Started By
Message
Judge rules Trump can't block users on Twitter
Posted on 5/24/18 at 12:37 pm
Posted on 5/24/18 at 12:37 pm
Because apparently our President is a petty teenage girl who can't handle criticism and has to be told how to act.
LINK
This is what our government and legal system have devolved to
LINK
quote:
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
This is what our government and legal system have devolved to
11
Posted on 5/24/18 at 12:58 pm to BowlJackson
But can he unfriend them on Facebook?
Posted on 5/24/18 at 1:10 pm to BowlJackson
Who cares tbh
Posted on 5/24/18 at 1:15 pm to BowlJackson
quote:100% truth
Because apparently our President is a petty teenage girl who can't handle criticism and has to be told how to act.
Posted on 5/24/18 at 1:27 pm to TT9
Myspace is still the land of the free and the home of the brave though.
Posted on 5/24/18 at 1:28 pm to BowlJackson
quote:He shouldn't be making official policy with tweets in the first place. Thats how fricking dumb this all is.
This is what our government and legal system have devolved to
Posted on 5/24/18 at 1:30 pm to BowlJackson
Stupid bitch doesnt understand how twitter works.
if the poster is posting on a trump tweet. POTUS should be free to block a harassing msg. And how are they going to stop Trump from doing this anyway.
if the poster is posting on a trump tweet. POTUS should be free to block a harassing msg. And how are they going to stop Trump from doing this anyway.
Posted on 5/24/18 at 1:41 pm to TT9
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because apparently our President is a petty teenage girl who can't handle criticism and has to be told how to act.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100% truth
Agreed.
Posted on 5/24/18 at 2:08 pm to momentoftruth87
quote:
Who cares tbh
Trump does. Oh, he mad.
Posted on 5/24/18 at 2:10 pm to Pavoloco83
quote:
And how are they going to stop Trump from doing this anyway.
There was a lawsuit and it went to federal court and Trump lost, so they're stopping him by having a judge say so.
Posted on 5/24/18 at 2:24 pm to BowlJackson
Oh yeah, he mad.
The pussy has a hard time dealing with criticism, not unlike your typical 8 year old. Dis gonna make him pitch a fit I'm guessing. Prob tweet about it in the next day or two when it gets reported on fox news. If it gets reported there.
The pussy has a hard time dealing with criticism, not unlike your typical 8 year old. Dis gonna make him pitch a fit I'm guessing. Prob tweet about it in the next day or two when it gets reported on fox news. If it gets reported there.
Posted on 5/24/18 at 2:30 pm to BowlJackson
I can't wait until i can take my kids to the trump library. The tweets and replies section will be incredible.
Posted on 5/24/18 at 2:54 pm to BowlJackson
That holding surprises me. I’m not going to read the whole article though
Posted on 5/24/18 at 5:25 pm to BowlJackson
Knowing the world we live in, his eventual violation of this ruling is going to be the reason he faces impeachment proceedings.
That's right: a sitting President will be impeached for blocking someone on Twitter against court orders.
We really do deserve each other.
That's right: a sitting President will be impeached for blocking someone on Twitter against court orders.
We really do deserve each other.
Posted on 5/24/18 at 5:36 pm to BowlJackson
Georgia ACLU was issuing warnings to various politicians about this very thing back in April. It's interesting to hear a court rule on it.
I'd imagine he could get around it pretty easily by having two accounts, one professional where he just posts pictures signing bills and meeting foreign leaders and another personal one where he can talk shite and block people.
I'd imagine he could get around it pretty easily by having two accounts, one professional where he just posts pictures signing bills and meeting foreign leaders and another personal one where he can talk shite and block people.
Posted on 5/24/18 at 6:14 pm to KSGamecock
quote:
I'd imagine he could get around it pretty easily by having two accounts, one professional where he just posts pictures signing bills and meeting foreign leaders and another personal one where he can talk shite and block people.
I would guess that the ruling has to do with the fact that as the President, he is not just acting as an individual but embodies an office. While President engaging on social media, he can't block people but once his Presidency ends he can go back to saying and doing whatever he wants.
Posted on 5/24/18 at 6:52 pm to tylerdurden24
Yup.
Posted on 5/24/18 at 8:11 pm to tylerdurden24
Debatable on the point of "governmental control".
Complete Opinion
This is why many politicians have two accounts/pages, Paul Ryan is one on Facebook that I can say for sure has two. One as Speaker of the House, and one as just plain old Paul.
I'm sure this will be appealed higher and large Social Media companies may step in on behalf of the President because Buchwald ruled that Twitter is a Public Forum where freedom of speech is protected...that's a very very bad road to go down for YouTube, Facebook, and others.
quote:
Turning to the merits of plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim, we hold that the speech in which they seek to engage is protected by the First Amendment and that the President and Scavino exert governmental control over certain aspects of the @realDonaldTrump account
Complete Opinion
This is why many politicians have two accounts/pages, Paul Ryan is one on Facebook that I can say for sure has two. One as Speaker of the House, and one as just plain old Paul.
I'm sure this will be appealed higher and large Social Media companies may step in on behalf of the President because Buchwald ruled that Twitter is a Public Forum where freedom of speech is protected...that's a very very bad road to go down for YouTube, Facebook, and others.
This post was edited on 5/24/18 at 8:12 pm
Posted on 5/24/18 at 8:43 pm to KSGamecock
Paul Ryan as Speaker doesn't compare to Trump as President, though. Trump is the figurative embodiment of a branch of government. Ryan is but one of many people of a separate branch. Becoming President is tantamount to giving yourself to the country for at least a 4 year term; you cease to be just a person and become a standard for the American people. You don't get to ignore the world at that point through any form of communication; you take on the varied praise and criticism of the people and lead accordingly.
Posted on 5/24/18 at 8:51 pm to tylerdurden24
I don't know man, Speaker is pretty high on the totem pole, up there with the VP and CJ of SCOTUS but no matter the station I don't think there would or should be a difference from a legal perspective.
This needs to go to the Supreme Court for a thorough decision. There are a lot of things that need to be explored, like say we're on Facebook and I want to spam racial slurs on the President's page. Can he delete that? Why or why not?
That might be more black and white...but what if I want to constantly accuse a politician of a personal scandal, an affair or a murder or something, of questionable validity...can they delete that?
Can twitter ban people for harassing politicians if their medium is now considered a public forum for political discourse? Does that mean they now have to unban all the White Nationalists?...this case won't define that but whatever the ruling is people like Dennis Prager will surely cite it in their lawsuit against YouTube.
Lots of space here and I think SCOTUS would be wise to clearly define and narrow the scope.
This needs to go to the Supreme Court for a thorough decision. There are a lot of things that need to be explored, like say we're on Facebook and I want to spam racial slurs on the President's page. Can he delete that? Why or why not?
That might be more black and white...but what if I want to constantly accuse a politician of a personal scandal, an affair or a murder or something, of questionable validity...can they delete that?
Can twitter ban people for harassing politicians if their medium is now considered a public forum for political discourse? Does that mean they now have to unban all the White Nationalists?...this case won't define that but whatever the ruling is people like Dennis Prager will surely cite it in their lawsuit against YouTube.
Lots of space here and I think SCOTUS would be wise to clearly define and narrow the scope.
This post was edited on 5/24/18 at 8:54 pm
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News