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: 3
25
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2018 @ 07:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


Well, the @RealDonaldTrump account user doesn't ban Twiiter account users who read his comments, it bans those whose replies it doesn't like.

The 1st Amendment doesn't guarantee that everyone be able to have access to the President's comments, it guarantees the right to free speech. Banning Twiiter account users who reply to the Presidents tweets because he doesn't like those comments is equal to the government suppressing free speech, just as the judge ruled.






Free speech has not been infringed. Up until the ruling, Trump’s account was a private account, which he, like every other user, had free range to curate. All avenues of speech and petition are still available to the user, including on twitter, at least until one contorts reality to make it seem otherwise.




posted on May, 25 2018 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: japhrimu
I’m no Twitter expert, but as soon as someone else shares a tweet, a blocked person can then see it, right? And then they can respond, can’t they, as part of that thread? (I might be wrong, but I’ll continue...) Being blocked just means that a person/account (whatever) doesn’t show up to the person who did the blocking, right? And pretty much every Trump tweet is on the news, so there’s access... What stops someone from typing @ or # Trump? It’s not even like Twitter/Facebook/ATS jail, is it? What’s the big deal again?


They had to designate Trump’s twitter feed a “public forum”, like a park or sidewalk, to make any of it fit. Of course, it’s nothing like any public forum known to the history of mankind.



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope




Free speech has not been infringed. Up until the ruling,


The judged ruled that that is an incorrect assumption. Trump's Twitter ban policy WAS then, and is now, a violation of the 1st Amendment.
edit on 25-5-2018 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi


The ruling largely builds on past cases, where courts have ruled that public forums are more than just physical locations.

"We went beyond sidewalks a long time ago," says David Greene, a senior staff attorney and civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "It's not new at all to apply the public forum doctrine beyond real property."




while @realdonaldtrump may have started out as the personal account of a private citizen on a private platform, it’s since morphed into a communication channel controlled by the President and Scavino, who use it to promote new policies, announce official decisions, and engage with foreign political leaders, among other things. It is, in other words, an interactive space under government control, and is therefore subject to the laws concerning public forums.

“He’s acting like the president on it. It’s not a personal account anymore,” Citron says.




Judge Buchwald's decision explains how the case hinges on two crucial questions: Whether a public official can block people on Twitter in response to their political views without violating their First Amendment rights, and whether it matters when the person doing the blocking is the President.

“The answer to both questions is no,” Buchwald wrote. “No government official—including the President—is above the law,”




While ordinary Twitter users can block and follow other Twitter users they do or don’t agree with, the judge found that @realdonaldtrump is essentially a space operated by the government for government business, and therefore, cannot curb speech based on people’s viewpoints.


The ruling looks solid to me.link


If Trump makes an Oval Office address, it doesn’t mean the Oval Office immediately becomes a public forum.



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: LesMisanthrope




Free speech has not been infringed. Up until the ruling,


The judged ruled that that is an incorrect assumption. Trump's Twitter ban policy WAS then, and is now, a violation of the 1st Amendment.


It isn’t, just like the president hanging up on someone or ignoring them isn’t a violation of the first amendment.



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


I have a friend from NY who Chuckie Schumer has blocked from his Facebook account. This ruling just might come back to bite some people in the ass if you know what I mean?




posted on May, 25 2018 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


The nature of the lawsuit itself asserted that the President's action was in violation of the 1st Amendment. The Judge agreed.



When someone brings a lawsuit asserting a violation of the US Constitution, that ruling doesn't create new law, it confirms the constitutionality of the act or it doesn't. In this case the court decided the acts committed, that were brought before the court were a violation of the constitution...then and now.

