Constitution Wins...Trump Loses

[Sun Devil 92]

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'll have nothing more than crickets with this one.

Another judge that needs a short drop with a sudden stop.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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'll have nothing more than crickets with this one.

Another judge that needs a short drop with a sudden stop.

Anyone who disagrees with me must be killed!


You guys just can't help yourselves, can you?

 

[TemplarKormac]

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?

I'm posting on my phone right now. I'll answer when I get home.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

This is about Trumps freedom to do whatever.

I'd keep blocking and tell the judge to go f**k herself.

 

[miketx]

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'll have nothing more than crickets with this one.

Another judge that needs a short drop with a sudden stop.

Anyone who disagrees with me must be killed!


You guys just can't help yourselves, can you?

So that's what happened to Guno.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

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.

All of our government agencies are supposed to allow access by it's citizens to it's records showing how it's conducting business on behalf of the people it serves. I would imagine that Trump using Twitter in the manner that he has could be "challenging" for ensuring compliance with the archiving requires of all governmental agencies including the office of the President

Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978
The Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978, 44 U.S.C. ß2201-2209, governs the official records of Presidents and Vice Presidents that were created or received after January 20, 1981 (i.e., beginning with the Reagan Administration). The PRA changed the legal ownership of the official records of the President from private to public, and established a new statutory structure under which Presidents, and subsequently NARA, must manage the records of their Administrations. The PRA was amended in 2014, which established several new provisions.

Specifically, the PRA:

• Establishes public ownership of all Presidential records and defines the term Presidential records.
• Requires that Vice-Presidential records be treated in the same way as Presidential records.
• Places the responsibility for the custody and management of incumbent Presidential records with the President.
• Requires that the President and his staff take all practical steps to file personal records separately from Presidential records.
• Allows the incumbent President to dispose of records that no longer have administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value, once the views of the Archivist of the United States on the proposed disposal have been obtained in writing.
• Establishes in law that any incumbent Presidential records (whether textual or electronic) held on courtesy storage by the Archivist remain in the exclusive legal custody of the President and that any request or order for access to such records must be made to the President, not NARA.
• Establishes that Presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office.
• Establishes a process by which the President may restrict and the public may obtain access to these records after the President leaves office; specifically, the PRA allows for public access to Presidential records through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) beginning five years after the end of the Administration, but allows the President to invoke as many as six specific restrictions to public access for up to twelve years.
• Codifies the process by which former and incumbent Presidents conduct reviews for executive privilege prior to public release of records by NARA (which had formerly been governed by Executive order 13489).
• Establishes procedures for Congress, courts, and subsequent Administrations to obtain “special access” to records from NARA that remain closed to the public, following a privilege review period by the former and incumbent Presidents; the procedures governing such special access requests continue to be governed by the relevant provisions of E.O. 13489.
• Establishes preservation requirements for official business conducted using non-official electronic messaging accounts: any individual creating Presidential records must not use non-official electronic messaging accounts unless that individual copies an official account as the message is created or forwards a complete copy of the record to an official messaging account. (A similar provision in the Federal Records Act applies to federal agencies.)
• Prevents an individual who has been convicted of a crime related to the review, retention, removal, or destruction of records from being given access to any original records.

​

 

[BlackSand]

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.

Reality ... A judge attempting to legislate from the bench and making up rules that aren't supported in the Constitution is exactly what the thread is about ...
I don't have to rage against a judge who is simply attempting to over step the authority they are granted in Article Three of the Constitution.

Your argument doesn't change what the Constitution says ... Nor does it grant powers not enumerated.

.​

 

[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.

This is about Trumps freedom to do whatever.

I'd keep blocking and tell the judge to go f**k herself.

Yeah! Freedom!

Now, let's go lynch that judge for being mean to Trump!

 

[Aba Incieni]

He can stop them from using his account to make them.

You don't appear to understand how Twitter works.

No, I don't tweet. But I understand the difference between declaratory relief and injunctive relief.

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.

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.

His tweets are a matter of public record.

Do we get to stand on the dais and respond to his SOTU remarks?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

Reality ... A judge attempting to legislate from the bench and making up rules that aren't supported in the Constitution is exactly what the thread is about ...
I don't have to rage against a judge who is simply attempting to over step the authority they are granted in Article Three of the Constitution.

Your argument doesn't change what the Constitution says ... Nor does it grant powers not enumerated.

