Trump ignores court ruling that he can’t block critics on Twitter

TheDoctorIsIn · 2018-05-28T03:25:04.570Z

You didn’t answer my question.

I’m not surprised.

WuWei · 2018-05-28T03:40:23.895Z

For 40 years.

johnwk2 · 2018-05-28T04:00:36.751Z

TheDoctorIsIn:

You didn’t answer my question.

I’m not surprised.

Your question was incorrectly phrased. I answered it by correctly stating my argument. I wrote:

This Fifth Column judge, NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD, rests here opinion on the “public forum” doctrine set forth by the Supreme Court, which in itself is an invention of the Court unknown to our founders — an invention not in harmony with the intentions for which the First Amendment, along with nine others, was adopted. In fact, the First Amendment, along with nine other Amendments, were intentionally adopted to preclude and forbid federal force to be used to meddle in America’s free market system and dictate rules by which We the People communicate. . . . or, petition our government.

TheDoctorIsIn · 2018-05-28T04:54:24.644Z

No, I phrased it correctly. You just didn’t like the question I asked.

toreyj01 · 2018-05-28T09:57:35.369Z

Trump has to separate his personal Twitter account, where he can say what he wants to and block whom he wants to, with the official Twitter account of a US President.

That account should not select who and who not to allow comments on, because of the 1st amendment. You can certainly make it post only and not allow comments from anyone. Thats okay since its across the board.

Imagine if Obama had banned or blocked Republicans and Conservatives from comments on his POTUS account. You guys would have a fit and rightly so.

CaughtInTheMiddle · 2018-05-28T10:00:41.164Z

toreyj01:

Trump has to separate his personal Twitter account, where he can say what he wants to and block whom he wants to, with the official Twitter account of a US President.

my how times have changed.

johnwk2 · 2018-05-28T11:01:16.808Z

CassandraJoe:

Its not a judge restricting the President of the United States’ freedom of speech, its the Executive Branch of the United States Government restricting the freedom of speech of other Americans.

It was the judge usurping a power to dictate rules by which We the People communicate.

Just for the record, at least twenty of our Fifth Column news papers around the country have repeatedly refused to publish my letters to the editor on numerous occasions in which I refute their socialist, communist, progressive propaganda. And I accept their right to refuse to publish my letters because that is what freedom is about ___ precluding government force being used to meddle in and dictate rules by which We the People communicate.

Do we really want judges or Justices meddling in and dictating rules by which we communicate? I know they do that in places like Cuba and Venezuela, but do we really want that here?

Judge, NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD apparently wants to exercise that authority and power.

JWK

”The deception of the appeal for a “convention of states” lies first of all in the name of the project. If you open your pocket Constitution, it’s easy to see that the convention authorized by Article V would not be a “convention of states” in any sense of the word.” __ Phyllis Schlafly, 5/24/2016

SottoVoce · 2018-05-28T12:20:03.791Z

CassandraJoe:

Seems you got this backwards…

Trump ignores court ruling that he can’t block critics on Twitter - #18 by SottoVoce

Its not a judge restricting the President of the United States’ freedom of speech, its the Executive Branch of the United States Government restricting the freedom of speech of other Americans.

No, it’s a judge saying that Trump’s twitter account is now being used in an official government capacity and that everyone is entitled access to it. The government can’t block public communications to specific individuals.

BlueTex · 2018-05-28T12:28:15.139Z

johnwk2:

Just for the record, at least twenty of our Fifth Column news papers around the country have repeatedly refused to publish my letters to the editor on numerous occasions in which I refute their socialist, communist, progressive propaganda.

Now that’s a shock…

WorldWatcher · 2018-05-28T12:29:03.574Z

Just think, if Dennison had used the @POTUS account for government business (offical announcements, policy statements, reactions to the news media about the President) and his @realDonalTrump account for personal things (like his preferred brand of spray on orange tan spray, his hand size, his latest golf score, etc.) then this wouldn’t have been an issue.

If you are going to use your Twitter account in as a function of government communications - don’t be surprised when government type restrictions are placed on the use of the account.

.>>>>

johnwk2 · 2018-05-28T16:06:03.535Z

SottoVoce:

CassandraJoe:

Seems you got this backwards…

Trump ignores court ruling that he can’t block critics on Twitter - #18 by SottoVoce

Its not a judge restricting the President of the United States’ freedom of speech, its the Executive Branch of the United States Government restricting the freedom of speech of other Americans.

No, it’s a judge saying that Trump’s twitter account is now being used in an official government capacity and that everyone is entitled access to it. The government can’t block public communications to specific individuals.

This nitwit judge, U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is alleging the First Amendment forbids President Trump to block critics on his personal Twitter account. Keep in mind the complainants in the case did not assert being blocked on any official government accounts, e.g., @WhiteHouse. The account in question has been in use by Trump several years before running for president, and lately is used by Trump to call out Fake News, Russia-gate, and comment on other political issues of the day. It is not used for official government purposes as is, e.g., @POTUS is used for official government business.

As pointed out in an article titled: Is It Really Illegal for Trump to Block People on Twitter Now?