From the Amicus Brief:


But more fundamentally, efforts to block users based
on their criticism of the government threaten the very dangers that the First Amendment’s ban on
viewpoint discrimination seeks to prevent: allowing the government to silence its critics, foster
warped perceptions of officials’ popularity, and chill dissenting voices who may avoid speaking
out for fear of reprisal.
As will be shown in this brief, under the Supreme Court’s precedents, President Trump’s
@realDonaldTrump Twitter feed qualifies as a public forum—a public space owned or
controlled by the government that has been opened to the general public to engage in expressive
activity—in which the government is forbidden to engage in viewpoint discrimination. See
Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37, 45 (1983).


www.law.georgetown.edu...
edit on 25-5-2018 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

This case completely contradicts a previous one. Same scenario, different judge and ruling. This one, however, doesn’t contort reality.




Instead, this Court is convinced that Governor Bevin's use of privately owned Facebook Page and Twitter pages is personal speech, and, because he is speaking on his own behalf, even on his own behalf as a public official, "the First Amendment strictures that attend the various types of government-established forums do not apply." Walker v. Tex. Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 2239, 2250 (2015). "When the government speaks, for instance to promote its own policies or to advance a particular idea, it is, in the end, accountable to the electorate and the political process for its advocacy. If the citizenry objects, newly elected officials later could espouse some different or contrary position." Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Wis. Sys. v. Southworth, 529 U.S. 217, 235 (2000); see also Walker, 135 S. Ct. at 2245 ("When government speaks, it is not barred by the Free Speech Clause from determining the content of what it says. . . . That freedom in part reflects the fact that it is the democratic electoral process that first and foremost provides a check on government speech.")

There is "no constitutional right as members of the public to a government audience for their policy views." Minn. State Bd. for Cmty Colleges v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271, 286 (1984). Governor Bevin is under no obligation to listen to Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs have no Constitutional right to be heard in this precise manner. "Nothing in the First Amendment or in this Court's case law interpreting it suggests that the rights to speak, associate, and petition require government policymakers to listen or respond to individuals' communications on public issues." Id. at 285. Governor Bevin has chosen to effectively, "ignore" those on Facebook he deems are not following the line of conversations he has decided to start on Facebook. Smith v. Ark. State Highway Emp., Local 1315, 441 U.S. 463, 466 (1979) (holding, in part, "the First Amendment does not impose any affirmative obligation on the government to listen [or] to respond.")

Governor Bevin's Twitter and Facebook accounts are privately owned channels of communication and are not converted to public property by the use of a public official. Simply put, this is unlike any type of property typically protected by First Amendment forum analysis law.[4] See Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 801-02. Governor Bevin's Twitter and Facebook accounts are a means for communicating his own speech, not for the speech of his constituents. Governor Bevin has made a series of decisions in setting up his official Facebook and Twitter accounts that indicate he intended them to be his own speech. First, his intended purpose for the accounts was to "communicate his vision, policies, and activities to constituents and receive feedback from them on the specific topics that he chooses to address in his posts." [R 11 at 3.] He never intended his Facebook or Twitter accounts to be like a public park, where anyone is welcome to enter and say whatever they want; he has a specific agenda of what he wants his pages to look like and what the discussion on those pages will be. Further, individuals cannot directly post on his account. [R. 23 at 4.] Only he posts to his own account and users are permitted to comment on whatever post he has written. [Id.] Governor Bevin has an automatic filter set up so that expletives and spam comments are not posted, and he does not allow comments on his page that are "obscene, abusive, clearly off topic or spam." [R. 11 at 3.] If he wanted a truly open forum where everyone could post or comment, he could have set up his accounts to allow that, but he did not. And the First Amendment does not require him to do so.




Further, the term "block" conjures an image much harsher than reality. No one is being blocked from speaking on Twitter or Facebook. They are still free to post on their own walls and on friends' walls whatever they want about Governor Bevin. Governor Bevin only wants to prevent some messages from appearing on his own wall and, relatedly, to not view those messages he deems offensive. Blocking only prevents their direct relationship to Governor Bevin's Facebook and Twitter pages, and a "person's right to speak is not infringed when government simply ignores that person while listening to others." Minn. State Bd, 465 U.S. at 288.

