Free Speech and a Free Press are swirling in the public arena once again

Hypocrisy of "First Amendment" Ruling Against President Trump

By —— Bio and Archives--May 27, 2018

American Politics, News, Opinion | Comments | Print Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

Hypocrisy of First Amendment Ruling Against President Trump
“Congress shall make no law…  abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”

In the age of political correctness, Federal Judge Naomi Buchwald, has ruled that Twitter is a public forum when used by President Donald Trump, thus he is not allowed to block his Twitter followers because it is a violation of their First Amendment rights.

It is an extremely narrow interpretation of the First Amendment, which provides that the government protect freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Yet, there seems to be quite a stretch in interpreting the Free Speech provision of the Bill of Rights.


Leftist, legalistic swipe at Donald Trump’s propensity for tweeting

Although the First Amendment was originally directed at Congress, and expressly prohibited that branch of the federal government from passing laws prohibiting free speech, Judge Buchwald’s ruling is directed toward President Trump specifically. The judge makes the point that cyber-space within the president’s Twitter account is a public forum, so he cannot block those expressing alternative or opposing viewpoints. Still, the ruling seems to be more of a Leftist, legalistic swipe at Donald Trump’s propensity for tweeting than it serves as a legal precedent. Legal experts indicate it will be challenged.

Judge Buchwald, in her ruling, narrowly defines “limitation of Free Speech” by the government of the United States to only include the specific parts of President Trump’s Twitter account when he “uses the account to take actions that can be taken only by the President as President.” Judge Buchwald admitted that Donald Trump retains his own First Amendment rights as a government official. But, she stated that President Trump “cannot exercise those rights in a way that infringes the corresponding First Amendment rights of those who have criticized him.”

The logic, however, implies that the federal government blocked people’s freedom of speech, when that is not the case. The plaintiff’s freedom to express their opinions to anyone who will listen has not been infringed upon. Only one individual, who happens to be the POTUS, blocked the plaintiff’s opposition viewpoints in one location. This twist of legal logic is partly based on the definition of what the judge deems a “public forum.” Plaintiffs argued that Trump’s Twitter feed was comparable to a “digital town hall” in which the president and the public interact, exchanging views. As a public forum of this nature, they deemed the president’s Twitter account as an official government account.

So, when the plaintiffs were blocked by President Trump, they claimed it represented infringement upon their First Amendment rights. And, Judge Buchwald agreed with   the logic, and stated that federal officials are not exempt from obligations to abide     by the Constitution, and not engage in “viewpoint discrimination.”

This is a true representation of “viewpoint discrimination” and absolute hypocrisy

Ostensibly, Buchwald imposed her ruling upon President Trump because he is an official of the government, and since he is using his social media account as a public forum, he cannot obstruct those who seek to exercise their Free Speech rights. The judge’s logic is that: “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… will remedy the blocking we have held to be unconstitutional.” Still, it is incredibly difficult to find any reference to “viewpoint discrimination” in the Bill of Rights.

Judge Buchwald, who was appointed to the federal bench by Bill Clinton, has passed judgment, but it shows up as: Donald Trump must not block any of those who oppose his views or “presidential” statements via Twitter because he is Trump. The irony of the “no government official is above the law” argument (unless it is Barack Obama, Bill or Hillary Clinton, James Clapper, Jim Comey, ad infinitum of the corrupt criminal cabal in control of the “Democratic” Party), is that the judge’s ruling only applies to Trump. This ruling is not binding to other government officials linked into social media to the same First Amendment, presumably meaning any Democrats in Congress blocking Christian or Conservatives on Twitter are exempt.

Yet, with this ruling, the judge dispels the notion that all Leftists do not approve of torture because it implies that Trump can be “forced” to recieve the opposing viewpoints of those who hate him. This exposes a double-edged sword because the president may be “forced” to receive any hate speech from others who hate him, but if he attempted a response, he could be blocked by Twitter from using “hate speech” to verbally retaliate. One must note that the Leftist “curators” on social media platforms usually equate “hate speech” with comments or content that which is not in alignment with their views.

