[Steve_Seattle]

I'm against embracing a bad decision just because we might be able to twist it to our advantage. Among other things, this decision seemingly prevents a politician from blocking large volumes of spam directed at his official accounts by political enemies.

We might see well-coordinated attacks on the ability of politicians and government agencies to conduct their business because their official accounts are flooded with obscene and malicious content - perhaps hundreds or even thousands of nuisance messages.

[Bryanw92]

>>We might see well-coordinated attacks on the ability of politicians and government agencies to conduct their business because their official accounts are flooded with obscene and malicious content - perhaps hundreds or even thousands of nuisance messages.

I already see it. My congressman, Ted Yoho, is very active on FB as a way of communicating. But, every single day, his posts are flooded with comments from two names. Every legitimate constituent who replies to Yoho with something positive gets an almost-instant response from one of the two names. The paid trolls use typical Progressive hyperbole where everything that Yoho does “will kill millions” etc.

But, these paid-activist trolls are the reason why this freedom-killing judge made the ruling. I wonder if the judge’s court room is a free and public space where no speech can be stifled?

[DoodleBob]

I'm against embracing a bad decision just because we might be able to twist it to our advantage.

Bravo.

First, we must be wary of a ruling from a Clinton appointee who also sided with Monsanto against organic farmers. I wouldn't be surprised to see this judge's phone logs replete with calls from Madame Loser, and texts with this picture:

Second, if the tables were reversed and the government ruled Breitbart's comments section - or Freerepublic - were public property, we'd be howling. This is an egregious and stunning overreach - legislating from the bench in the first degree.

Yea, the Founders didn't have the interweb but they knew the power of the press...as such they didn't put an asterisk on the First Amendment for this sort of thing. The Justice Dept's argument that since Twitter is a public company, it is beyond the reach of First Amendment public forum rules should have carried the day.

We may dislike FB and the statist leanings of Silicon Valley, but you're either for or against private property. This is a shameful ruling and Deplorables should be bashing this ruling on the basis of fundamentals. To see many good people cheering a ruling from a Clinton appointee is odd.

[rcofdayton]

If this Trump twitter account is his personal account, i.e., paid by him, no court has jurisdiction to not allow him to do this. Was this judge an Clinton or Obama appointee?

[spacewarp]

I worry that some nitwit with a burner phone or a library computer will upload a child porn picture and tag the President in it, so that when he goes to pull his feed, it will now be in his cache, and putting him at risk. Frankly, I wouldn’t put it past a leftist Regressive to do something vile like that.

[usconservative]

Among other things, this decision seemingly prevents a politician from blocking large volumes of spam directed at his official accounts by political enemies.

Bingo! It doesn't take more than 15 minutes of reading President Trump's Twitter feed to come to the conclusion that his detractors have zero intention of engaging in debate, their sole purpose is to hurl insults and demean anyone who supports the President.

Methinks that was the exact intent of the court with this ruling too.