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

Silly ruling, why would he want to see tweets from someone who disagrees with him. He's tweeting to friends and supporters. I'm pretty sure he isn't soliciting opinions.

We are chattel of the banks, corporations and the Governments; the opinions of the banks, corporations and the Governments matter more.

if this judgement is not immediately overturned. it is setting an interesting and possibly dangerous legal precedent. if Trump can not block any accounts from his feed, because it goes against the first amendment due to people not having a voice etc. then it also means Twitter can not block, suspend, delete, ban etc. ANYONE for any reason, from their platform as well. this judge has in effect just declared Twitter to be a public forum. for the exact same reasons. and due to this judgement, if any account is not allowed then Twitter it's self is violating people's rights just as much. and that is just in relation to Trump's feed. guess Twitter just became a free for all zone, where no accounts can be censored by Twitter for any reason. and like any legal precedent. this can easily be expanded to all social media, and even other discussion sites like ATS, as well as all media pages, all politions and their social media accounts, as well as any platforms, such as Facebook, that they might use would need to be included so people do not loose their first ammendmant rights. and can easily be expanded to any online political content or discussions as well. which would also include sites like ATS.

a reply to: Kharron

Ok I am gonna ask you a very simple and specific questions.

where EXACTLY in the constitution does it state if someone becomes president they give up the rights that anyone else in the country has?

where EXACTLY IN THE CONSTITUTION does it say that if the president chooses to communicate (ex social media) with people that the rules that other people follow on that site (this case twitter) dont apply to him?

Unless you can show this then the judge is an activist and your OPINION is also flawed.

The president can CHOOSE who he has interviews with, choose who he talks with and just like us can BLOCK people from twitter feed........just like we can

Scrounger

a reply to: okrian

No. Meant it as written. I'm not a dummy. I know what twitter is and how it is used. That is why I don't waste my time on what I consider silly-a dumb way to communicate. If that strikes you as funny-your sense of humor is quite shallow.

a reply to: seeker1963

I got followers by trolling the troll in the white house.
I'm probably one he wants to block.

Don't let him read anything negative it might bruise his tender ego.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Let's just treat the account like it's not the entity here. Because it's not.
Tell the people at experion that you're not your MasterCard account. Tell transunion that your account forgot to open a checking account and so that account couldn't use your other account to pay the bill and they should not report it.
Tell the cable company your account didn't watch tv.
Ill tell my husband it was my Sephora account that bought that $37.00 Anastasia of Beverly hills Amrazy highlighter even though it's sitting on my face.
I wonder if he'll buy that?

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

According to Sean Spicer every word the president tweets is official .
But for policy you might look up when he announced via Twitter about transgender in the military or even last weeks "I hereby demand" tweet.

You only see what you want to see.

a reply to: Kharron

I don't have a twitter account, and I can see his posts.

a reply to: network dude


So what? Why do people keep saying this? The 1st Amendment doesn't guarantee your right to see or read anything. It guarantees your right to free speech.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Let's just treat the account like it's not the entity here. Because it's not.
Tell the people at experion that you're not your MasterCard account. Tell transunion that your account forgot to open a checking account and so that account couldn't use your other account to pay the bill and they should not report it.
Tell the cable company your account didn't watch tv.
Ill tell my husband it was my Sephora account that bought that $37.00 Anastasia of Beverly hills Amrazy highlighter even though it's sitting on my face.
I wonder if he'll buy that?

The point isn’t to say that you are not responsible for what you do with your accounts. You are. The point is to say your accounts don’t have fundamental human rights. They don’t.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

so in this case, blocking your account from Trump will not block you from seeing what he tweets, it will only take away your ability to respond to him, and I'd guess the blocking was due to nasty comments. How is that doing anything at all to your rights? Please explain.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Let's just treat the account like it's not the entity here. Because it's not.
Tell the people at experion that you're not your MasterCard account. Tell transunion that your account forgot to open a checking account and so that account couldn't use your other account to pay the bill and they should not report it.
Tell the cable company your account didn't watch tv.
Ill tell my husband it was my Sephora account that bought that $37.00 Anastasia of Beverly hills Amrazy highlighter even though it's sitting on my face.
I wonder if he'll buy that?

The point isn’t to say that you are not responsible for what you do with your accounts. You are. The point is to say your accounts don’t have fundamental human rights. They don’t.

LOL, you are trying to explain physics to a puppy. Good effort, but wasted.

a reply to: network dude

so in this case, blocking your account from Trump will not block you from seeing what he tweets, it will only take away your ability to respond to him, and I'd guess the blocking was due to nasty comments. How is that doing anything at all to your rights? Please explain.

