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.
So those millions can stand on the dais and respond to his SOTU address? lol tool.You should run away now since you can't answer the question. lol you never were good with logic.It's public record.Can the President only allow certain people to listen to the SOTU?
Do we get to stand on the dais and respond to his SOTU remarks?
Your analogy is bad, and you should feel bad.
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.
Right. She gave an opinion. The POTUS' opinion carries more weight.The judge gave a personal, non-binding opinion. The judge did not make a judgment.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?
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.
They are both presidential platforms, slow guy.So those millions can stand on the dais and respond to his SOTU address? lol tool.You should run away now since you can't answer the question. lol you never were good with logic.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.
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.
No, fuckwit. That's why your analogy makes no sense.
They are both presidential platforms, slow guy.So those millions can stand on the dais and respond to his SOTU address? lol tool.You should run away now since you can't answer the question. lol you never were good with logic.
Your analogy is bad, and you should feel bad.
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.
No, fuckwit. That's why your analogy makes no sense.
Right. She gave an opinion. The POTUS' opinion carries more weight.The judge gave a personal, non-binding opinion. The judge did not make a judgment.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?
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.
It's his personal platform since it's his account.They are both presidential platforms, slow guy.So those millions can stand on the dais and respond to his SOTU address? lol tool.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.
No, fuckwit. That's why your analogy makes no sense.
Twitter is not a "Presidential" platform. It's a platform for anyone who follows their rules.
You still don't seem to understand how Twitter works.
Neither does some judges opinion.Right. She gave an opinion. The POTUS' opinion carries more weight.The judge gave a personal, non-binding opinion. The judge did not make a judgment.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?
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.
No, it really doesn't. The President's opinion on Constitutionality holds no more weight than yours or mine.
Hence the 'mute' feature..that he can use..he need not listen to anyone, but he cannot prevent anyone from reading him. No trolls...no hecklers.Bullshit. The president has NO OBLIGATION TO LISTEN TO THE HECKLERS.You have a right to "speak." Nobody is obligated to listen.He can mute them..in fact, the judge recommended just that..but he cannot block them..because he is the President..our leader...and we have the right to access his official record. He has claimed that it is..and now he's stuck with the consequences.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.""
Hmmmm...twitter can censor...and everybody else can block whomever they please for any reason..
But the President of the US must be prevented from blocking the trolls and stalkers that insult and attack him on twitter.
It's his personal platform since it's his account.They are both presidential platforms, slow guy.So those millions can stand on the dais and respond to his SOTU address? lol tool.
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.
No, fuckwit. That's why your analogy makes no sense.
Twitter is not a "Presidential" platform. It's a platform for anyone who follows their rules.
You still don't seem to understand how Twitter works.
Make it a public event like an inauguration. Does everyone get a chance at the mic?
Neither does some judges opinion.Right. She gave an opinion. The POTUS' opinion carries more weight.The judge gave a personal, non-binding opinion. The judge did not make a judgment.
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?
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.
No, it really doesn't. The President's opinion on Constitutionality holds no more weight than yours or mine.
Again, Twitter rules allow for blocking unwanted users.It's his personal platform since it's his account.They are both presidential platforms, slow guy.So those millions can stand on the dais and respond to his SOTU address? lol tool.
No, fuckwit. That's why your analogy makes no sense.
Twitter is not a "Presidential" platform. It's a platform for anyone who follows their rules.
You still don't seem to understand how Twitter works.
Make it a public event like an inauguration. Does everyone get a chance at the mic?
Again, you don't know how Twitter works.
If I were to respond to one of Trump's tweets, I'm not using his account - I'm using mine.
If/when she writes out an injunction. Until then it's her opinion.Neither does some judges opinion.Right. She gave an opinion. The POTUS' opinion carries more weight.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.
No, it really doesn't. The President's opinion on Constitutionality holds no more weight than yours or mine.
Yeah, it does.
That's how our legal system works.
