https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...ter-federal-judge-rules/ar-AAxHvaP?li=BBnb7Kz This is getting dumber by the day with these leftist judges. Trump blocking people on twitter is a violation of their 1st A rights? So dumb. No one is locked up or has lost a life. They are still free to tweet and speak any time and any where. Your freedom to speak doesn't mean I or Trump has to listen.
I thought this too at one time. The thing is Trump is using Twitter as an extension of his office communications. Being that he is now government, it becomes a violation of the 1st when he blocks people. That said, twitter allows blocking trolls and other insane posters.
"real, albeit narrow, slice of speech." wtf? So any politician can not block people off their twitter feed?
This judge is stupid, the average citizen does not have the right to interact with the president. Presidential mail is screened, how then can presidential twitter trash not be screened?
trump is using twitter for his duties as cinc, then by law, 1950 records act, it must be recorded as official acts. everything comes with a price.
What does that have to do with access? People do not have unlimited access to the president, and blocked persons can still access what the president tweets. You folks would be singing a different tune if this was a Democrat being targeted, but then again you'd have to win elections for that to happen, so I suppose horrible court rulings is all you folks have...
trump cannot block someone going to the wh website and leaving a comment. the fact that he using twitter is irrelevant and he most certainly should be using an official wh account and not his personal one.
Wrong. Being a public official DOES NOT cancel one's personal rights. Twitter is NOT an official government channel, anymore than the media is.
Oh great now to spam Warrens twitter feed and sue when she blocks me ( just kidding i dont even have a twitter account and have no interest in one just making a point)
What relevant case law actually covers both the website and twitter? I didn't see that in the ruling, what we did see is that it was argued as a 'public forum' again, not every citizen is welcome to a presidential 'public forum' if its in person, the double standards allowed by this judge are disgusting...
The first amendment doesn't apply to Twitter but it does apply to Trump. The judge is right. If you choose to use Twitter then you enjoy the consequences of the use.
For those who think Trump can't ban people on twitter, does that same rule apply to all other politicians that have used twitter as a platform for one political remark or another?
Except Twitter allows people to block others. Twitter is the one who should be appealing this case, as its their rules this judge usurped, a complete and total overreach of governmental powers...
Blocking someone doesn't block them from sending a tweet, so he's not preventing them from saying anything.
So, with all these constitutional scholars out there, what is the wording in the 1st A that makes the ruling constitutional? What is the phrase like, "the POTUS must allow all to hear and respond directly to every statement they make"?