Sick Judge Just Ruled Against Trump, He Can't Protect Himself From Vicious Attackers.
In a bizarre ruling that has many shaking their heads, a federal judge has deemed it
unconstitutional for President Donald Trump to block anyone on social media.
It is a victory of sorts for far left hecklers like Rosie O'Donnell, Stephen King, and many
others, even of the not so famous variety.
Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
ruled that it is unconstitutional for President Trump to block anyone on the social media
platform simply, because they disagree with him or his policies.
The judge states that because President Trump is a government official, using social media
in his official capacity as a public forum.
The president cannot censor dissent or opposing views as this is considered viewpoint discrimination,
and in violation of the First Amendment.
Judge Buchwald issued the ruling in a lawsuit filed by the Knight First Amendment Institute,
at Columbia University stating the fact that President Trump's Twitter account predates
his time in the White House is irrelevant.
The fact is that he is in the White House now and serving as the President.
He works for the American people, all of them, even those that strongly disagree or troll
him on the internet.
She suggested in her 75-page opinion that Trump could have ignored his opponents reply
tweets, stating in her ruling "This case requires us to consider whether a public official
may, consistent with the First Amendment, block a person from his Twitter account in
response to the political views that person has expressed, and whether the analysis differs
because that public official is the President of the United States.
The answer to both questions is no."
According to the Hill, "the court's ruling is a major win for the Knight First Amendment
Institute at Columbia University, which brought the lawsuit on behalf of seven people, who
were blocked from the DonaldTrump account because of opinions they expressed in reply
tweets.
Buchwald, who was appointed by former President Clinton, rejected Trump's argument that
the First Amendment does not apply in this case, and that the president's personal
First Amendment interests supersede those of the 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."
Buchwald explained that blocking someone on Twitter goes further than just muting them.
"Muting preserves the muted account's ability to reply to a tweet sent by the muting
account, blocking precludes the blocked user from seeing or replying to the blocking user's
tweets entirely," she said."
The lawsuit also named White House social media director and assistant to the president
Daniel Scavino as Defendant in the lawsuit.
However, in an interesting twist on the ruling Judge Buchwald did not order President Trump,
or Scavino to unblock the individual plaintiffs in the case, or those previously blocked for
dissenting views, or prohibit them from blocking others from the account based on their views
as the plaintiffs had asked.
Instead she stated her belief that a declaratory judgment should be sufficient, stating in
her ruling "Because no government official is above the law and because all government
officials are presumed, to follow the law once the judiciary has said what the law is,
we must assume that the President and Scavino will remedy the blocking we have held to be
unconstitutional."
Naturally, the left took this portion of the ruling to mean that all those previously blocked
must be unblocked immediately.
Director of the Knight First Amendment Institute, Jameel Jaffer, tweeted a screenshot of that
specific line from Buchwald's opinion with the caption Clock's ticking DonaldTrump
& DanScavino."
Executive Director of Georgetown Law's Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection,
Josh Geltzer states the court's ruling is a vital and critical victory in preserving
free speech in the digital age.
Geltzer said in a statement regarding the ruling "The court's thorough decision
recognizes, that the President's use of DonaldTrump on Twitter makes it the type of
public forum in which the government may not, under the First Amendment, silence its critics."
The Department of Justice has actively expressed their respectful disagreement with the court's
decision, and is looking into next steps for a possible appeal of the ruling.
Many Conservatives, Republicans, and right-leaning individuals are also asking the obvious question.
Why are social media platforms such as Twitter or Facebook allowed to essentially "shadow
ban" individuals for differing points of view, be it on political and social issues
or issues of religion and culture?
It is clear that a double standard exists and now a judge is enforcing that same double
standard.
1984 here we come!
What do you think about this?
Please share this news and scroll down to Comment below and don't forget to subscribe
top stories today.
No comments:
Post a Comment