Posted on 05/24/2018 6:34:58 AM PDT by yesthatjallen
By blocking users on Twitter, President Trump has violated the First Amendment, a federal judge ruled on Wednesday.
The lawsuit was brought by seven Twitter users — including a Texas police officer, a New York comedy writer and a Nashville surgeon — who claimed that Mr. Trump’s Twitter feed was an official government account and that preventing users from following it was unconstitutional.
In her ruling, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald wrote that the plaintiffs who sought to view and engage with Mr. Trump’s tweets alongside those who were not restricted were “protected by the First Amendment.” The judge, though, did not require the president or Twitter to unblock anyone.
Etc...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
When the lawsuit was first filed, I read comments from people who were banned.
There was no noble mission. They openly stated it was about harassing Trump.
This article is standard NYT spin and revisionism.
Libtards can go fly a kite.
The First Amendment says you have a right to free speech.
You do not have a right to be heard.
Ignore the judge. He’s a partisan hack.
It seems to me that the judge just created lawful grounds to sue Twitter for violating people’s Constitutional rights when Twitter censors conservative speech. We’ll see has this plays out.
You missed the memo that the SJWs have been handing out the past few years:
“Free speech for me, but not for thee.”
Most of the people who reply on the President’s Twitter feed post the vilest, filthiest, most abusive comments imaginable.
If these comments were by conservatives directed toward Obama, they would have been banned from Twitter long ago, not just blocked.
Since this is about Trump, they are held up as free speech warriors.
Disgusting.
It matters not what the “law” says or its intended purpose, crooks in blackrobes can change tit to fit their political needs while lining their pockets with law manipulation money.
Ignore the judge. He’s a partisan hack.
_____________________________
He practices Constitutional witchcraft.
I believe that there is a twitter account @POTUS created by Obama. All President Trump would have to do is declare the @POTUS account to be the official (government) account and that @realdonaldtrump is his private account.
Done
The march of liberal fascism.
I think their biggest complaint is they cannot post responses below his tweets or retweet with comments.
Everyday you can read Trump tweets elsewhere without following.
This is like saying that because President Trump uses a government phone, he has to take everyone’s calls.
If Trump gives a speech in the Rose Garden(a govt facility), do hecklers have a right to free speech?
This is far from over. The judge is wrong and clearly overreaching the bench’s authority. The smackdown that is coming is going to be awesome!
I’d put your comment this way—
The First Amendment says you have a right to free speech.
Nowhere in the Constitution is there a clause REQUIRING anyone to listen.
In other words, we are all FREE to ignore FREE speech.
It’s in certain countries where ONLY “Fearless Leader” has any right to Free Speech, but everyone else is REQUIRED to listen, heed and applaud. We are not there. (yet?)
Judge is a she and a Clinton appointee.
“It seems to me that the judge just created lawful grounds to sue Twitter for violating people’s Constitutional rights when Twitter censors conservative speech. We’ll see has this plays out.”
Yup, they unknowingly opened a can of worms. I’ve been suspended 4 times. Now I can sue.
Twitter is neither instituted nor endorsed by the Federal Government and thus its usage cannot be construed as such. The judge is wrong and the decision should be overturned. On a side note, enforcement is impossible making the ruling nothing more than biased political grandstanding.
"In her ruling, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald ..."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.