It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Absurdities of Judge Buchwald's Ruling on Trump's Twitter Account

page: 1
25
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2018 @ 05:02 PM
link   

“This case requires us to consider whether a public official may, consistent with the First Amendment, “block” a person from his Twitter account in response to the political views that person has expressed, and whether the analysis differs because that public official is the President of the United States. The answer to both questions is no.”


Source

Based on the considerations above, the Southern District of New York Court has ruled that President Donald Trump cannot block a person from his Twitter account.

But the court in question has tortured the language, and contorted reality, in order to justify the ruling. Thus the legalese, the facts, and the precedents in the ruling—as boring as it all is—is an attempt to give solidity to pure wind.

The allegation as to whether the President is blocking “a person from his Twitter account” is false. The President is blocking a Twitter account, sure, but a person and his Twitter account are not the same things, which is a fact that not even the defendants address. It pains me to state the obvious, but a person is a flesh and blood human being; a Twitter account is not. But the court no less uses “person”, “individual”, “user” and “account” interchangeably, sometimes in the very same sentence.


“When a user is signed in to a Twitter account that has been blocked, the blocked user cannot see or reply to the blocking user’s tweets, view the blocking user’s list of followers or followed accounts, or use the Twitter platform to search for the blocking user’s tweets.”


The stupidity is nearly endless. If hitherto we are to argue that a Twitter account has the same inalienable rights as human beings, that would also mean Twitter bots, on account of them being Twitter accounts, have the exact same rights.

On the other hand, the plaintiffs—the flesh and blood human beings—have had no rights infringed. They are, like their Twitter-less countrymen, still free to view and respond in any fashion they so choose. It’s as easy as signing out of their old accounts (if they haven’t fully merged with each other by now). All one needs to do to engage with Trump is to create a new account like the rest of us. A chilling thought for some, perhaps, but in fact, some of the plaintiffs have done just that. So much for being blocked.

The judge, in a fit of absurdity, designated President Trump’s twitter feed to be a “public forum”, like a public park, street corner or free speech area. Therefore, the president blocking a Twitter account amounts to barring citizens from a public forum. So with a click of a mouse you can step out of Twitter (a private company) and right into a state-owned, state-ran town hall in the form of Trump's twitter feed. I suppose the government will now be footing part of the Twitter bill. This designation is one part fantasy, one part malicious nonsense, for the exact same reasons mentioned above. But at least, according to the judge's ruling, Trump's engagement in this new public forum makes him the most engaging, transparent, and receptive president who ever existed.

I’m no expert in the constitution or a lawyer, and I disagree with “blocking” on philosophical grounds, but we shouldn’t have to torture the language, the constitution, and reality, in order to appease some twitter addicts, whom are unable to differentiate between themselves and their Twitter accounts.

Let's hope her opinion is appealed.

LesMis


edit on 25-5-2018 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 25 2018 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Ah, but you forget... you are only allowed a private life if you are a Progressive President.

Someone that isn't is, of course, fair game.

Because they're not part of the game.

S&F....



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 05:31 PM
link   
there's a major a backlash brewing in this country



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 05:34 PM
link   
The President has every option to choose his way of communication with the People. He can go through a spokesperson, he can release a statement that is distributed to everyone, equally; he can televise it, go on the radio -- whatever, it's his prerogative -- as long as every... single... American has access to it if they wish to have it. If the statement is released through the website, if you have internet you can read it, nobody is banning you from reading it. If you have a TV you can view it or go somewhere there is a TV, the government can't stop you.

However, if the President chooses to use his private account to share news and make statements that affect every single American, then it needs to be available to be read by every single American -- simple as that. The President is the government; he needs to make sure he doesn't discriminate in his communication with the People.

I haven't heard about this case, thanks for bringing it to my attention. I have to say I agree with the decision.

As a side note, I wish I had thought of the reasoning you use years back when I had a lot of video rental late fees.

"You see, the account owes you money, I am but flesh and blood and cannot be responsible for what the account owes."

I guarantee you, if someone made a threat to the President via a Twitter account, the user would most definitely be held accountable for it, and there would be no separation there.



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Kharron




However, if the President chooses to use his private account to share news and make statements that affect every single American, then it needs to be available to be read by every single American -- simple as that.


It is available to every single American—simple as that.



