grant anyone the right to view someone else's Twitter account.

No one is prohibiting free speech ... Much less does any of it have anything to do with Congress passing a law to do so.

.​

I understand that part of your argument. I don't agree, but I understand.

I don't understand what the Twitter User Agreement has do to with anything, though.

 

[AsherN]

Nonsense. He is a president but he's still an individual. He doesn't have to give up his individual rights just because he's a president.

But I know anti-individual rights regressives won't agree...

He is using his personal account as a de facto government account. if he tweeted policy and official announcements from @POTUS, the judgement would have affected that account. The ruling is that a government account cannot ban users.

 

[BlackSand]

I understand that part of your argument. I don't agree, but I understand.

I don't understand what the Twitter User Agreement has do to with anything, though.

The user agreement defines the terms under which the user agrees to use Twitter and in regards to their account.
No one else's account is covered by the user agreement between another user and Twitter.

Use is specific to the account and managed by Twitter and the user.
No one else has rights (edit -access) to an account that cannot be managed by the user or Twitter.

It doesn't matter who wants to view what ... It's not their account nor their agreement for use.
And ... It doesn't matter whether or not you disagree.


Edit:
For instance ... You have no authority nor access to my Twitter account because my agreement for use isn't with you.

.​

.​

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Like I said, the ruling is flawed.

The courts forget the President has constitutional rights too.

But he's co-mingled his use of his Twitter account as a private individual with his use of it as POTUS.

Doesn't that make it all fair game?

 

[BlackSand]

But he's co-mingled his use of his Twitter account as a private individual with his use of it as POTUS.

Doesn't that make it all fair game?

Even if someone wants to argue that what the President posts on Twitter could be considered an official pronouncement associated with his office ...
That doesn't lend the same official status to anything anyone else may post to his account in response.

.​

 

[TemplarKormac]

Like I said, the ruling is flawed.

The courts forget the President has constitutional rights too.

But he's co-mingled his use of his Twitter account as a private individual with his use of it as POTUS.

Doesn't that make it all fair game?

But the fact remains that he's a still a private citizen, and the right to free speech works both ways. Both in expressing and listening to it.

So as I see it, no, it is not fair game.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Like I said, the ruling is flawed.

The courts forget the President has constitutional rights too.

But he's co-mingled his use of his Twitter account as a private individual with his use of it as POTUS.

Doesn't that make it all fair game?

But the fact remains that he's a still a private citizen, and the right to free speech works both ways. Both in expressing and listening to it.

So as I see it, no, it is not fair game.

He's the President. He's basically the opposite of a "private citizen".

Yes, he has a right to free speech, and no - he isn't forced to listen to anyone.

Blocking people on Twitter does not just hide their posts, it prevents them from reading or responding your posts as well. When the President has chosen to use Twitter as an official mouthpiece of the administration, it's a First Amendment violation to prevent people from reading or responding to official, government communications.

It's not about the "free speech" part of the First - it's the "right to petition the government for redress" part that comes into play.

 

[BlackSand]

He's the President. He's basically the opposite of a "private citizen".

Yes, he has a right to free speech, and no - he isn't forced to listen to anyone.

Blocking people on Twitter does not just hide their posts, it prevents them from reading or responding your posts as well. When the President has chosen to use Twitter as an official mouthpiece of the administration, it's a First Amendment violation to prevent people from reading or responding to official, government communications.

It's not about the "free speech" part of the First - it's the "right to petition the government for redress" part that comes into play.

The White House Press Room is not open to just anyone nor can anyone simply walk in and redress their grievances.
It is not an open venue ... Neither is his Twitter account.

.​

 

[theDoctorisIn]

He's the President. He's basically the opposite of a "private citizen".

Yes, he has a right to free speech, and no - he isn't forced to listen to anyone.

Blocking people on Twitter does not just hide their posts, it prevents them from reading or responding your posts as well. When the President has chosen to use Twitter as an official mouthpiece of the administration, it's a First Amendment violation to prevent people from reading or responding to official, government communications.

It's not about the "free speech" part of the First - it's the "right to petition the government for redress" part that comes into play.

The White House Press Room is not open to anyone nor can anyone simply walk in and redress their grievances.
It is not an open venue ... Neither is his Twitter account.

.​

I think you're still confused as to how Twitter works.

Twitter is an open venue. That's why Trump uses it - because it's a way to openly communicate with millions of people at once.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Exactly, so now nobody can block anyone or ignore someone like they can do here.

No government official who uses a twitter account to conduct government business can shut down free speech by blocking other tweeters.

This ruling is entirely appropriate.

He is not blocking them for using Twitter ...


God you guys are dumb

 

[BlackSand]

I think you're still confused as to how Twitter works.

Twitter is an open venue. That's why Trump uses it - because it's a way to openly communicate with millions of people at once.

It's not a open venue if you are blocked from viewing an account ...

The President can do whatever he wants with his account ... What you want to do has no bearing on that.
It doesn't matter if someone is jelly because the President has more followers than they do and no one would listen to their shit if they weren't trying to coattail his account.

.​

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I think you're still confused as to how Twitter works.

Twitter is an open venue. That's why Trump uses it - because it's a way to openly communicate with millions of people at once.

It's not a open venue if you are blocked from viewing an account ...

The President can do whatever he wants with his account ... What you want to do has no bearing on that.
It doesn't matter if someone is jelly because the President has more followers than they do and no one would listen to their shit if they weren't trying to coattail his account.

.​

This isn't about what I want - this is how a federal judge ruled.

You are welcome to rage against this judge's ruling as much as you like, but let's try to stick to reality.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

But the fact remains that he's a still a private citizen, and the right to free speech works both ways. Both in expressing and listening to it.

So as I see it, no, it is not fair game.

If we were talking bank accounts - one private, one business and co-mingling occurred, then either or both could be attached to satisfy a debt or judgment.

How do you propose distinguishing what Trump does as a private citizen from what he does as POTUS then?

 

[TemplarKormac]

It's not about the "free speech" part of the First - it's the "right to petition the government for redress" part that comes into play.

But Twitter isn't an arm of the government. It wasn't founded on the precepts of the Constitution, therefore I presume it is not subject to the same limits placed on it as is with government.

Meaning that Trump got an account in the same way everyone else did. And I assume it's the same account he had before running for president.

Are you telling me that he has to unblock everyone he's blocked before now? That's not fair.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It's not about the "free speech" part of the First - it's the "right to petition the government for redress" part that comes into play.

But Twitter isn't an arm of the government. It wasn't founded on the precepts of the Constitution, therefore I presume it is not subject to the same limits placed on it as is with government.

Meaning that Trump got an account in the same way everyone else did. And I assume it's the same account he had before running for president.

Are you telling me that he has to unblock everyone he's blocked before now? That's not fair.

Why is that "unfair"?

You are looking at this the wrong way - this is not about Twitter following the "precepts" of the Constitution, this is about the President of the United States following the precepts of the Constitution.