Slashdot Mirror

The judge ruled not that Twitter is a designated public forum, but that the replies section to the President's tweets are a designated public forum:

We hold that portions of the @realDonaldTrump account -- the “interactive space” where Twitter users may directly engage with the content of the President’s tweets -- are properly analyzed under the “public forum” doctrines set forth by the Supreme Court, that such space is a designated public forum, and that the blocking of the plaintiffs based on their political speech constitutes viewpoint discrimination that violates the First Amendment.

I don't know public forum law well enough to judge the decision (pdf) fully, but here's an attempt at an analogy:

A "meeting for hire" company starts running open to the public events where one person makes a statement and then anyone else can come in and discuss it with them and others. If the government starts paying them to run public events where it makes official government statements for public discussion, it can't bar specific people from entering and joining the discussion, as it is still a public forum even though they've hired someone else to set it up. At the same time, the "meeting for hire" company wouldn't be required to accept the government as a client.

You really need to read the thing
https://knightcolumbia.org/sit... [knightcolumbia.org]

Bahahahahaha. That's rich. Okay, let's play. On the very first page of all the ruling is "Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, Rebecca Buckwalter, Phillip Cohen, Holly Figueora, Eugene Gu, Brandon Neely, Jospeh Papp, and Nicholas Pappas [Plaintiffs]
against
Dondal J. Trump, Hope Hicks, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and Daniel Scavino [Defendants]."

NOWHERE I repeat NOWHERE is Twitter named a party to the suit. NOWHERE. The suit was not brought against Twitter therefore no court would order them to do anything. This is what is meant by a "party" to the lawsuit.

For example, you wrote: "The ruling literally says "The President" must do something."
I am unable to find any such thing in the ruling. Where do you see it? The ruling says: "Finally, we consider what form of relief should be awarded, as plaintiffs seek both declaratory relief and injunctive relief. While we reject defendants’ categorical assertion that injunctive relief cannot ever be awarded against the President, we nonetheless conclude that it is unnecessary to enter that legal thicket at this time."

Bahahahahahaha. Man you really don't understand anything do you? Or you are cherry picking your statements:

Declaratory
judgment is appropriate under the factors that the Second Circuit
directs us to consider, see Dow Jones & Co. v. Harrods Ltd., 346
F.3d 357, 359-60 (2d Cir. 2003), and a declaration will therefore
issue: the blocking of the individual plaintiffs from the
@realDonaldTrump account because of their expressed political
views violates the First Amendment. “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial
department to say what the law is,” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1
Cranch) 137, 177 (1803), and we have held that the President’s
blocking of the individual plaintiffs is unconstitutional under
the First Amendment. 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.

NOWHERE in any of that statement involves Twitter. NOWHERE.

But you didn't answer my question: Why would you lie about what your comments are when we can scroll up and see them. Your first comments implied that the plaintiffs could be blocked if they were harassing despite that not appearing in the ruling.

Then we can talk about why you feel that appeal is likely in a Summary Judgement case. I doubt you have answers.

You still haven't told me where the judge ordered them to do something. You can't, because she didn't. The judge "presumes" they will stop blocking but didn't order them to do it anywhere because she concluded it was "unnecessary to enter that legal thicket at this time." The legal thicket being that it is unclear she can order the President to do anything period. She can probably order Scavino to do something, but Trump can just change his password.

As for the Twitter lawsuit potential, here's another article from Noah Feldman saying the same thing: "if Trump Can’t Block Twitter Users, Twitter Can’t Either" https://www.bloomberg.com/view...

This is his bio: https://hls.harvard.edu/facult...

You really need to read the thing https://knightcolumbia.org/sit... [knightcolumbia.org]

Bahahahahaha. That's rich. Okay, let's play. On the very first page of all the ruling is "Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, Rebecca Buckwalter, Phillip Cohen, Holly Figueora, Eugene Gu, Brandon Neely, Jospeh Papp, and Nicholas Pappas [Plaintiffs] against Dondal J. Trump, Hope Hicks, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and Daniel Scavino [Defendants]."

NOWHERE I repeat NOWHERE is Twitter named a party to the suit. NOWHERE. The suit was not brought against Twitter therefore no court would order them to do anything. This is what is meant by a "party" to the lawsuit.