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Kharron




However, if the President chooses to use his private account to share news and make statements that affect every single American, then it needs to be available to be read by every single American -- simple as that.


It is available to every single American—simple as that.


Except those that are blocked? Which by definition is not everyone.



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 05:42 PM
link   
if I were the president I would continue to block whoever I felt like it and let them try to do something


+1 more 
posted on May, 25 2018 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Kharron




Except those that are blocked? Which by definition is not everyone.


Again, the accounts are blocked, not the user. People are not their twitter accounts. They can log out of their accounts and have the exact same access as everyone else.



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Kharron




Except those that are blocked? Which by definition is not everyone.


Again, the accounts are blocked, not the user. People are not their twitter accounts. They can log out of their accounts and have the exact same access as everyone else.


Ok, let's backtrack then.

If a person made a threat to the President's life over a Twitter account, you would be arguing the person cannot be held accountable and the FBI cannot break down their door because they are not the account? Apply this to threats of school bombings over Facebook, or a threat to bomb a federal building, or anything else.

I don't think you could find a single example where a court ruled those people were not held liable and only the account was. I will be very surprised if you find an example. However, I am not surprised, as you are, that the defense didn't even bring this up.



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Kharron




Except those that are blocked? Which by definition is not everyone.


Again, the accounts are blocked, not the user. People are not their twitter accounts. They can log out of their accounts and have the exact same access as everyone else.


Yep!

I don't nor will I ever have a Twitter account. Yet I at anytime can jump on and read what Trump or anyone else is saying. I just can't correspond or TROLL them. That is what this is all about. I butt hurt Prog not being allowed to troll.



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Kharron




Except those that are blocked? Which by definition is not everyone.


Again, the accounts are blocked, not the user. People are not their twitter accounts. They can log out of their accounts and have the exact same access as everyone else.


Ok, let's backtrack then.

If a person made a threat to the President's life over a Twitter account, you would be arguing the person cannot be held accountable and the FBI cannot break down their door because they are not the account? Apply this to threats of school bombings over Facebook, or a threat to bomb a federal building, or anything else.

I don't think you could find a single example where a court ruled those people were not held liable and only the account was. I will be very surprised if you find an example. However, I am not surprised, as you are, that the defense didn't even bring this up.


I wouldn't argue that at all. I'm arguing that people are not their twitter accounts. People, not twitter accounts, make threats. In your example, and according to the judge's logic, the FBI could jail the Twitter account and it would be the same as jailing the user.



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Kharron




Except those that are blocked? Which by definition is not everyone.


Again, the accounts are blocked, not the user. People are not their twitter accounts. They can log out of their accounts and have the exact same access as everyone else.


Ok, let's backtrack then.

If a person made a threat to the President's life over a Twitter account, you would be arguing the person cannot be held accountable and the FBI cannot break down their door because they are not the account? Apply this to threats of school bombings over Facebook, or a threat to bomb a federal building, or anything else.

I don't think you could find a single example where a court ruled those people were not held liable and only the account was. I will be very surprised if you find an example. However, I am not surprised, as you are, that the defense didn't even bring this up.


I wouldn't argue that at all. I'm arguing that people are not their twitter accounts. People, not twitter accounts, make threats. In your example, and according to the judge's logic, the FBI could jail the Twitter account and it would be the same as jailing the user.


Thank you, that's my point exactly -- you can't jail the account, that would be silly, right? Therefore in the eyes of the law, the account is the person. Every case I've ever heard treats it this way -- if they didn't numerous potential bombers wouldn't have been caught and tried, numerous online sexual predators wouldn't be behind bars, etc...

Once again, I'm not surprised it wasn't brought up in court. There are many precedents for it, and they're pretty axiomatic in our law.



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Kharron




Except those that are blocked? Which by definition is not everyone.


Again, the accounts are blocked, not the user. People are not their twitter accounts. They can log out of their accounts and have the exact same access as everyone else.


Yep!

I don't nor will I ever have a Twitter account. Yet I at anytime can jump on and read what Trump or anyone else is saying. I just can't correspond or TROLL them. That is what this is all about. I butt hurt Prog not being allowed to troll.