.​

You are aware that you're not an authority on the Constitution, right? You're just some clown on the internet.

The Judge, on the other hand, is an authority on the Constitution. You don't have to like the way she ruled, but your impotent rage isn't going to change anything.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You don't appear to understand how Twitter works.

No, I don't tweet. But I understand the difference between declaratory relief and injunctive relief.

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.

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.

His tweets are a matter of public record.

Do we get to stand on the dais and respond to his SOTU remarks?

Can the President only allow certain people to listen to the SOTU?

 

[Aba Incieni]

No, I don't tweet. But I understand the difference between declaratory relief and injunctive relief.

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.

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.

His tweets are a matter of public record.

Do we get to stand on the dais and respond to his SOTU remarks?

Can the President only allow certain people to listen to the SOTU?

It's public record.

Do we get to stand on the dais and respond to his SOTU remarks?

 

[BlackSand]

You are aware that you're not an authority on the Constitution, right?

...

Because you don't like what I have to say about it ...
Well guess what ... Your opinion on that matter doesn't mean shit either ... No one granted you the authority to determine such matters ...

.​

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

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.

His tweets are a matter of public record.

Do we get to stand on the dais and respond to his SOTU remarks?

Can the President only allow certain people to listen to the SOTU?

It's public record.

Do we get to stand on the dais and respond to his SOTU remarks?

Your analogy is bad, and you should feel bad.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You are aware that you're not an authority on the Constitution, right?

...

Because you don't like what I have to say about it ...
Well guess what ... Your opinion on that matter doesn't mean shit either ... No one granted you the authority to determine such matters ...

.​

You're right, my opinion is equally as worthless as yours.

But I'm not sharing my opinion- I'm sharing the judges opinion.

And guess who's opinion actually matters?

 

[Aba Incieni]

And the original tweet account can block that person's response from appearing on his 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.

His tweets are a matter of public record.

Do we get to stand on the dais and respond to his SOTU remarks?

Can the President only allow certain people to listen to the SOTU?

It's public record.

Do we get to stand on the dais and respond to his SOTU remarks?

Your analogy is bad, and you should feel bad.

You should run away now since you can't answer the question. lol you never were good with logic.

The dais is his platform, much like his own personal twitter account.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

His tweets are a matter of public record.

Do we get to stand on the dais and respond to his SOTU remarks?

Can the President only allow certain people to listen to the SOTU?

It's public record.

Do we get to stand on the dais and respond to his SOTU remarks?

Your analogy is bad, and you should feel bad.

You should run away now since you can't answer the question. lol you never were good with logic.

The dais is his platform, much like his own personal twitter account.

Your analogy falls apart when you take into consideration the fact that many millions of Twitter users can and do respond to the President's tweets every day.

 

[Aba Incieni]

You are aware that you're not an authority on the Constitution, right?

...

Because you don't like what I have to say about it ...
Well guess what ... Your opinion on that matter doesn't mean shit either ... No one granted you the authority to determine such matters ...

.​

You're right, my opinion is equally as worthless as yours.

But I'm not sharing my opinion- I'm sharing the judges opinion.

And guess who's opinion actually matters?

The judge gave a personal, non-binding opinion. The judge did not make a judgment.

See the difference?

 

[Aba Incieni]

His tweets are a matter of public record.

Do we get to stand on the dais and respond to his SOTU remarks?

Can the President only allow certain people to listen to the SOTU?

It's public record.

Do we get to stand on the dais and respond to his SOTU remarks?

Your analogy is bad, and you should feel bad.

You should run away now since you can't answer the question. lol you never were good with logic.

The dais is his platform, much like his own personal twitter account.

Your analogy falls apart when you take into consideration the fact that many millions of Twitter users can and do respond to the President's tweets every day.

So those millions can stand on the dais and respond to his SOTU address? lol tool.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You are aware that you're not an authority on the Constitution, right?

...

Because you don't like what I have to say about it ...
Well guess what ... Your opinion on that matter doesn't mean shit either ... No one granted you the authority to determine such matters ...

.​

You're right, my opinion is equally as worthless as yours.

But I'm not sharing my opinion- I'm sharing the judges opinion.

And guess who's opinion actually matters?

The judge gave a personal, non-binding opinion. The judge did not make a judgment.

See the difference?

No, the judge made a ruling, with the full force of legal precedent.

She didn't order an injunction to force him to do it - yet.