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

What I find truly ironic here is for the last few months I've read countless arguments about how Twitter, Facebook, etc, are private businesses and as such they can ban who over they want even if they are clearly suppressing certain political opinions. And fundamentally I agree with that argument even if I despise them for being so one sided, they are private businesses and the users agree to abide by their T&C when they sign up. Now suddenly Twitter is a "public space" when it suites your anti-Trump agenda, it's perfectly possible to see what Trump tweets without a Twitter account. Preventing him from blocking people will do nothing but allow trolls to flood his feeds with toxicity... but I'm sure they don't care about that at all and probably get aroused by the idea.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

We should write him and let him know how full of it he is. Maybe he is unaware.

a reply to: Kharron

If i was Trump id claim executive privlidge then. judge can stuff it.

www.nysd.uscourts.gov...


The ABOVE is that judges contact Info.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Kharron

If i was Trump id claim executive privlidge then. judge can stuff it.

Then there would be a huge laugh at his expense because that would show everyone he didn't have a clue what executive privilege is.

Fortunately, it seems he has a better sense of it than you.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Kharron

If i was Trump id claim executive privlidge then. judge can stuff it.

Then there would be a huge laugh at his expense because that would show everyone he didn't have a clue what executive privilege is.

Fortunately, it seems he has a better sense of it than you.

HE is the head of the dept that deals with laws. HE can just ignore the judge and contest the ruling.

OR he can just use MUTE instead. Even the judge said muting is OK herself. Still if you log out of twitter you can read the post and tweets. Take a screenshot then log back in to complain to everyone about what Trump is doing. The judge is being a bitch.

a reply to: yuppa

Right your god emperor Trump patron saint of conservatism can't be held to the laws or the constitution like US citizens because Trump.


Get over it. He was wrong and the ruling came down the way most everyone that understood the law thought it would.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: yuppa

Right your god emperor Trump patron saint of conservatism can't be held to the laws or the constitution like US citizens because Trump.

Get over it. He was wrong and the ruling came down the way most everyone that understood the law thought it would.

But only by turning Trump’s twitter feed into a public forum and making flesh and blood human beings a direct 1-to-1 ratio with their twitter accounts.

a reply to: Grimpachi


I dont like trump anymore so take that and shove it you know where. Its a personal account. judge oversteped my curtailing Trumps right to not listen to those he dont like. id say same bout Obama.

Try real hard not to ignore this.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Donald Trump's own administration set the precedent for this ruling by telling a previous court, in a previous case, that the @realdonaldtrump tweets were official presidential communications.

You can't have both ways.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope


Nobody turned Trump's account into a public platform. Trump's Twitter was always a public platform. That's the nature of Twitter and why people sign up for it, to have a public voice. People read a tweet and comment on it, or retweet it.

As a private citizen, Trump had the right the right to ban posters who offended him from posting to his feed. As POTUS he cannot. It was Trump's choice to make his personal Twitter account the official voice of POTUS, not Twitter and not their users. The Trump administration set their own precedent for this ruling when they told a judge in a previous case that Trump's personal Twitter is his official POTUS voice.

The judge changed nothing. The judge upheld the law.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


Nobody turned Trump's account into a public platform. Trump's Twitter was always a public platform. That's the nature of Twitter and why people sign up for it, to have a public voice. People read a tweet and comment on it, or retweet it.

As a private citizen, Trump had the right the right to ban posters who offended him from posting to his feed. As POTUS he cannot. It was Trump's choice to make his personal Twitter account the official voice of POTUS, not Twitter and not their users. The Trump administration set their own precedent for this ruling when they told a judge in a previous case that Trump's personal Twitter is his official POTUS voice.

The judge changed nothing. The judge upheld the law.

So if he started inviting people, say dozens of americans, to exchange ideas with them in the white house, he should be barred from prohibiting anyone from going?

Without banning of accounts, which may be bots, which may be trolls, it will poison the well and be ridiculous. It will deprive real americans from interacting with the president, by inundating their voices with random dribble.

a reply to: Xenogears

So if he started inviting people, say dozens of americans, to exchange ideas with them in the white house, he should be barred from prohibiting anyone from going?

Anytime anyone posts anything on Twitter it's an invitation to anyone with a Twitter account to reply. That's the nature of Twitter.

Without banning of accounts, which may be bots, which may be trolls, it will poison the well and be ridiculous.

Like ATS, Twitter has T&Cs and those who violate those T&Cs are blocked by Twitter. And, like ATS all kinds of people with all kinds of perspectives and motivations reply to Trump's feed. It's really not the venue for constructive dialogue, which is why many people are baffled by the Presidents insistence on using Twitter as a platform and think many of his posts are not very presidential and reflect the very trollery, intimidation and bullying that poisons the well of which you speak. Trump retweets a lot of trollish posts.

It will deprive real americans from interacting with the president, by inundating their voices with random dribble.

Real Americans? Those who exercise their right to free speech, to peacefully protest and demand to have their grievances redressed are just as American as those who defend everything the President says and does, if not more so.

Those who argue that dissent should be silenced and people that disagree with them are not American and don't belong here, as the President has stated, are decidedly un-American.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

you have the right to free speech true,but you do not have the right to make someone listen to you.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Interesting questions remain:

Given Twitter’s stance on hate speech, and given that hate speech is protected under the first amendment, are they now unable to ban users for hate speech so long as it happens in this new “designated public forum”?

I think there will be some interesting court cases in the near future, if this judge's decision stands.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Meh, that's a stretch.

I just think that since he had that account (Donald J Trump) WAY before he became President, and there is a separate "President Donald J Trump" account, that he can block whomever he likes on his PERSONAL account.

It's not an official government account, unlike his PDJT account.

He may be a public servant, but he is still a private citizen with his own rights.

originally posted by: pompel9

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Interesting questions remain:

Given Twitter’s stance on hate speech, and given that hate speech is protected under the first amendment, are they now unable to ban users for hate speech so long as it happens in this new “designated public forum”?

I think there will be some interesting court cases in the near future, if this judge's decision stands.

IT is ridiculous so twitter employees can block users on Trump's account but Trump himself can't.

Twitter was banning conservatives all over, without just cause from what I hear, and then asking for real world information probably for doxxing purposes.

a reply to: poncho1982

I just think that since he had that account (Donald J Trump) WAY before he became President, and there is a separate "President Donald J Trump" account, that he can block whomever he likes on his PERSONAL account.

That's what most people would think. But, when President Trump was taken to court over the legality of his Twitter proclamations, his White House Counsel and the DOJ argued that @realdonaldtrump was the President's official voice and those Twitter proclamations are official presidential communications. So, there's that.

originally posted by: poncho1982
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Meh, that's a stretch.

I just think that since he had that account (Donald J Trump) WAY before he became President, and there is a separate "President Donald J Trump" account, that he can block whomever he likes on his PERSONAL account.

It's not an official government account, unlike his PDJT account.

He may be a public servant, but he is still a private citizen with his own rights.

That's right. Unlike the machinations of the judge and some users here, Twitter is not a "designated public forum", is a private company, with the options for users to block, add, and do what they will to curate their own feeds.

why do people think they have any right to be heard by the president? did people forget why they have a House of representatives? which law is this judge supposedly upholding?

the supreme court would rule against this judge if trump actually challenged this ruling. look at Smith v. Arkansas State Highway Employees or Colleges v. Knight if you want to know how the supreme court generally rules such cases.

blocking some one on twitter doesn't violate the constitution or any laws in any way.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Well the EFF has given its tick of approval. Wouldnt she have covered bases to avoid an appeal. Sorry on mobile and having problem accessing the ruling.