A federal district court judge on Wednesday ruled that President Trump can't block people from viewing his Twitter feed over their political views.
Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, said President Trump’s Twitter account is a public forum and blocking people who reply to his tweets with differing opinions constitutes viewpoint discrimination, which violates the First Amendment.
The court’s ruling is a major win for the Knight Foundation, which brought the lawsuit on behalf of seven people who were blocked from the @realDonaldTrump account because of opinions they expressed in reply tweets.
Buchwald, who was appointed by President Clinton, rejected Trump’s argument that the First Amendment does not apply in this case and that president’s personal First Amendment interests supersede those of plaintiffs.
She suggested in her 75-page opinion that Trump could have ignored his opponents’ reply tweets.
“No First Amendment harm arises when a government’s 'challenged conduct' is simply to ignore the [speaker],” as the Supreme Court has affirmed ‘that it is free to do,’ ” she wrote.
“Stated otherwise, 'a person’s right to speak is not infringed when government simply ignores that person while listening to others,' or when the government ‘amplifies’ the voice of one speaker over those of others.”
http://archive.is/Rsl4o
I remember going through the plaintiffs Twitter history. They were all the screech at Trump all day everyday type.
Blue checkmarks will celebrate this now, but like always, it'll come back and bite them eventually.
Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, said President Trump’s Twitter account is a public forum and blocking people who reply to his tweets with differing opinions constitutes viewpoint discrimination, which violates the First Amendment.
The court’s ruling is a major win for the Knight Foundation, which brought the lawsuit on behalf of seven people who were blocked from the @realDonaldTrump account because of opinions they expressed in reply tweets.
Buchwald, who was appointed by President Clinton, rejected Trump’s argument that the First Amendment does not apply in this case and that president’s personal First Amendment interests supersede those of plaintiffs.
She suggested in her 75-page opinion that Trump could have ignored his opponents’ reply tweets.
“No First Amendment harm arises when a government’s 'challenged conduct' is simply to ignore the [speaker],” as the Supreme Court has affirmed ‘that it is free to do,’ ” she wrote.
“Stated otherwise, 'a person’s right to speak is not infringed when government simply ignores that person while listening to others,' or when the government ‘amplifies’ the voice of one speaker over those of others.”
http://archive.is/Rsl4o
I remember going through the plaintiffs Twitter history. They were all the screech at Trump all day everyday type.
Blue checkmarks will celebrate this now, but like always, it'll come back and bite them eventually.
