Wanna be dictator Trump can't block Twitter followers, federal judge rules
 

Another day and Trump is forced to follow the law and constitution. When will Trump learn he's not above the law?

"Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald said in her ruling that Trump is violating the U.S. Constitution by preventing certain Americans from viewing his tweets."

Trump can't block Twitter followers, federal judge rules

That corrupt snowflake

LOL. You guys got played - AGAIN.

"The social media platform, Buchwald said, is a "designated public forum..."

Guess what it means?

You don't even know. It's so awesome. :)

I predict this will go all the way to the SC. Further, the argument will be that his account, not the platform, is a public forum, while the main defense argument will be the account is private due to his creating it prior to being POTUS.

neither does Chump!

The issue will not be this account - the issue will be, is Twitter (and Facebook, et al) part of the public square? Or are they simply a private corp that can censor whatever they like on their platform?

#internetbillofrights

Yes because this argument is working so well for file lockers like The Pirate Bay, right?

Assholes always want it both ways. They want privacy when it suits them and public liberties when it suits them. They want control but no regulations. They want freedom for themselves but not freedom for others.

Amazing country I live in. Just amazing. MAGA JO!*
























































































*Make America Great Again - Just Once

Perhaps. I believe the stronger argument may be that the account, not the platform, is in the pubic domain. The platform is simply a conduit. but, I'm theorizing.

Twitter allows you to block people who are hysterical idiots sending harassing messages, like Bladewire for example.

^^ Correct, this ruling will lead to the platforms ending their censorship of groups they don't like. Trump outsmarted the clueless libs yet again :1orglaugh

Ummm. Okay?

It's really not a matter of argument - more about bringing this issue into the open. A huge majority of speech currently takes place on a few platforms. What, if any, rights do people have to ensure their voices are not censored on these platforms based on the views of the people that own or run them?

People like Mrs. Bladewire laugh at what they think is a defeat for the President. They don't understand what is happening in the background and how he keeps using these things to bring attention to them. Hook, line and sinker - over and over again.

↑↑↑ Fake nic troll is melting down again

JohnnyClips aka xClips Jim aka Acepimp aka JohnnyNight etc. etc.

End Mrs. Bladewire

http://cdn-static.denofgeek.com/site...?itok=RKkBGxHC

I'm referring to the legal arguments of the case, not GFY arguments.

I don't know the answer to your question, I'm looking to the courts for clarification on that, I think this judge did bring the issue into the open, but a higher court needs to sort it out clearly.

Seems like a stupid decision from the judge, if your not logged in to Twitter.. you can still read Trumps tweets and replies to them. I can imagine the POTUS account has to follow stricter protocols, but his personal account.. should be able to be used like any other personal account.

I always wondered why he uses Twitter, I would of thought it would of been a lot better to get people to his site, rather than promoting someone else's.

I understand what you meant - you are just out of the loop on this particular issue, most likely. There is a reason this case exists and a reason it's happening now.

The actual answer will come down to US - the people. What kind of country are we going to have? Can the speech of that country be controlled by a few media companies?

That's why these issues are being brought up.

#internetbillofrights

I think they have no concept of how much censorship there is on twitter, youtube, reddit facebook etc.... because its always left leaning people doing the censoring on these platforms to appease all the snowflakes losing their minds day in and day out anytime someone says something they don't want to hear.

I've been following the case since the beginning, I don't get my news here. I doubt any GFYers are actually "in the loop" of the proceedings.

That's not what I meant. I actually have zero clue about the proceedings and likely you'd be MORE in the loop on them than I am. I only know what it means. :)

It doesn't matter when it was created. He now holds public office and uses his Twitter feed to announce his position on things related to the WH or official policy. He's made his Twitter feed a public information feed so it now falls under all laws another official platform would be accounted for.

I'm totally for this decision, for the record.

I also expect it to be applied to anyone in office that tweets public business.

Anyone in office should not be able to block a citizen from sending them communications, so i am fine with it. Same as they can't block their calls or return their mail to sender.

I do have a problem with big companies like Twitter, Youtube and FB controlling and deciding what is good or bad and enabling censorship on a massive scale.

This will lead to either the SC or a true set of regulations for this new digital world, which is sorely needed.

well he's a public figure. he's being paid for that

And - this is what it means. :)

you can bet this decision will be challenged and then higher courts will decide if it matters or not. I don't agree with the current ruling but it does open the door for it to move to higher courts, where it needs to be defined.

This is what I've been posting.

Well then I shall endeavor to read you more closely. :)

But really, I mean the last part I quote him on. It's not about this one case.

#internetbillofrights

One Day, Trump will be out of the whitehouse.

And we will dance.

and dance.

That's because the world will be great again by then!

We will all dance together. :winkwink:

I don't really get into the meat of matters, GFY and all. you know.

But I think the judge claiming twitter is a public forum by SC guidelines is murky at best and needs to be specifically defined and sorted out better by the SC.

below are the formal guidelines established by the SC that define a "public forum" and the guidelines this judge used in her decision:

It isn't required - we could do the same thing without the SC, but if that's what it takes - let's get on it.

Big social media knows they've lost. You don't censor anyone when you're winning - you keep them around so you can make fun of them. Only losers try and silence - because they are afraid.

Yeah he's a part time employee of the state. He'd be full time if he didn't golf so much and promote all of his businesses & properties