A federal judge in New York ruled Wednesday that President Trump is in violation of the Constitution when he blocks users on Twitter.
Seriously?
Does the First Amendment mean people have a right to communicate with a President? Or does it merely mean you have the right to speak your mind and ideas — on your own property, or in your own Internet space?
If Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton were President, and someone expressed vitriol and hostility toward them on a daily basis, would this same New York judge uphold a Constitutional right not to be blocked?
Of course not. It’s leftist totalitarianism at work.
Leftist totalitarianism goes like this:
“If you speak and offend me, you have violated my rights. If I speak and offend you, and you shut me up, then it’s a violation of my First Amendment rights — even if I’m on your property.”
Harassing anyone — a President of the United States or anyone else — is not a Constitutional right. You have a right to speak your mind in your own boundaries, but you don’t have a right to barge into another person’s home, office or other private area and say whatever you wish.
No leftist Democratic politician or business person would ever permit such a thing. But that’s the nature of totalitarianism. Rights are completely one-sided.
In her ruling, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald wrote that “no government official — including the President — is above the law, and all government officials are presumed to follow the law as has been declared.”
What an absurd and crude evasion. Of course no President is above the law. But that doesn’t give a judge the right to declare something a law that is not a law — and should not be a law. There is no law saying an individual may not block someone from his or her social media space. In imposing this decision, this incredibly biased judge simply made up a law and then applied it to President Trump. Why? Not because of principle, but clearly because she does not like him.
“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,” Buchwald wrote.
So Twitter posts are part of the “public forum” and are therefore public property? Does this mean that dissenters from the leftist orthodoxy who try to post on Twitter and are either shadow banned or outright banned must have their accounts restored?
It seems that Twitter is private property when it’s convenient to the leftist cause, as in the case of shadow banning conservatives. It also seems that Twitter is public property and part of the “public sphere” when it comes to preventing a U.S. President from punishing people who verbally abuse him in his private social media account.
You can’t have it both ways. Unless you’re a leftist totalitarian. And with decisions like this, we’re much closer to a totalitarian state than you think.
Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael Hurd” (Rehoboth Beach DE). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1, and see “Michael Hurd” on MeWe.