Trump can't block Twitter followers, Federal Judge says

CNBC ^ | 5/23/2018 | Kevin Breuninger, Dan Mangan

[DesertRhino]

President Donald Trump cannot block users on his Twitter feed, a federal judge in New York City ruled Wednesday. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald said in her ruling that Trump is violating the U.S. Constitution by preventing certain Americans from viewing his tweets.

The social media platform, Buchwald said, is a "designated public forum" from which Trump cannot exclude individual plaintiffs.

[DesertRhino]

A Federal Judge rules that Trump may not block a Twitter follower because Twitter is a "designated public forum". So now, as a so called "designated public forum", does Twitter also lose the right to ban conservatives?

[butlerweave]

Will the Block feature/features be removed from everything now ,LOL

[rxsid]

Then nobody else can block people on their twitter account.

What a ridiculous ruling.

[FreedomPoster]

I expect Barnes Law is already working this decision into their case against Twitter.

Barnes Law Ask Me Anything
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/8jq2zz/barnes_law_ask_me_anything/

Current Case:
Charles Johnson vs. Twitter, Inc.
CHARLES C. JOHNSON’S LAWSUIT FILED AGAINST TWITTER ON JANUARY 8, 2018. THE BIG QUESTION IS WHAT HAPPENS TO FREE SPEECH IN THE PUBLIC SQUARE WHEN IT’S OWNED BY A PRIVATE MONOPOLY.
https://www.barneslawllp.com/charles-johnson-vs-twitter-case

[Alberta's Child]

This isn't even just a dumb ruling. It was an idiotic lawsuit from the start.

1. The judge refused to issue an order requiring President Trump to unblock anyone ... as if that could possibly be enforced.

2. Who even had standing to claim that they were harmed in any way by being blocked from Trump's Twitter feed?

3. Do you think Twitter is surprised to learn that they are now a "public forum" and cannot control their content anymore? LOL.

[rxsid]

"This case requires us to consider whether a public official may, consistent with the First Amendment, 'block' a person from his Twitter account in response to the political views that person has expressed, and whether the analysis differs because that public official is the President of the United States," Buchwald said said in her opinion."

This judge isn't very bright.

The first amendment doesn't guarantee the right to be heard.

[Jim W N]

What a nit-wit ruling. This is in NO WAY a federal issue.

The Constitution is in NO WAY implicated in the manipulation of Twitter, a private enterprise.

TWITTER ITSELF can stop users from preventing from viewing tweets, but the feds have NO constitutional authority to interfere with such.

[2harddrive]

All President Trump has to do is IGNORE the so-called “Judge” and block whomever he WANTS. The so-called “Judge” has violated the separation-of-powers doctrine, and the impotent “Judge” can in no way enforce his so-called “ruling” anyway. PERIOD!

[TexasM1A]

Ehhh, do it anyway, see what this guy does.

[SauronOfMordor]

He’s not blocking anyone from READING his tweets. I can read his tweets, and I don’t even have a twitter account.

[DesertRhino]

Agreed. If he can’t do it because it’s a public forum, then can twitter ban conservatives form a “designated public forum?”

[Yo-Yo]

As I posted in another thread, this excerpt was in a Bloomberg story:

The judge declined to issue an order forcing Trump to unblock the users, saying her ruling should be sufficient to force a change in behavior.

[Boogieman]

Sure, let’s see the judge enforce that.

[yesthatjallen]

* Liberals have been granted the right to harass anyone and you have no right to protect yourself *

[Genoa]

“A designated public forum”? What’s that? You mean it’s not private property anymore? What is Twitter now, a common carrier, a public utility? Let’s regulate it. Facebook too. And stop them from banning people from posting unpopular views.

[DesertRhino]

It’s doubtful this Clinton judge even thought that far ahead. She just wanted to stomp her feet at Trump because he blocked someone from harassing him on twitter.

[V_TWIN]

“a federal judge in New York City ruled”

Wow what a shocker. Probably had dinner with hillery last nite.

[SoFloFreeper]

...Buchwald said in her ruling that Trump is violating the U.S. Constitution by preventing certain Americans from viewing his tweets.

Um. No one is prevented from viewing tweets. Even people who don't have a twitter account can view his tweets.

Judge is wrong. And the judge is unconstitutional to boot.

[heights]

Fine, then Twitter can’t block Conservatives, seeing its a ‘”designated public forum”.

[\/\/ayne]

Appeal.