Posted on 03/08/2018 6:15:16 PM PST by mdittmar
NEW YORK (AP) — A judge recommended Thursday that President Donald Trump mute rather than block some of his critics from following him on Twitter to resolve a First Amendment lawsuit.
U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald suggested a settlement as the preferred outcome after hearing lawyers argue whether it’s constitutional for Trump to block some followers.
“Isn’t the answer he just mutes the person he finds personally offensive?” she asked. “He can avoid hearing them by muting them.”
The hearing stemmed from a lawsuit filed in July by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and seven people rejected by Trump after criticizing the Republican president.
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
No, Trump, like all of us, should have right to say who can be in our feeds. They can post directly so their free speech is not infringed. If the judge rules that Trump (by by extension all of us) cannot block anyone, that is a major rule change on these sites. It is also one step close to these being public utilities, meaning that Twitter, Facebook, etc. will not be able to block people when they don’t like our voices.
Does anyone know the judges’ twitter account? I need to block another one.
Tweet all you want,you will get tweeters;)
What about Twitter itself blocking only conservative speech?
We lost that a long time ago.
This means that her grandchildren know how to use a computer, but she doesn't.
She has "people" for that.
We had to put up with powerful "computer airheads" like this all the time.
The f*ckfaces at twatter deliberately suppress people who don’t repeat the official leftist party line, and intentionally promote accounts of those who hate the country, such as muzzies. Yet the f*ckheads want to force Trump to allow anybody who wants to follow him, with the accusation of “unconstitutional”?
Leftists live and die for the double standard.
I don’t have a twitter account and I can just click a link to read his tweets any time I want. He shouldn’t make any accommodation whatsoever. The crybabies should make the effort.
There's a slippery slope in a couple of different ways, which is probably exactly the intention. Who else on twitter "operates as a public forum"? What other venues now magically become a "public forum"?
You mean like, with a cloth?
I have to say that I think they’ll side with the crybabies. You can’t say that a specific crybaby’s letter to the President will not be delivered, which is not the same as being delivered but not read, so maybe it’s a matter of convincing the court that writing a tweet to the President is like writing a very brief letter to the President.
Note to the judge: Trump has no legal requirement to “just mute” any followers on Twitter he does not like.
The controlling legal terms are in the controlling contract/agreement Twitter users agree to. It does not prevent Trump from blocking ANY followers to his account. If that was not the case, Twitter would have been able to tell Trump he couldn’t do it. They didn’t because they couldn’t. They permit “blocking” and do not say who or how many you cannot block.
I would invite the judge to read the terms of service Twitter users agree to. Oh, that’s right, you’d think a judge would have already done so and dismissed the case as without merit.
The Judge is suggesting that Trump shut up and take it.
A judge recommended. ROTFLMAO
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.