For example, you wrote: "The ruling literally says "The President" must do something." I am unable to find any such thing in the ruling. Where do you see it? The ruling says: "Finally, we consider what form of relief should be awarded, as plaintiffs seek both declaratory relief and injunctive relief. While we reject defendants’ categorical assertion that injunctive relief cannot ever be awarded against the President, we nonetheless conclude that it is unnecessary to enter that legal thicket at this time."

Bahahahahahaha. Man you really don't understand anything do you? Or you are cherry picking your statements:

Declaratory judgment is appropriate under the factors that the Second Circuit directs us to consider, see Dow Jones & Co. v. Harrods Ltd., 346 F.3d 357, 359-60 (2d Cir. 2003), and a declaration will therefore issue: the blocking of the individual plaintiffs from the @realDonaldTrump account because of their expressed political views violates the First Amendment. “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is,” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803), and we have held that the President’s blocking of the individual plaintiffs is unconstitutional under the First Amendment. 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.

NOWHERE in any of that statement involves Twitter. NOWHERE.

But you didn't answer my question: Why would you lie about what your comments are when we can scroll up and see them. Your first comments implied that the plaintiffs could be blocked if they were harassing despite that not appearing in the ruling.

Then we can talk about why you feel that appeal is likely in a Summary Judgement case. I doubt you have answers.

OK, This was my original comment, broken down for the slow

No your original comment was this: "But you can be ejected from the public forum for bad behavior". Your second comment was this: "The latter would get you ejected from any public forum. I wonder if the plaintiffs submitted to the court the tweets that got them blocked?" You know we can scroll up right? Why are you lying about what your original comment was? Your original comments was that trying for frame the plaintiffs might have been blocked for harassing the President. When pointed out that the President's legal team did not make that argument then you tried to shift the argument.

Matter of opinion, you can argue this if you like. I think they will get sued by people who get blocked.

Why is it so hard for you to understand or admit that zero part of the ruling ordered Twitter to do anything? ZERO. The ruling specifically named two people to unblock the users: The President and Scavino. That is not an opinion of what the ruling says. It's not an interpretation. The ruling literally says "The President" must do something. No part of the ruling says "Twitter must" do something. Again read the ruling.

I think they will get sued by people who get blocked.

You do understand the function of courts is also to determine who has standing and who is party to a suit. You can file a lawsuit against Twitter for any reason but the court has to agree that Twitter is a party to the suit. In this particular suit, the court dismissed the lawsuit against Hope Hicks and Sarah Huckabee Sanders because they were not part of the suit. Had the plaintiffs sued Twitter the court would have dismissed them from the suit because they are not part of the suit.

I read the ruling. The judge declared that muting was o.k., blocking wasn't. This was consistent with what she said months ago.

You claim you read the ruling but you keep saying things that are not part of the ruling. I would say that's you are not being consistent.

You really need to read the thing
https://knightcolumbia.org/sit...

For example, you wrote: "The ruling literally says "The President" must do something."
I am unable to find any such thing in the ruling. Where do you see it? The ruling says: "Finally, we consider what form of relief should be awarded, as plaintiffs seek both declaratory relief and injunctive relief. While we reject defendants’ categorical assertion that injunctive relief cannot ever be awarded against the President, we nonetheless conclude that it is unnecessary to enter that legal thicket at this time."

You did not rad it.

https://knightcolumbia.org/sit...

It clearly says on page one "Memorandum and order"

A fucking order is filed. I spend a good amount of time in courts. The Washington Post does not carry a bar certification - I carry a CA bar certification.

Good day.

CA Bar - That says a lot. So what exactly did the court order? Hmm, let's see what it says on page 73:

"Accordingly, though we conclude that injunctive relief may be awarded in this case -- at minimum, against Scavino -- we decline to do so at this time because declaratory relief is likely to achieve the same purpose."

You did not rad it.

https://knightcolumbia.org/sit...

It clearly says on page one "Memorandum and order"

A fucking order is filed. I spend a good amount of time in courts. The Washington Post does not carry a bar certification - I carry a CA bar certification.

Good day.