EXACTLY! Beat me to it - I too am Twit-less yet able to look at just about everything there. I do not miss the ability to share my opinion on that forum. Far too many tweets go to potus and realdonaldtrump as it is - these are now considered presidential records.... Post wisely.

ganjoa



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Kharron


However, if the President chooses to use his private account to share news and make statements that affect every single American, then it needs to be available to be read by every single American -- simple as that. The President is the government; he needs to make sure he doesn't discriminate in his communication with the People.


As Les Mis has mentioned, if one logs out of twitter, each and every single tweet the president has made is still accessible. I am currently browsing his feed and am looking for one example of a policy announcement or other such broadly affecting event that is solely discussed on his personal twitter feed. I am not logged in and every tweet he ever posted is available as far back as I care to scroll.

You do know there is an official POTUS twitter account as well, right?

Both accounts are visible and I am not logged in, so any news or statement is available to, "every single American."



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kharron


However, if the President chooses to use his private account to share news and make statements that affect every single American, then it needs to be available to be read by every single American -- simple as that. The President is the government; he needs to make sure he doesn't discriminate in his communication with the People.



Then why isn't cable news and/or the internet free?

Why is Comcast then allowed to force people to have to pay for a monthly package in order to get news from the POTUS which "needs to be available to every single American" in your opinion.



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Kharron


Thank you, that's my point exactly -- you can't jail the account, that would be silly, right? Therefore in the eyes of the law, the account is the person. Every case I've ever heard treats it this way -- if they didn't numerous potential bombers wouldn't have been caught and tried, numerous online sexual predators wouldn't be behind bars, etc...

Once again, I'm not surprised it wasn't brought up in court. There are many precedents for it, and they're pretty axiomatic in our law.


That is not the case, and is in fact silly. The user makes the threat, not the account. The account, and twitter, is the medium through which he does it. That's like saying someone making threats by mail is the same as the paper he wrote it on.



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Saying you can’t ban people from Twitter is like saying you can’t avoid people in public if you are famous. You have to just sit there and take it while they throw rotten vegetables at you.

If you want to change it simply apply the same logic to Hollywood liberals. Have them followed around with Paparazzi and then sue them when they try to hide.


edit on 2018/5/25 by Metallicus because: Sp



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Kharron


However, if the President chooses to use his private account to share news and make statements that affect every single American, then it needs to be available to be read by every single American -- simple as that. The President is the government; he needs to make sure he doesn't discriminate in his communication with the People.


As Les Mis has mentioned, if one logs out of twitter, each and every single tweet the president has made is still accessible. I am currently browsing his feed and am looking for one example of a policy announcement or other such broadly affecting event that is solely discussed on his personal twitter feed. I am not logged in and every tweet he ever posted is available as far back as I care to scroll.

You do know there is an official POTUS twitter account as well, right?

Both accounts are visible and I am not logged in, so any news or statement is available to, "every single American."



For the most part, their strongest argument is that a blocked account is unable to reply, which is something someone without an account cannot do. In order to argue this, they had to designate Trump's feed a "public forum", like a park. But again, they can do what anyone who doesn't have Twitter does, which is create a new account.
edit on 25-5-2018 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Kharron


Thank you, that's my point exactly -- you can't jail the account, that would be silly, right? Therefore in the eyes of the law, the account is the person. Every case I've ever heard treats it this way -- if they didn't numerous potential bombers wouldn't have been caught and tried, numerous online sexual predators wouldn't be behind bars, etc...

Once again, I'm not surprised it wasn't brought up in court. There are many precedents for it, and they're pretty axiomatic in our law.


That is not the case, and is in fact silly. The user makes the threat, not the account. The account, and twitter, is the medium through which he does it. That's like saying someone making threats by mail is the same as the paper he wrote it on.


You're making my point exactly and I'm trying to explain this.

"The user makes the threat, not the account."

I agree, and you just validated the judge's decision. The account is immaterial, it has no rights, it is the user that matters. In the case of discrimination, it needs to be applied equally, the account has no rights, it's the user that matters.



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Kharron




You're making my point exactly and I'm trying to explain this.

"The user makes the threat, not the account."

I agree, and you just validated the judge's decision. The account is immaterial, it has no rights, it is the user that matters. In the case of discrimination, it needs to be applied equally, the account has no rights, it's the user that matters.


That's right. And it's the account, not the user, that is blocked. As you said, the account has no rights. So the judge's ruling that Trump blocked a person from his twitter account, thereby violating his rights, is false.




top topics



 
25
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join