”The judge’s logic turns the traditional way of viewing the First Amendment on its head: Your right to free speech doesn’t extend to a right to make someone else, even a politician you have good reason to loathe, listen to you. The Supreme Court expanded on this in a 1984 case, ruling that a “person’s right to speak is not infringed when government simply ignores that person while listening to others.”

In this case, MINNESOTA BD. FOR COMMUNITY COLLEGES v. KNIGHT, (1984), JUSTICE O’CONNOR wrote:

” Appellees have no constitutional right to force the government to listen to their views. They have no such right as members of the public, as government employees, or as instructors in an institution of higher education.

The Constitution does not grant to members of the public generally a right to be heard by public bodies making decisions of policy. In Bi-Metallic Investment Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 239 U.S. 441 (1915), this Court rejected a claim to such a right founded on the Due Process [465 U.S. 271, 284] Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. “

In the instant case the complainants are free to setup a Twitter account and complain all they want about President Trump and likewise free to block opposing points of view, and our Constitution prohibits interfering with this fundamental right ___ a right which even extends to President Trump, as much as he is hated by our nitwit “Never Trump Crowd”.

U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald needs to take her dog-and-pony show elsewhere, perhaps to Cuba or Venezuela where dictators will embrace her with open arms.

JWK

Without a Fifth Column Media, Yellow Journalism, Hollywood, and a corrupted FBI, Loretta Lynch, Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama, would be making license tags in a federal penitentiary

SottoVoce · 2018-05-28T20:20:10.595Z

Is this some sort of proof by verbosity attempt? If so you win. Not really the manifesto reading kind of guy.

johnwk2 · 2018-05-28T21:53:58.596Z

[quote=“SottoVoce, post:78, topic:1115, full:true”]
Is this some sort of proof by verbosity attempt? [/quote]

TRANSLATION:

You can’t offer a well-reasoned rebuttal to THE POST so you post a mocking response ___ a very old and tired stupid debating trick.

JWK

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." – Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

SottoVoce · 2018-05-28T23:29:24.648Z

[quote=“johnwk2, post:79, topic:1115, full:true”]

SottoVoce:

Is this some sort of proof by verbosity attempt? [/quote]

TRANSLATION:

You can’t offer a well-reasoned rebuttal to THE POST so you post a mocking response ___ a very old and tired stupid debating trick.

JWK

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." – Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

I gave my reasoning earlier. With a link to, and citations of, the judge’s ruling. The text diarrhea came after that. If you can’t make a succinct response in a paragraph or two, without the italics/underline/bold trifecta, you probably don’t have a point to make.

CaughtInTheMiddle · 2018-05-29T11:05:35.549Z

CassandraJoe:

So you would prefer the President of the United States dictate the rules by which we communicate (and silence those who voice any opposition to him)

i think that’s exactly what some people want.

at the moment.

johnwk2 · 2018-05-29T11:55:42.923Z

SottoVoce:

I gave my reasoning earlier. With a link to, and citations of, the judge’s ruling. The text diarrhea came after that. If you can’t make a succinct response in a paragraph or two, without the italics/underline/bold trifecta, you probably don’t have a point to make.

As I correctly pointed out, you can’t offer a well-reasoned rebuttal toTHIS POST so you post a mocking response ___ a very old and tired stupid debating trick.

And as is usually the case with you, you once again find it necessary to post an adolescent remark.

JWK

The unavoidable truth is, our Fifth Column democrat political leaders’ plan for “free” college tuition will be paid for by confiscating and redistributing the paychecks of millions of college graduates who worked for and paid their own way through college and are now trying to finance their own economic needs.

SottoVoce · 2018-05-29T12:24:40.541Z

johnwk2:

SottoVoce:

I gave my reasoning earlier. With a link to, and citations of, the judge’s ruling. The text diarrhea came after that. If you can’t make a succinct response in a paragraph or two, without the italics/underline/bold trifecta, you probably don’t have a point to make.

As I correctly pointed out, you can’t offer a well-reasoned rebuttal toTHIS POST so you post a mocking response ___ a very old and tired stupid debating trick.

And as is usually the case with you, you once again find it necessary to post an adolescent remark.

JWK

The unavoidable truth is, our Fifth Column democrat political leaders’ plan for “free” college tuition will be paid for by confiscating and redistributing the paychecks of millions of college graduates who worked for and paid their own way through college and are now trying to finance their own economic needs.

Yep. You win. Good luck with those newspaper editors.

CaughtInTheMiddle · 2018-05-29T12:29:26.191Z

SottoVoce:

The text diarrhea came after that.

Call_me_Ishmael · 2018-05-29T13:35:42.291Z

WorldWatcher:

Just think, if Dennison had used the @POTUS account for government business (offical anno

Is Dennison and Barry Soetoro from the same hometown?

CaughtInTheMiddle · 2018-05-29T14:15:42.579Z

Call_me_Ishmael:

Is Dennison and Barry Soetoro from the same hometown?

no. Trump (and his two aliases) are from New York. Obama (whose mom marrried Lolo Soetoro) was born in Hawaii.