SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
President Trump's practice of blocking Twitter users who are critical of him from seeing his posts on the social media platform violates the First Amendment, a federal judge in Manhattan ruled on Wednesday.
The ruling came in a case brought by seven Twitter users who had been blocked by the @realDonaldTrump account after they criticized the president.
The plaintiffs, who were joined in the suit by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, claimed that Mr. Trump's Twitter feed is an official government account and that blocking users from following it was a violation of their First Amendment rights.
In her ruling, Federal District Court Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald wrote of the plaintiffs that "the speech in which they seek to engage is protected by the First Amendment" and that Mr. Trump and Dan Scavino, the White House social media director, "exert governmental control over certain aspects of the @realDonaldTrump account."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/23/business/media/trump-twitter-block.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes
See also: http://time.com/4808270/sean-spicer-donald-trump-twitter-statements/:
When asked at a press briefing whether Trump's tweets qualify as official statements on behalf of the White House, Spicer said that he "is the President of the United States, so they're considered official statements by the President of the United States."
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 25 2018, @11:58PM (1 child)
Orange Anus does not get to decide who can, and who cannot, listen to OFFICIAL COMMUNICATIONS.
Pay attention children this is how you continue to act butt hurt over a loss to this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yC7-JsR2Fk [youtube.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Saturday May 26 2018, @12:25AM
Again you dumbfucks, you try to make it partisan. It has nothing to do with winning or losing, Republicans or Democrats, loose constructionists versus strict constructionists, etc.
It has everything to do with what constitutes official speech from our leaders, what laws govern said official speech, and can a leader forcibly restrict *specific* citizens from hearing his public addresses. All very easy to answer questions, unless your partisan, or completely lack the ability to put forth in cogent reasoning for why the speech is either unofficial, or that not all citizens are equal in who can receive the content of official speech.
All the efforts to make it partisan just show how intellectually impotent you all are. Meaning, the ones who abandon all reason and good sense to defend the positions of Trump, No. Matter. What.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.