Posted on 05/23/2018 10:21:24 AM PDT by yesthatjallen
PLEASE READ!!!
here is the phone number and her website:
http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/judge/Buchwald
Chambers Phone: (212) 805-0194
I just called three times and got hung up on every time...i told the person who answered we would call the judges phone number and harass her continually and they can do nothing about it as it it free speech...
Just as she is allowing people to harass President Trump on twitter and not allowing him to do anything about it...
Please call...
I called four times....getting under their skin...make the call and leave a report!!!
IIRC, the Constitution guarantees a person the freedom of association. That, I expect, includes the freedom of NON-association. Doesn’t this violate PDJT’s civil rights?
“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!”
Exactly. As well as all the other unconstitutional edicts by rogue judges on immigration and everything else under the sun. ‘Our’ judiciary is filled with rabid lefties who are in #sabotage and #resist mode.
...so how come Twitter can still ban me if I post stuff they don’t like?
Congress shall make no law . . .
Apparently, the judge can’t read.
Viewpoint discrimination?
WTH?
A whole new class of victims about to surge to the fore!
Guwss its illegal for anyone to block Trump as well.
An opinion on such a simple matter that requires a 75-page explanation is
bullshit. There is no other conclusion.
The issue is not Twitter doing it. Any user has the ability to block someone.
How to Block Someone On Twitter - Laptop MagClick on the offender's name. You can do so from your Twitter feed or from your Followers page. The offending person won't be able to see your tweets on his or her timeline, nor will you be able to see theirs. They also won't be able to follow you or add your account to their lists.Feb 5, 2014
What do you mean?
Looks like just a portmanteau takeoff on "affirmative action" and an alliterative reference to an old movie.
But by calling it a public forum, the judge has said more than she perhaps intended. Twitter themselves, and Facebook, would be bound to respect the constitutional rights of users, which they don’t do now because it’s a private business. So this isn’t only about one user blocking another user.
Bill Clinton actually.
I don’t know; does SCOTUS really have to touch this case with a ten foot pole? Pretty sure it’ll get tossed at the circuit level; I mean, hell, the massive amount this would affect government social media would be an absolute nightmare. If my (extremely liberal) congresscritter deletes my reply on Facebook, is it now a federal court case?
This is just...unmanageable. Plus there’s the whole ‘takings’ issue which the judge randomly decided to ignore - the twitter account is President Trump’s to use under the user agreement on Twitter and certainly not public property in any respect. And twitter accounts have value, especially ones with that big of a following - the feds going to cough up fair market value for the account? Didn’t think so.
The circuit will quietly shove this into the waste bin, unless some moron decides to go for immediate implementation.
The 1st Amendment applies to government institutions, right?
Well, that just goes to show you that Twitter is now de facto part of the government, and as E points out, that prohibits them from censoring anyone. Obviously, I am not a lawyer, but this course of action on the appeal seems perfectly valid and logical. Therefore, it will not be pursued, of course.
Thanks.
Same same.
5.56mm
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.