The 1st Amendment doesn't gaurantee your right to see anything. If Trump does an interview on FOX News, the 1st Amendment doesn't guarantee you the right to see that interview.

The 1st Amendment gives you the right to speak to anything. Trump blocking speech he doesn't like is equal to government censorship, according to the judge, because Trump's Twitter feed is NOT private, it's a goverment run public platform. The government is forbidden from censoring free speech in such a platform.

It's pretty simple, but you can read the judges 75 page explanation of his ruling if you're still confused.

knightcolumbia.org...

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So someone could iust make a bunch of spambot accounts and as long as they Only Interact with Trumps Twitter, they can never be blocked?

I dont have Twitter so I don't know how it works. But, it almost seems like trolls bots etc could render his account useless as far as comments and replies.

He should just have a friend of his who is "not" the US GOV, and have the last tweet on his account be an explanation that, since this account has been compromised by deep state agents, all official Trump Tweets will now go through "Bob Smith's" verified account.

I don't have a Twitter so I'd like to volunteer to be Trumps non official Twitter account. 🤚😃🇺🇸

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Kharron

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

Again, the accounts are blocked, not the user. People are not their twitter accounts. They can log out of their accounts and have the exact same access as everyone else.

Perhaps Kharron does not realize that all tweets can be viewed by everybody, whether they have a Twitter account or not?

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


I have a friend from NY who Chuckie Schumer has blocked from his Facebook account. This ruling just might come back to bite some people in the ass if you know what I mean?

I know a lot of people who would love to be able to brag about getting blocked by Chuckie!

After waking up today and reading through the pages of responses here, every single person who does not agree with the decision is trying to separate reading and speaking, and I realize that this happened because somehow these were allowed to be separated; I assumed people were familiar with the Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment I

Although the First Amendment says “Congress,” the Supreme Court has held that speakers are protected against all government agencies and officials: federal, state, and local, and legislative, executive, or judicial. The First Amendment does not protect speakers, however, against private individuals or organizations, such as private employers, private colleges, or private landowners. The First Amendment restrains only the government.

The Supreme Court has interpreted “speech” and “press” broadly as covering not only talking, writing, and printing, but also broadcasting, using the Internet, and other forms of expression. The freedom of speech also applies to symbolic expression, such as displaying flags, burning flags, wearing armbands, burning crosses, and the like.

The Supreme Court has held that restrictions on speech because of its content—that is, when the government targets the speaker’s message—generally violate the First Amendment. Laws that prohibit people from criticizing a war, opposing abortion, or advocating high taxes are examples of unconstitutional content-based restrictions. Such laws are thought to be especially problematic because they distort public debate and contradict a basic principle of self-governance: that the government cannot be trusted to decide what ideas or information “the people” should be allowed to hear.

The law is very clear that it covers interactions on the internet, and that it covers both the dissemination of information, as well as open discourse on it.

If the government, or any part of it, no matter how large or small, decides to make internet their chosen mode of communication, they need to make sure they don't violate the Constitution in doing so -- this applies to reading as well as commenting.

Personally, I think it's a terrible decision for the President to choose Twitter as his pulpit, and I can see why no other president has chosen such an informal way of communication, given that all these issues can arise if it's misused.

However, I also support his decision to do so, as long as he doesn't violate the laws that make America a great country.

Side note: I never thought I'd have to defend the Constitution on this website.

originally posted by: Kharron
Side note: I never thought I'd have to defend the Constitution on this website.

Don't worry. WE get it. People from your camp who openly are trying to destroy the Constitution are awesome at bringing it up and bastardizing it and it's intentions when it suits your Marxist agenda?

How many times do we have to hear this BS called "Hate speech" being brought up? We either have free speech or we don't!

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: Kharron
Side note: I never thought I'd have to defend the Constitution on this website.

Don't worry. WE get it. People from your camp who openly are trying to destroy the Constitution are awesome at bringing it up and bastardizing it and it's intentions when it suits your Marxist agenda?

How many times do we have to hear this BS called "Hate speech" being brought up? We either have free speech or we don't!

Wow, so many baseless accusations. I suggest you read my post history and then come back.

Do you have any comment on the validity of the Constitution or are you just going to attack me for defending it?

Bottom line -- we have, literally, thousands or tens of thousands of precedents for this decision. I am open minded and I can change my mind if persuaded, but I would have to be persuaded to disregard all those precedents in order to conform to the opinion presented in the OP. And no one here has yet presented any such evidence to make me disregard the Constitution.

P.S. And if you don't want to take time to read my history... want to know what my camp is? America.