Ultimately, Governor Bevin is accountable to the public. The public may view his Page and account if they wish and they may choose to re-elect him or choose to elect someone else if they are unhappy with how he administers his social media accounts. See Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Wis. Sys., 529 U.S. at 235; Minn. State Bd., 465 U.S. at 285 ("Disagreement with public policy and disapproval of officials' responsiveness . . . is to be registered principally at the polls."). Though Plaintiffs might disagree with his social media practices, the place to register that disagreement is at the polls.

Because Governor Bevin's official Facebook and Twitter accounts are Government speech and Plaintiffs do not have a Constitutional right to be heard by Governor Bevin in this specific format, the Court finds that Plaintiffs do not have a strong likelihood of success on the merits. However, their actual success on the merits remains open. "Our opinion does not guarantee the State a win on the merits." Platt v. Bd. of Comm'rs on Grievances & Discipline of Ohio Supreme Court, 769 F.3d 447, 455 (6th Cir. 2014). Preliminary injunctions are reserved for situations where the "extraordinary remedy" of an injunction is "clearly" needed. Overstreet, 305 F.3d at 573. Here, in this new and developing area of law, the injunction is not clearly needed.




Morgan V. Bevin
edit on 25-5-2018 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 08:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

“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



You do realize that the p.o.t.u.s. is a public official. He works for us. "The American people" .



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I'll be damned if my tax dollars are going towards free antivirus software for Twitter bots. Repeal, Reformat, Replace and Recompile!
Murica!



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 08:29 PM
link   
This is so ridiculous that I can't believe arguments for or against. I don't use twitter or have an account.

This judge is so out of touch with the way modern communication works that it's almost funny. I'm sure he doesn't have a twitter account or understand the nuances and how it is used.

What a waste of taxpayer money. Just so so dumb. Trump's account can no way be called part of government. I'm sure this will be appealed and waste more time over nonsense. All of this is pure nonsense and politics.



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Those people are still free to make those comments. Your definition the Presidential debates violated our 1st Amendment rights as some people were chosen to speak/ask a question while the entire public could not. Your view (and this Judge's) would mean no public official who expresses any political views on their twitter can't block anyone. I don't think this issue is quite so simple.



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 08:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: hoss53

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

“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



You do realize that the p.o.t.u.s. is a public official. He works for us. "The American people" .


Yes I realize that. And he donates his paltry salary back to you.



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I didn’t realise the First Amendment said freedom of reading...

Pretty sure it’s freedom of SPEECH.

Although you think you can, you can’t pick and choose which amendments you rigidly follow (Second, for example) and ones you argue petty semantics (First) just because of your biased political persuasion.



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Everyone is missing the point here.

A twitter account hides the identity of the users if the user so desires.

What you have is a bunch of paid shills who want to disrupt the account.

Just as President Trump can throw a disruptive CNN employee out of a press briefing so can he throw an unidentified person off his twitter account.

To claim to have the first amendment whilst hiding in mum's basement is not on in my opinion allowed.

P



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The notion you just mentioned of the debates violating free speech is ridiculous. I don't mean to be rude, as I do understand that the concept is not your own. But the very fact that anyone from the public was allowed to ask and have answered a question of the two candidates (regardless of how thoroughly polished and scripted the final question was) proves the point of freedom of speech



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Justso

It is dumb. We’re speaking of people addicted to twitter, who see their real lives and social media lives to be one and the same.



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 08:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I didn’t realise the First Amendment said freedom of reading...

Pretty sure it’s freedom of SPEECH.

Although you think you can, you can’t pick and choose which amendments you rigidly follow (Second, for example) and ones you argue petty semantics (First) just because of your biased political persuasion.



So every person can come to the White House press briefing and be disruptive.

Every twitter account holder has free speech via their own account ... they can say whatever they want to.

P



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 08:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: hoss53

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

“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



You do realize that the p.o.t.u.s. is a public official. He works for us. "The American people" .


Yes I realize that. And he donates his paltry salary back to you.


I'm sure you have seen his tax returns to confirm this. You are so gullible. Or stupid.



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: hoss53

He said it on Twitter so it must be true...








 
25
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join