Posted on 07/09/2019 10:25:22 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd
President Donald Trump’s practice of blocking critics on Twitter runs afoul of the First Amendment, a federal appeals court in New York ruled on Tuesday.
Writing for a three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Manhattan, Judge Barrington Parker said that the president’s @realDonaldTrump account on Twitter is indeed a public forum and that “once the President has chosen a platform and opened up its interactive space to millions of users and participants, he may not selectively exclude those whose views he disagrees with.”
In oral arguments for the case in March, the appeals judges repeatedly pushed back on the Justice Department’s argument that Trump could use his Twitter account to disseminate government policy but that the account doesn’t count as a public forum.
The panel’s ruling upholds Manhattan federal court Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald’s ruling in the case. After that ruling, Trump unblocked critics but still appealed the ruling.
The Justice Department did not immediately comment.
Trump has over 60 million followers on Twitter.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
So why did I add (Good News) to the title?
Discuss below.
How about you tell us why since it was YOUR DECISION.
If Trump can’t block people with “annoying” viewpoints, then how can Twitter management justify blocking people with “annoying viewpoints”? Free Speech is free speech, right?
This ruling may give our side ammo when Twitter and Fakebook do censorship.
How many fingers am I holding up?
Discuss below...
What about freedom of association? Seems to be that is ALSO a Constitutional right.
One.
I’d have agreed that keeping it open was wise policy, whether or not a court ruled about it. Trump shouldn’t get silly. He’s not Trump the Private Party now, he’s Trump the President of a country, whether or not all the people are willing to accept him.
I don’t see this as good news because DJT is being denied a Twitter benefit others enjoy.
...crap. Okay, how about now?
Does this mean that NOBODY can block people they disagree with on Twitter?
What’s good for the Goose is good for the Gander.
I’ve been blocked by more than a few Twitter Snowflakes who aren’t into facts.
I’m sure Twitter can still silence Trump allies though.
Frankly, no Trump voter should even use them.
It’s true... at least where national affairs are concerned, if these media want to ride on the discussions, the discussions ought to be open with very, very broad boundaries. (Like, you’re a citizen or resident of the country.)
Obviously it sets precedence so that libs can't likewise muzzle conservatives. I wonder if this can be applied to an entire platform and its managers (twitter/facebook/whatever).
Obviously “what’s good for the Goose is good for the Gander” so to speak.
“This ruling may give our side ammo when Twitter and Fakebook do censorship.”
That is how I see it.
Exactly.
Notice how the court ruled Twitter is a PUBLIC FORUM?
And as such, the blatant censorship and discrimination Twitter engages in is not just immoral. It’s illegal.
This might be an example of Trump 3-D chess.
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.