Trump puts Americans on ignore — court says GFY!

[Yssup Rider]

Trump violating the constitution?

Whaaaaa?


Read it and tweet.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.the...1830949836/amp

Trump's Twitter blocking violates Constitution, appeals court rules
By Jessica Schneider and Katelyn Polantz, CNN
Updated 4:18 PM EDT, Tue July 09, 2019


Washington(CNN) An appeals court said Tuesday that President Donald Trump violated the First Amendment by blocking users on Twitter.

The 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a New York judge's ruling and found that Trump "engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination by utilizing Twitter's 'blocking' function to limit certain users' access to his social media account, which is otherwise open to the public at large, because he disagrees with their speech."

"We hold that he engaged in such discrimination," the ruling adds.

The judges on the appeals court concluded that "the First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise-open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees."

The challenge to Trump's unprecedented use of Twitter in office came from seven individuals he blocked, as well as the Knight First Amendment Institute, which argued that the President's personal account is an extension of his office.

The Justice Department argued in March that the President wasn't "wielding the power" of the federal government when he blocked certain individuals from his personal Twitter account, @realDonaldTrump, because while the President sends tweets in his official capacity, he blocks users as a personal matter.

But the appeals court disagreed with that view.

"The irony in all of this is that we write at a time in the history of this nation when the conduct of our government and its officials is subject to wide‐open, robust debate," they wrote. "This debate encompasses an extraordinarily broad range of ideas and viewpoints and generates a level of passion and intensity the likes of which have rarely been seen. This debate, as uncomfortable and as unpleasant as it frequently may be, is nonetheless a good thing. In resolving this appeal, we remind the litigants and the public that if the First Amendment means anything, it means that the best response to disfavored speech on matters of public concern is more speech, not less."

Tuesday's ruling affirms the position taken last year by a New York federal judge, who ruled that Trump had violated the Constitution when he blocked Twitter users.

US District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald wrote in her ruling that "no government official -- including the President -- is above the law, and all government officials are presumed to follow the law as has been declared."

[eccielover]

It'll be interesting watching this migrate to the SCOTUS and then the final ruling.

As the story notes, it's unprecedented at this point as social media hasn't been through the rigors of litigation to this extent yet.

How does the First Amendment really apply to what are essentially privately owned forums that offer various services.

Twitter has a "terms of service" that you acknowledge that allows users to block you. Does this ruling violate Twitters right to offer that service.

As I said, it'll be interesting how it plays out, but AOC is right behind Trump for upcoming suits regarding this, so it's certainly a bi-partisan issue until it's finally decided.

[Hotrod511]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Trump violating the constitution?

Whaaaaa?


Read it and tweet.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.the...1830949836/amp

Trump's Twitter blocking violates Constitution, appeals court rules
By Jessica Schneider and Katelyn Polantz, CNN
Updated 4:18 PM EDT, Tue July 09, 2019


Washington(CNN) An appeals court said Tuesday that President Donald Trump violated the First Amendment by blocking users on Twitter.

The 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a New York judge's ruling and found that Trump "engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination by utilizing Twitter's 'blocking' function to limit certain users' access to his social media account, which is otherwise open to the public at large, because he disagrees with their speech."

"We hold that he engaged in such discrimination," the ruling adds.

The judges on the appeals court concluded that "the First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise-open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees."

The challenge to Trump's unprecedented use of Twitter in office came from seven individuals he blocked, as well as the Knight First Amendment Institute, which argued that the President's personal account is an extension of his office.

The Justice Department argued in March that the President wasn't "wielding the power" of the federal government when he blocked certain individuals from his personal Twitter account, @realDonaldTrump, because while the President sends tweets in his official capacity, he blocks users as a personal matter.

But the appeals court disagreed with that view.

"The irony in all of this is that we write at a time in the history of this nation when the conduct of our government and its officials is subject to wide‐open, robust debate," they wrote. "This debate encompasses an extraordinarily broad range of ideas and viewpoints and generates a level of passion and intensity the likes of which have rarely been seen. This debate, as uncomfortable and as unpleasant as it frequently may be, is nonetheless a good thing. In resolving this appeal, we remind the litigants and the public that if the First Amendment means anything, it means that the best response to disfavored speech on matters of public concern is more speech, not less."

Tuesday's ruling affirms the position taken last year by a New York federal judge, who ruled that Trump had violated the Constitution when he blocked Twitter users.

US District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald wrote in her ruling that "no government official -- including the President -- is above the law, and all government officials are presumed to follow the law as has been declared."

there it is YR sucking sound
it only happens when you open your mouth

[oeb11]

Next come Nadler and Schiff for paper to wave in their hands - "Evidence".

Maybe they will take this to the House for a vote on Impeachment.
They go nothing on Russian collusion - LOL - gotta present some pretext.

