The Absurdities of Judge Buchwald's Ruling on Trump's Twitter Account

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Kharron

You're making my point exactly and I'm trying to explain this.

"The user makes the threat, not the account."

I agree, and you just validated the judge's decision. The account is immaterial, it has no rights, it is the user that matters. In the case of discrimination, it needs to be applied equally, the account has no rights, it's the user that matters.

That's right. And it's the account, not the user, that is blocked. As you said, the account has no rights. So the judge's ruling that Trump blocked a person from his twitter account, thereby violating his rights, is false.

Ok LesMis, seems I lack the PhD in intellectual contortionism, we're not going to get anywhere. I think the judge made a good decision but that's my opinion. You're entitled to yours. Take care.

a reply to: Kharron

Ok LesMis, seems I lack the PhD in intellectual contortionism, we're not going to get anywhere. I think the judge made a good decision but that's my opinion. You're entitled to yours. Take care.

You're not getting anywhere, actually, and it's because you are arguing in circles. I'm doing just fine, thankyou. Take care.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope


Well, the @RealDonaldTrump account user doesn't ban Twiiter account users who read his comments, it bans those whose replies it doesn't like.

The 1st Amendment doesn't guarantee that everyone be able to have access to the President's comments, it guarantees the right to free speech. Banning Twiiter account users who reply to the Presidents tweets because he doesn't like those comments is equal to the government suppressing free speech, just as the judge ruled.

a reply to: Kharron

They can read it. They can create a new account or see it on a friend's account. They are not blocked, only an account that is not their person.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

False, they can still make the Same comments. Just not on his Twitter page. Just like I'm sure you'd be asked to leave the white house if you wanted and raved while there.

If a medium is used for communication from the government to The People, it must be made available for all people to read. I do not know how anyone can make an argument against this.

The President doesn't get to create his own little echo chamber where only sympathetic folks are allowed to even view his message. Especially a president that avoids talking to the press in favor of using Twitter....Twitter is his public platform instead of CNN. its what he wanted.

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Kharron

However, if the President chooses to use his private account to share news and make statements that affect every single American, then it needs to be available to be read by every single American -- simple as that.

It is available to every single American—simple as that.

Except those that are blocked? Which by definition is not everyone.

Hard to believe anyone would take Trump's side on this.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Kharron

However, if the President chooses to use his private account to share news and make statements that affect every single American, then it needs to be available to be read by every single American -- simple as that.

It is available to every single American—simple as that.

Except those that are blocked? Which by definition is not everyone.

Hard to believe anyone would take Trump's side on this.

Agreed.

The only standing Trump would have is blocking people not from the US. Any account registered on the presidents chosen public platform originating from within his region of jurisdiction should be able to view his posting.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I don't use Twitter so correct me if I'm wrong but I have no account and can see tweets still. So since I have seen his tweets without an account no one is prevented from seeing his tweets, they just can't post him back ... Last I checked you can't engage a TV address either.

a reply to: Annee

Me either since I don't see this as Trump having a side.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Kharron

However, if the President chooses to use his private account to share news and make statements that affect every single American, then it needs to be available to be read by every single American -- simple as that.

It is available to every single American—simple as that.

Except those that are blocked? Which by definition is not everyone.

Hard to believe anyone would take Trump's side on this.

Agreed.

The only standing Trump would have is blocking people not from the US. Any account registered on the presidents chosen public platform originating from within his region of jurisdiction should be able to view his posting.

Spot on. And engage him in discussion if the medium allows for it. Equal means equal.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Annee

Me either since I don't see this as Trump having a side.

Then why is there a discussion?

I’m no Twitter expert, but as soon as someone else shares a tweet, a blocked person can then see it, right? And then they can respond, can’t they, as part of that thread? (I might be wrong, but I’ll continue...) Being blocked just means that a person/account (whatever) doesn’t show up to the person who did the blocking, right? And pretty much every Trump tweet is on the news, so there’s access... What stops someone from typing @ or # Trump? It’s not even like Twitter/Facebook/ATS jail, is it? What’s the big deal again?

a reply to: Annee

This is about a judge and their ruling.

Judge is right Trump made his Twitter account public when he started posting white house business on his account. And as a public forum it's illegal to suppress someone's comments. That violates their rights under the constitution. If Trump wants to be able to ban people he needs to stop using his Twitter account to discuss white house business.

a reply to: japhrimu

I have no account and I still have read many of Trump's tweets.

a reply to: dragonridr

Does Twitter have down voting to hide comments?

The ruling largely builds on past cases, where courts have ruled that public forums are more than just physical locations.

"We went beyond sidewalks a long time ago," says David Greene, a senior staff attorney and civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "It's not new at all to apply the public forum doctrine beyond real property."

while @realdonaldtrump may have started out as the personal account of a private citizen on a private platform, it’s since morphed into a communication channel controlled by the President and Scavino, who use it to promote new policies, announce official decisions, and engage with foreign political leaders, among other things. It is, in other words, an interactive space under government control, and is therefore subject to the laws concerning public forums.

“He’s acting like the president on it. It’s not a personal account anymore,” Citron says.

Judge Buchwald's decision explains how the case hinges on two crucial questions: Whether a public official can block people on Twitter in response to their political views without violating their First Amendment rights, and whether it matters when the person doing the blocking is the President.

“The answer to both questions is no,” Buchwald wrote. “No government official—including the President—is above the law,”

While ordinary Twitter users can block and follow other Twitter users they do or don’t agree with, the judge found that @realdonaldtrump is essentially a space operated by the government for government business, and therefore, cannot curb speech based on people’s viewpoints.

The ruling looks solid to me.link

a reply to: OccamsRazor04


The 1st Amendment doesn't guarantee your right to read anything. It guarantees your right to free speech. For the President to allow some comments, but censer those that he disagrees with or doesn't like is equal to government censorship and the suppression of free speech.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I'd be awesome if @Jack just banned his orange ass - then the tards would really screech because the judges decision would be a moot point.