Federal Court Just Ruled that Trump Can’t Block Twitter Critics
Breaking: The Second US Court of Appeals in NY has just ruled that it’s unconstitutional for Trump to block his critics on Twitter calling it a violation of users’ First Amendment rights. This is the second ruling in favor of seven plaintiffs who have sued Trump for blocking them simply because they disagreed with him. Trump’s lawyers had argued that his account was a private one, but the court brushed that aside pointing to the obvious daily evidence that he uses Twitter as an official communication platform for the WH.
Score one for the good guys.
The President of the United States of America can’t stand to be disagreed with publicly. Exactly how thin skinned is he!
1“In resolving this appeal, we remind the litigants and the public that if the First Amendment means anything, it means that the best response to disfavored speech on matters of public concern is more speech, not less.”
With that in mind and the latest diarrhea mistaking weather for climate, again…
In strictly understandable adult terms –
Bill Nye the pissed off science guy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQnDGDXHNWU
2This means that J.K. Rowling and Stephen King can get back on to needle him. He’s blocked them.
3The Twitterverse Strikes Back.
Are the Disney people looking for new Star Wars titles?
How about Revenge Of The Tormented?
4…like he’s going to listen to a federal judge.
And when he ignores a court order, McConnell will surely . . .uh . . . never mind.
5Could the court order twitter to disable the blocking feature from syphilitic don’s account if he refuses to obey the judge?
6Threaten economic and licenseing penaltie to corporation for failure to enforce a court order.
Could Refusal to obey the law could be used to challenge twitters corporate existence, or access to the “public” air/broadcast celluluar licenseing?