TRUMP ACCUSED OF DENYING FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO TWITTER TROLLS BY BLOCKING?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

President Trump has blocked a lot of people on Twitter. And now, some are arguing that’s a violation of their First Amendment rights. GOOD GRIEF! I am sure there was good reason and just cause.  I’ve read some of the scathing “F” bomb garbles and Baron bashing, Melania hating anti-Trump death trash he gets.

It’s called abuse. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzabuse1

The above Twitter Abuse Report (that is always reviewed by authorized officials) means President Trump or anybody that doesn’t want to be a cyber friend of someone, or put up with their irritating and/or irrational thought processes,  has the right to remove them from their site.  How is that a violation of a persons’ first amendment rights? It sounds more like the person(s) removed have abused the privilege to be on the page and was removed to keep the group members protected from the offensive misconduct.

FOLKS THIS ONE IS TOO MUCH!

The insanity stops here!

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzztwitter-banner-large_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqqcpEGEo

IT’S TIME WE ALL REMEMBER WHAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT IS AND WHAT IT ISN’T.  FAKE NEWS ALONG WITH MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND THE SENATE HAVE BECOME SO ABUSIVE THEY HAVE ALL CROSSED THE LINE INTO SHEER LAWLESSNESS LIKE WILD HEATHEN! The groups they encourage to commit violence on the streets has gone to far. It is no longer about exercising first amendment rights when it is abusive misconduct that harms others or prohibits them from conducting their normal  or planned activity, incites fear or terror.    The displays coming from public spokespersons, entertainers, political commentators, newscasters, and elected government officials is downright appalling and treasonous.  To encourage incitement to harm and riot is an accomplice of the act.  Those who helped to incite or encourage a crime, funded the crime, or knew about the crime before hand,  should be charged as an accomplice to it,  and if it is a crime ending in death, the same aforementioned should be charged with second degree murder.  Just like it is written in the law.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

First Amendment rights are limited when a direct threat is posed either to an individual or to a group. It is a topic of controversy, since it is often difficult to tell what is a direct threat and what is simply a statement of opinion. First Amendment rights are limited when a direct threat is posed either to an individual or to a group, therefore, it is time to press charges against any and all who pose direct threats.

The following factual information is from Legal Information Institute

LIMITS OF FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION

A. “Fighting Words”
1. Free speech does not apply to “fighting words.” These are words which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.
2. “Fighting words” fall outside First Amendment protection because they:

a .Form no essential part of any exposition of ideas; and
b. Are of such slight social value that society’s interest in order and morality outweighs any benefit derived from them.

B. Defamation
1. Public Officers
First Amendment protection extends to defamation of a public officer’s official conduct, since such conduct is a matter of public concern. It does not apply, however, to defamation made with actual malice, i.e., with knowledge of falsehood or with reckless disregard of whether or not a statement is false.

2. Public Figures
a .Erroneous statements about public figures receive First Amendment immunity, even if such statements intentionally inflict emotional distress. Immunity does not apply to defamation made with actual malice. Even without actual malice, however, publishers may be liable for defaming public figures when:

i. The substance of the defamation risks substantial danger to reputation; and
ii. The publisher engages in highly unreasonable conduct departing in the extreme from professional standards.

b. The media are not protected by rights of free speech and press for obtaining news information through such misconduct as tortious or criminal activity. This is particularly true where the information is of minimal value to the public.

3. Private Figures
The First Amendment does not shield the media from liability for defamation of private figures.

a. Private persons lack public figures’ access to the media to counteract false statements. Private individuals’ greater vulnerability to injury and states’ interest in protecting such people justify media liability.
b. People drawn into the public forum largely against their will are not public figures. Therefore, a publisher may be held liable, without proof of actual malice, for defaming a private person regarding a matter that is of purely private concern.

4. Group Libel
Libel is not within the area of speech protected by the First Amendment. Since libel aimed at individuals may be punished, government may proscribe libel directed at groups. Restrictions on libelous expression must not be willful, purposeless, or unrelated to maintaining peace and well-being.

C. Invasion of Privacy
1. Public Record/Public Concern
Freedom of speech and press renders the media immune from liability for invasion of a non-public figure’s privacy where the disseminated information is:
a. Truthful;
b. Of legitimate public concern; and
c. Derived from publicly available records, such as official court documents.
Government may constitutionally punish such dissemination only when the punishment is narrowly tailored to a state interest of the highest order.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz50a454bb6

KEY POINTS TO REMEMBER: 

The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. Generally, a person cannot be held liable, either criminally or civilly for anything written or spoken about a person or topic, so long as it is truthful or based on an honest opinion, and such statements.

The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. The level of protection speech receives also depends on the forum in which it takes place.

Freedom of the press guaranteed by the First Amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. It does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general.

Right to Assemble / Right to Petition
The right to assemble allows people to gather for peaceful and lawful purposes. Implicit within this right is the right to association and belief.

This implicit right is limited to the right to associate for First Amendment purposes. It does not include a right of social association. The government may prohibit people from knowingly associating in groups that engage and promote illegal activities. The right to associate also prohibits the government from requiring a group to register or disclose its members or from denying government benefits on the basis of an individual’s current or past membership in a particular group. There are exceptions to this rule where the Court finds that governmental interests in disclosure/registration outweigh interference with First Amendment rights. The government may also, generally, not compel individuals to express themselves, hold certain beliefs, or belong to particular associations or groups.

Unlawful Assembly

Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary
When three or more people meet with the intention of carrying out an unlawful act to deliberately disturb the peace.

Riot – Definition
A concerted action: (1) made in furtherance of an express common purpose; (2) through the use or threat of violence, disorder, or terror to the public; and (3) resulting in a disturbance of the peace. Under common law, the crime of riot requires the assemblage of three or more actors. The concerted acts may be unlawful in themselves, or they may be lawful acts that are done in a violent or turbulent manner. Among the different forms that riots may take include escalated labor disputes or political demonstrations. While most riots occur in public places, they may also take place within prisons

IT IS TIME TO ENFORCE THE LAW BASED ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND QUIT ACTING LIKE THE LAWLESS LANDS OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH!

All Americans have first amendment rights and laws are in place to insure and to protect those rights.  Those who abuse those rights are applicable to punishment by law and not by twisted interpretations of self perceived radical perversions of the true instruction and intent of aforesaid stated first amendment right.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

And by the way, Twitter is an equal opportunity organization that allows all of its’ users the right to block unwanted visitors.

Dianne

 

 

Advertisements

One thought on “TRUMP ACCUSED OF DENYING FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO TWITTER TROLLS BY BLOCKING?

  1. How about the next time Facebook puts someone in Facebook jail they sue them for denying them their first amendment rights? How good do you thing that will go over? Good luck with that one.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s