LoL! Normal people eh? Who defines? I have no issue with Conservatives speaking on any college campus..what gave you the idea I did? Oh yeah..those silly assumptions you carry around like a big rock in your head. I support the 2A..what possibly made you think I did not? Oh yeah..that same rock..sucks to be you.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.
He can use the mute, but he can't use the block, like everyone else can.LoL! Normal people eh? Who defines? I have no issue with Conservatives speaking on any college campus..what gave you the idea I did? Oh yeah..those silly assumptions you carry around like a big rock in your head. I support the 2A..what possibly made you think I did not? Oh yeah..that same rock..sucks to be you.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.
My post is meant to inform...and to provoke conversation..it would appear that it has succeeded. Myself..I see no real hardship in Trump allowing everyone to view his tweets...since the judge specifically said he can use the Mute feature...he is not subjected to anyone's input he does not wish to be..unlike the ignorant people here who have erroneously stated. I guess it's just to much to stop that knee from jerking..and read the decision.
Lazy fucks..one and all.
Hello..mute button..and thus far..the only one who is proving themselves an idiot..is you. Perhaps you could at least read the decision before you make such a complete ass out of yourself. Trump can mute who he wishes..so there goes your stupid argument about trolls and such. Care to try again?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.
Trump preventing vicious trolls, criminals and anti-US operatives from harrassing him online doesn't mean they lose their right to petition the government.
The stupidity level you exhibit is right up there with Coyote's brilliant "we can't compare Sweden and the USA rape numbers because rape isn't as bad in Sweden. It's not really rape when it happens there."
But it all springs from the same place...leftists want to destroy us. They don't care how it gets done, or what stupidities they must wrap their lips around to get it done.
You are the quintessential *useful idiot* except you're so much of an idiot, you hurt your cause more than you help it.
Boo-hoo! Poor lil' Trump...why is that such an inconvenience..and in fact..how is that even a 1st amendment issue for him? Because he cannot block..does not mean he cannot speak?He can use the mute, but he can't use the block, like everyone else can.LoL! Normal people eh? Who defines? I have no issue with Conservatives speaking on any college campus..what gave you the idea I did? Oh yeah..those silly assumptions you carry around like a big rock in your head. I support the 2A..what possibly made you think I did not? Oh yeah..that same rock..sucks to be you.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.
My post is meant to inform...and to provoke conversation..it would appear that it has succeeded. Myself..I see no real hardship in Trump allowing everyone to view his tweets...since the judge specifically said he can use the Mute feature...he is not subjected to anyone's input he does not wish to be..unlike the ignorant people here who have erroneously stated. I guess it's just to much to stop that knee from jerking..and read the decision.
Lazy fucks..one and all.
It's called equal application of the law. You want some clown like this deciding that only white males who work for the gubment can own guns?Boo-hoo! Poor lil' Trump...why is that such an inconvenience..and in fact..how is that even a 1st amendment issue for him? Because he cannot block..does not mean he cannot speak?He can use the mute, but he can't use the block, like everyone else can.LoL! Normal people eh? Who defines? I have no issue with Conservatives speaking on any college campus..what gave you the idea I did? Oh yeah..those silly assumptions you carry around like a big rock in your head. I support the 2A..what possibly made you think I did not? Oh yeah..that same rock..sucks to be you.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.
My post is meant to inform...and to provoke conversation..it would appear that it has succeeded. Myself..I see no real hardship in Trump allowing everyone to view his tweets...since the judge specifically said he can use the Mute feature...he is not subjected to anyone's input he does not wish to be..unlike the ignorant people here who have erroneously stated. I guess it's just to much to stop that knee from jerking..and read the decision.
Lazy fucks..one and all.
You prove you're a fool with this post...Trump is not forced to listen to anything..hello..MUTE!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.
My post is meant to inform...and to provoke conversation.
Lazy fucks..one and all.
Odd..i don't recall the article in the Constitution that guarentee's our right to do 'whatever'?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.
