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 ...
“Viewpoint discrimination” - a new made up law, one that can be applied to the left on everything.
That does create a little bit of a conundrum doesn’t it?
Maybe Trump should block all comments and use Twitter as only a medium for his statements.
Someone could create another twitter account called, say, RepliesToTrump where people could reply. Trump couldn’t shut that down so that should make the banned people happy.
I thought I read that Obama blocked repliers from his Twitter account.
The proverbial "$1 judgement win."
There’s no constitutional requirement for nobility in free speech. When gov or officials open a medium for public communication the public can respond.
So blocking twitter or other social media would be like blocking people from speaking at town halls.
Town halls and the like are allowed parliamentary procedure whereby people go to the podium and speak for 2 mins or what not, but the nature of social media has no such procedure other than the responses themselves.
What would be really interesting is if someone posted illegal porn. That would certainly get taken down, but laws making that stuff illegal are statutory, not at the level of the constitution. Taken to court, there would be a legal conundrum.
OP probably saw judge's picture before reading the judge's name. I can understand the confusion...
The plaintiffs were actually surreptitiously arguing that they had a First Amendment right to violate Twitter policy on "targeted harassment" without consequence on the platform.
See Daxton Brown's post on getting suspended by Twitter four times.
I myself have lost a Twitter account for political speech.
I've seen Trump tweets where these screamers get on and vomit multiple abusive tweets targeting Trump, Republicans and conservatives.
It's clearly suspendable behavior - yet Twitter does nothing, "because Lefty".
They don't care if they're muted.
They just want to vomit on Trump's tweet, so that other Twitter users have to read their poisonous filth.
It's targeted harassment of the most blatant and vile sort, which is a direct violation of Twitter's terms of service.
Actually, I believe that the Democrat Party "judicial activist" judgetard already ruled on that, since President Trump uses his @realDonaldTrump account to make Presidential pronouncements.
The judgetard is a 74-year-old f*ckwit who probably has to have her grandchildren help her find the "On" button on her computer when she wants to use it.
I've seen people like her in the working world.
At her age and level of importance, she has "people" [Mundanes] for dealing with those magic boxes called computers.
Note that Judge F*ckwit doesn't have a Twitter account. Haven't checked, but I don't think she has a Facesucker account, either.
You're completely wrong, and you probably don't have a Twitter account.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!
Now I KNOW you don't go on Twitter at all. 
Yep.
"Targeted harassment", which is a TOTAL violation of Twitter's Terms of Service.
Yet, their accounts are not suspended - unlike those of the political Right on Twitter...
Bless their hearts.
Gee, New York Times, when are you going to interview all of the FReepers who are torked-off about being blocked by Facebook?
“Ignore the judge. He’s a partisan hack.”
Judge Naomi Buchenwald is a female Capo!
On February 5, 2009, the New York Daily News reported that, while presiding over a case involving an autistic boy, Buchwald made a remark about former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and her Down syndrome child, Trig, saying, “That kid was used as a prop, and that to me as a parent blew my mind.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Reice_Buchwald
But yet “conservatives” are banned. This is utter nonsense. Block all you want. Take it to the Supremes.
There is no other explanation to why there are literally hundreds of nasty comments within seconds of a Trump Tweet. Most of the comments are "canned" and have nothing whatsoever to do with the content of Trump's tweet. So you know they aren't even reading the tweet, they are just responding blindly.
Their object is obviously to flood the zone with negative comments and drown out anybody that might have anything positive to say about our President.
I would make it a class action from the start.
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.