Lost our damn minds

[Kaos]

In a ruling sure to encourage every stalker, troll, pervert and psycho in America a dumbass judge has equated blocking someone on Twitter with denying free speech.  


My daughter recently blocked an assclown who repeatedly berated her and her friends and posted vulgar photos he claimed were of them.  According to this moron judge she must have violated his freedom of expression. 

The judge’s ruling was directed at president trump but it clearly has far-reaching overtones.  

Fire this judge and any other fools who think the same way.  

Oh damn.  Do I have to unshun Prowler now?

[The Prowler]

In a ruling sure to encourage every stalker, troll, pervert and psycho in America a dumbass judge has equated blocking someone on Twitter with denying free speech.  


My daughter recently blocked an assclown who repeatedly berated her and her friends and posted vulgar photos he claimed were of them.  According to this moron judge she must have violated his freedom of expression.

The judge’s ruling was directed at president trump but it clearly has far-reaching overtones.  

Fire this judge and any other fools who think the same way.  

Oh damn.  Do I have to unshun Prowler now?

^^^^
Triggered Trumpflake

[CCTAU]

^^^^
Triggered Trumpflake

Oooh. You burned him on that one Beavis!
Heh heh. Heh heh...

[Kaos]

^^^^
Triggered Trumpflake

Re shun

[The Prowler]

Re shun

^^^^
Triggered Trumpflake

[The Prowler]

In a ruling sure to encourage every stalker, troll, pervert and psycho in America a dumbass judge has equated blocking someone on Twitter with denying free speech.  


My daughter recently blocked an assclown who repeatedly berated her and her friends and posted vulgar photos he claimed were of them.  According to this moron judge she must have violated his freedom of expression.

The judge’s ruling was directed at president trump but it clearly has far-reaching overtones.  

Fire this judge and any other fools who think the same way.  

Oh damn.  Do I have to unshun Prowler now?

This ruling was in response to Knight Institute v. Trump and him blocking people due to their political comments towards him and seeing as his Twitter account, right now, is a official statement from the President then him blocking or silencing people due to their political comments towards him is a violation of free speech. Again, this is regarding the President not your children or other regular citizens.

[CCTAU]

So now the president doesn't have the same rights as other citizens because he is white and republican...

[The Prowler]

So now the president doesn't have the same rights as other citizens because he is white and republican...

Well, since he is part of the Federal Government he's interfering with the citizen's freedom of speech.

[Buzz Killington]

So now the president doesn't have the same rights as other citizens because he is white and republican...

No, he has the same rights as all the other white republicans.

[Kaos]

This ruling was in response to Knight Institute v. Trump and him blocking people due to their political comments towards him and seeing as his Twitter account, right now, is a official statement from the President then him blocking or silencing people due to their political comments towards him is a violation of free speech. Again, this is regarding the President not your children or other regular citizens.

You don't understand the meaning of the word "precedent" do you?   
I don't know why anybody tries.  I've seen box turtles with a better grasp on reality than you.  Many of them. 

[wesfau2]

I just read the opinion.  The analysis tracks, but it's a bit of a patchwork due to the unique forum discussion.

This opinion applies only to Trump/Scavino...but K's point is well-taken in that there are almost always unforeseen/unintended consequences when you're dealing with caselaw addressing novel fact scenarios.  The good news is that, for now, this case is only controlling precedent in SDNY.

[Kaos]

I just read the opinion.  The analysis tracks, but it's a bit of a patchwork due to the unique forum discussion.

This opinion applies only to Trump/Scavino...but K's point is well-taken in that there are almost always unforeseen/unintended consequences when you're dealing with caselaw addressing novel fact scenarios.  The good news is that, for now, this case is only controlling precedent in SDNY.

For reference, this is just another spoke in the cog of "Trump bad..."  
Here's an article from 2016 whining about his Twitter practices before he'd even done anything. 
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/11/21/should-the-president-be-able-to-block-you-on-twitter

[wesfau2]

For reference, this is just another spoke in the cog of "Trump bad..."  
Here's an article from 2016 whining about his Twitter practices before he'd even done anything.
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/11/21/should-the-president-be-able-to-block-you-on-twitter

This is essentially the same issue.  This piece was written in November 2016 and the lawsuit in question was filed in July 2017. 

[WiregrassTiger]

I just read the opinion.  The analysis tracks, but it's a bit of a patchwork due to the unique forum discussion.

This opinion applies only to Trump/Scavino...but K's point is well-taken in that there are almost always unforeseen/unintended consequences when you're dealing with caselaw addressing novel fact scenarios.  The good news is that, for now, this case is only controlling precedent in SDNY.

So, I can post our beach trip pics?