Thread: Justice Buchwald subverts legislative intent of First Amendment-twitter case

Originally Posted by jtdc

WHERE IS THAT WRITTEN?

WRONG! From what I read,

For the text of the absurd ruling see: KNIGHT FIRST AMENDMENT INSTITUTE AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY vs DONALD J. TRUMP. After reading it, get back to me.

I suggest you start at the beginning which summarizes the case a follows:

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.


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

Originally Posted by johnwk

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.

And I disagree! I believe the President has the right to prohibit specific reporters from Press Briefings if that reporter does not follow the rules or consistently lies. I don't believe in freedom of speech to abuse your fellow man. It was about protesting your government. Thomas Jefferson apparently regretted the freedom of the press that he had championed because, even in his time, they lied!

From what I read, that Twitter account belonged to Donald Trump before he was President. It is not a government communication media. So he should have the right who he allows to post on it.

Your problem seems to be that you want everybody to hear, and agree with your opinion. But you can't find a willing media to distribute your opinion. So you latch on to this court case as if everyone should be mandated to hear your words. That is not what the First Amendment is about.

Albert Einstein said doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result, is insanity! You posted a link to that case in your first post. When I asked you to clarify your opinion, you re-posted part of your original post, IN BOLD.
Now you assign me to reread the decision you posted in your first post. You are stuck in a rut.

I have said before that I think you are a savant, an encyclopedia of information, but without the intellect to understand the words. You can't put this in your own words, so you keep re-posting what you already posted. Try to do more than just name calling: "This Fifth Column judge", "dog-and-pony show"!

If you could write your own words rather that paste quotes of historic documents, maybe the twenty four newspapers wouldn't have rejected you. You you don't have much original thoughts to give.

Originally Posted by jtdc

Originally Posted by johnwk

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.

And I disagree!

Ok. So you disagree what the case is about as stated by the court. Good for you!


Regarding the rest of your post and its insulting remarks . . .


JWK



American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance the economic needs of millions of poverty stricken, poorly educated, low and unskilled aliens who have invaded America’s borders.

Originally Posted by johnwk

Ok. So you disagree what the case is about as stated by the court. Good for you!

I' m glad you recognize that I still have that right!

Originally Posted by johnwk

Regarding the rest of your post and its insulting remarks . . .

As it was intended! You have no problem throwing around your own slurs when you disagree, as I pointed out. You either choose to be snobbish or you have a metal condition that is beyond your control!

Getting back to the subject of the thread, President Trump, using his personal twitter account, was commenting on political happenings of the day, which is protected under the 1st Amendment. He did not surrender this right when taking office. Official business is carried out on @potuS, @PressSec, and @WhiteHouse.


@realDonaldTrump is his private account which has been in existence long before he became president, and he uses that account 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, the other accounts I mentioned.


This judge needs to be removed from the bench for malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance.

JWK

Originally Posted by johnwk

Getting back to the subject of the thread, President Trump, using his personal twitter account, was commenting on political happenings of the day, which is protected under the 1st Amendment. He did not surrender this right when taking office. Official business is carried out on @potuS, @PressSec, and @WhiteHouse.

I completely agree, and have said so.

Originally Posted by johnwk

This judge needs to be removed from the bench for malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance.

I don't feel this rises to that level. As I said, she should have dismissed the suit as it should have been against Twitter. We have far worse judges in the Ninth Circuit Court and many other courts who have clearly ignored law. This seems the be small potatoes, except to you!