[Levianon17]

Twitter isn't a Government entity and Trump's personal Twitter account isn't Government owned. So therefore Trump can block whom ever he wishes. Trump's not violating other Twitter user's 1st Amendment Rights. He's just exercising his right not to read their Tweets.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by eccielover

It'll be interesting watching this migrate to the SCOTUS and then the final ruling.

As the story notes, it's unprecedented at this point as social media hasn't been through the rigors of litigation to this extent yet.

How does the First Amendment really apply to what are essentially privately owned forums that offer various services.

Twitter has a "terms of service" that you acknowledge that allows users to block you. Does this ruling violate Twitters right to offer that service.

As I said, it'll be interesting how it plays out, but AOC is right behind Trump for upcoming suits regarding this, so it's certainly a bi-partisan issue until it's finally decided.

Agreed.

Twitter is a privately owned forum.

Newspapers are privately owned too.

The First Amendment’s power will be tested for sure. The results of this may affect more than social media.

Stay tuned.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

Twitter isn't a Government entity and Trump's personal Twitter account isn't Government owned. So therefore Trump can block whom ever he wishes. Trump's not violating other Twitter user's 1st Amendment Rights. He's just exercising his right not to read their Tweets.

Neither are newspapers.

Exercising his right not to read the tweets isn’t the same as blocking individuals.

Isn’t there an ignore button on Twitter?

[bb1961]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Trump violating the constitution?

Whaaaaa?


Read it and tweet.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.the...1830949836/amp

Trump's Twitter blocking violates Constitution, appeals court rules
By Jessica Schneider and Katelyn Polantz, CNN
Updated 4:18 PM EDT, Tue July 09, 2019


Washington(CNN) An appeals court said Tuesday that President Donald Trump violated the First Amendment by blocking users on Twitter.

The 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a New York judge's ruling and found that Trump "engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination by utilizing Twitter's 'blocking' function to limit certain users' access to his social media account, which is otherwise open to the public at large, because he disagrees with their speech."

"We hold that he engaged in such discrimination," the ruling adds.

The judges on the appeals court concluded that "the First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise-open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees."

The challenge to Trump's unprecedented use of Twitter in office came from seven individuals he blocked, as well as the Knight First Amendment Institute, which argued that the President's personal account is an extension of his office.

The Justice Department argued in March that the President wasn't "wielding the power" of the federal government when he blocked certain individuals from his personal Twitter account, @realDonaldTrump, because while the President sends tweets in his official capacity, he blocks users as a personal matter.

But the appeals court disagreed with that view.

"The irony in all of this is that we write at a time in the history of this nation when the conduct of our government and its officials is subject to wide‐open, robust debate," they wrote. "This debate encompasses an extraordinarily broad range of ideas and viewpoints and generates a level of passion and intensity the likes of which have rarely been seen. This debate, as uncomfortable and as unpleasant as it frequently may be, is nonetheless a good thing. In resolving this appeal, we remind the litigants and the public that if the First Amendment means anything, it means that the best response to disfavored speech on matters of public concern is more speech, not less."

Tuesday's ruling affirms the position taken last year by a New York federal judge, who ruled that Trump had violated the Constitution when he blocked Twitter users.

US District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald wrote in her ruling that "no government official -- including the President -- is above the law, and all government officials are presumed to follow the law as has been declared."

He can always count on you not to ignore him...

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Neither are newspapers.

Exercising his right not to read the tweets isn’t the same as blocking individuals.

Isn’t there an ignore button on Twitter?

sure it is. It's his personal Twitter Account he's not using it for official business. If he was using it for official business then you have argument, but you don't. Hating Trump doesn't validate anything even this stupid thread.

[gfejunkie]

Careful what you wish for...

https://nypost.com/2019/07/09/aoc-su...im-on-twitter/

[bambino]

The court is going to tell AOC TGFH.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/aoc...g-on-trump.amp

[rexdutchman]

More media Hysteria over nothing

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

sure it is. It's his personal Twitter Account he's not using it for official business. If he was using it for official business then you have argument, but you don't. Hating Trump doesn't validate anything even this stupid thread.

Actually, that’s all he uses it for. I can’t remember reading a tweet from Trump about movies, or books, or even fast food.

Trump has never been able to separate business from personal, which is one reason why he’s always in hot water over stuff he says and things his family does.

That is apparently the argument.

We’ll see how it shakes out.

[oeb11]

DPST's have an interesting argument, and they are not fans of true Free Speech - Supreme Court here we come.

Once it goes there - their AOC and others may also be forced to comply with Court decision
May wind up hoist on their own petard. .

I agree - it will be interesting.

[dilbert firestorm]

here's the thing with Trumps' twitter account.

he had it before he was president. so his twitter account is private.

he needs to create a separate official govt. whitehouse account. something like this: @Donald_Trump_Whitehouse.

personally, the govt. should set up its own twitter channel for all govt. officials.

USGOV_tweeter.gov!!!! bahahaha!!!!