It was just last July (2019) that an appeals court set up a Supreme Court filing from The President’s lawyers that deals with what Twitter has done.
The President’s lawyers won’t see this, they won’t hear about it and they certainly will NEVER think of it. But THIS is how to end the Twitter fiasco!
In an AP story Supreme Court last chance for Trump to block Twitter critics filed Mar 23, 2020, the ruling 7 to 2 of the 2nd Court of Appeals the AP put it like this:
“The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday rejected by a 7-2 vote his lawyers’ request for all of the court’s active judges to conduct a rare hearing to reconsider a 2nd Circuit panel’s finding that Trump cannot block critics. The three-judge panel had concluded in July that the president’s daily pronouncements and observations were overwhelmingly official in nature. It said Trump violated the First Amendment whenever he blocked a critic to silence a viewpoint.”
In President Trump cannot block his critics on Twitter, federal appeals court rules the absolute PERFECT condition was created by the court to put a literal END to Twitter.
The Washington Post (link above to cache since they charge for it) stated:
“President Trump cannot block his critics from the Twitter feed he regularly uses to communicate with the public, a federal appeals court said Tuesday, in a case with implications for how elected officials nationwide interact with constituents on social media.
The decision from the New York-based appeals court upholds an earlier ruling that Trump violated the First Amendment when he blocked individual users who were critical of the president or his policies.
Public officials who take to social media for official government business, the court said Tuesday, are prohibited from excluding people “from an otherwise open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees,” Judge Barrington D. Parker wrote for a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.”
Yes, no matter that the account was created when he was a private citizen it is now used to promote his administration and too , as he readily admits, speak to the people directly.
The court said; “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.”
The Post continued; “The First Amendment prevents the government from blocking or excluding views it disagrees with in what is known as “viewpoint discrimination.” The Supreme Court has not directly addressed how the law applies to expanding digital spaces for public debate, and the case involving the president’s account — with more than 61 million followers — was a high-profile legal test.”
Then along came the same platform, with an agenda of its own. (I’m not a lawyer [thank G-D] but I strongly suggest the <a href=”https://justice.gov”>DOJ</a> PAY ATTENTION!
From The Post: “Public officials’ social media accounts are now among the most significant forums for discussion of government policy,” Knight Institute Executive Director Jameel Jaffer said in a statement after the ruling. This decision will ensure that people aren’t excluded from these forums simply because of their viewpoints. It will help ensure the integrity and vitality of digital spaces that are increasingly important to our democracy.”
Simply put. TWITTER HAS COMMITTED SUICIDE!
Last night (May 28, 2020) The President posted these tweets:
For a while the content was available. In fact it was so available the press had already reported on it and whined and bellowed like pig babies about them.
Twitter then committed suicide. They stopped two things.
1: Twitter blocked view of the second tweet in the paragraph presentation forcing another click to ‘view’ the content. AND
2: Twitter totally blocked, not only the ability to post a reply, but the abilities of anyone to view the already posted thousands of replies.
#2 is the end of Twitter.
“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.”
By blocking ALL users’ ability to reply to a Trump Tweet, Twitter has done what Trump was ordered he could not do.
Mashable offers the details [Click that link to view the plaintiff’s complaint screenshots and notice the political leaning of the crew. It matches Twitter.]:
“On Tuesday, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a previous ruling that President Trump violated the First Amendment rights of Twitter critics when he blocked them.
The new ruling upheld a May 2018 decision that was the result of a lawsuit filed by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University on behalf of seven plaintiffs that Trump had blocked on Twitter.
Judge Barrington D. Parker wrote in the opinion:
‘We do not consider or decide whether an elected official violates the Constitution by excluding persons from a wholly private social media account. Nor do we consider or decide whether private social media companies are bound by the First Amendment when policing their platforms. We do conclude, however, that the First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise?open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees.’
The opinion also impressively lays out how Trump and the White House have gone to great lengths to declare Trump’s @realdonaldtrump account as ‘official.'”
So how does this put an end to Twitter?
“The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause requires the United States government to practice equal protection. The Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause requires states to practice equal protection.
Equal protection forces a state to govern impartially—not draw distinctions between individuals solely on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objective. Thus, the equal protection clause is crucial to the protection of civil rights.”
A government that is required to perform a function requires that anyone or any thing else performing the same function, likewise adhere to the same requirements or there is no such thing as equal protection.
Trump is told he cannot block anyone from his Twitter account. Therefore, no one can block the same people who sued him from his Twitter account. BLOCKING COMMENTS FROM A BLOCKED POST IS A DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE 2ND APPEALS COURT OPINION. If the platform can block his content from users and block users’ content from his account but he cannot block users from either…… get where this is going?
Therefore TWITTER is FORCING TRUMP to provide a twitter account that is doing the exact same thing the court said he could not do. BLOCKING ACCESS.
In an election cycle Twitter is forcing Trump to VIOLATE THE 2ND APPEALS COURT!
Not only is that interference in the election cycle, it is a placing The President in “jeopardy“.
The Legal Dictionary puts it this way:
“Jeopardy
Danger; hazard; peril. In a criminal action, the danger of conviction and punishment confronting the defendant.
A person is in jeopardy when he or she is placed on trial before a court of competent jurisdiction upon an indictment or information sufficient in form and substance to uphold a conviction, and a jury is charged or sworn. Jeopardy attaches after a valid indictment is found and a petit jury is sworn to try the case.”
Twitter has made, and continues to make Donald Trump VIOLATE THE 2ND APPEALS COURT RULING WHILE HE IS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT APPEALING THAT VERY RULING.
That is also obstruction of justice, interfering in a court proceeding and can be a simple mechanism that the only way The President can stop his being placed in legal jeopardy is to engage: “Civil forfeiture.” STOP the obstruction! STOP the interference. STOP the jeopardy.
Twitter’s placing The President in serious legal jeopardy must be stopped immediately. If they do not do so, the ONLY recourse open to the President is:
“Civil forfeiture occurs when the government seizes property under suspicion of its involvement in illegal activity. Such a proceeding is conducted in rem, or against the property itself, rather than in personam, or against the owner of the property; by contrast, criminal forfeiture is an in personam proceeding. For this reason, civil forfeiture case names often appear strange, such as United States v. Eight Rhodesian Stone Statues,1 and the property owner is a third-party claimant to the action while the property is the defendant. This form of forfeiture is codified in 18 U.S.C. §§ 981, 983, 984, and 985, as well as in 21 U.S.C. § 881.
The government does not have to charge the property owner with any specific crime in order to seize his property, and must prove only by a preponderance of the evidence that the property is legally forfeitable. After property has been seized, the burden of proof shifts to the owner, who must prove that the property was not involved in nor obtained as a result of illegal activity.”
Mr. President: @realdonaldtrump If you do not seize Twitter, SHUT IT DOWN, YOU ARE IN VIOLATION AGAIN OF THE VERY ORDER YOU ARE APPEALING and the only avenue open to you to NOT be violating that court’s orders is to SHUT THEM DOWN, CONSFISCATE THE PLATFORM, FIRE ALL EMPLOYEES AND LIQUIDATE IT FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD.
DO IT!
DO NOT LET THIS CONTINUE!
p.s.: A more local story here is contained in AMANDA STANFORD VIOLATES 1ST AMENDMENT AND COURT RULING