An incredible hypocrisy of the ruling is that one of the plaintiffs, Rebecca Buckwalter, is an editor for the left-leaning website, The Daily Kos, regularly practices “viewpoint discrimination.”  The Daily Kos has a real problem when conservative writers post their views on the site as they “circle the wagons” and are downright nasty to such writers in their comments, and the tactic used to interrupt a sequence of coherent thought, is to enter a random, off topic remark in the comments, and follow it up by driving the flow of commentary away from the main point of the conservative writer. In cases of downright, total intolerance, The Daily Kos will simply erase comments, as they delete them from their site. This is a true representation of “viewpoint discrimination” and absolute hypocrisy.


Judge Buchwald was also very careful not to insist that entities like Twitter be restricted to follow the same “First Amendment guidelines” as the president

Conveniently, Judge Buchwald was also very careful not to insist that entities like Twitter be restricted to follow the same “First Amendment guidelines” as the president. But, the fundamental problem with the omission is that Twitter provides the service upon which Trump tweets. Twitter is not the government, and they created and own the public forum! So since Twitter is not the government, how could such a ruling have much of a foundation to stand the test of time?

This ruling truly reveals more than the obvious targeting of Donald Trump by the Leftist- oriented legal establishment. It demonstrates that the Leftists, and certainly Statists and Marxists view the First Amendment very differently than how the conservatives or Christians view the bedrock foundations of the nation. Conservatives or Christians view the First Amendment, as well as the rest of the Bill of Rights, an enumeration of specific rights granted to all people from God, and guaranteed to be protected by the elected officials of the government. Leftists, Statists, and Marxists view the Bill of Rights in the manner of how they view reality - without God.

Leftists, Statists, and Marxists do not respect the Bill of Rights as enumerated gifts of a Creator to all people, so they do not seem to maintain much value in First Amendment principles unless they feel they can directly benefit from such enumerated freedoms. In their perspective, these freedoms certainly do not apply to all people. Leftists, Statists, and Marxists, seem to primarily view the First Amendment, or the entire Bill of Rights, as reserved for them and their sycophants. When they are not in control of the reigns of power, they seem to view the Constitution as a tool to be utilized for protection from a hostile government that would suppress their views and policies. When in control of the government, the Constitution can be shredded, as evidenced during the Obama Administration.

“Progressives” tend to freak out when they are not in control, as they are doing now.. When the need arises, Leftists, Statists, and Marxists will contort the provisions of freedom for their personal or political benefit. If such freedom according to Leftists, Statists, and Marxists, is to primarily meet their transitory needs, one wonders whether they would consistently provide the protections of the First Amendment or any of the inalienable rights, to those who do not share their views. Especially, if they eventually took complete control over the government of “We the People,” how would such a government operate? The obvious answer can be witnessed on a daily basis by how “Progressives” operate.


Twitter and Facebook routinely get away with “viewpoint discrimination”

Judge Buchwald’s ruling provides an example, which reveals an anemic rationale that appears to exempt private companies from following the judge’s narrow interpretation of the First Amendment. And although her righteous words could apply to government officials, only President Trump was targeted in this case about “viewpoint discrimination”

According to the Left, when such companies such as Twitter or Facebook engage in the overt practice of “viewpoint discrimination,” they are not bound by the Constitution because they are not governmental entities.

Twitter and Facebook routinely get away with “viewpoint discrimination” on a regular basis. Each have a history of banning Christian and conservative writers and eliminating their postings, as do many other Left leaning, and Leftist/Marxist internet platforms like the Daily Kos. Within the last year, Twitter created new policies that helped them to start barring some “controversial right-wing” personalities, like Milo Yiannopolous and other lesser known “deplorables.” Additionally. Facebook has been caught countless times for removing certain posts and images that presumably don’t align with the views of its more liberal staff.

The recent Facebook banning of the online content of two highly popular conservative women, known as Diamond and Silk, became quite memorable and it went viral on YouTube. The two ladies went before a Congressional panel examining social media to testify about their experience, and to counter a claim by Facebook’s Zuckerberg that his company had communicated with the two, implying there was common understanding between the two parties. Zuckerberg got caught in a lie because Facebook eventually stated it regretted banning Diamond and Silk. It is not clear whether they had any regrets for banning all the other conservatives or Christians in their “Facebook community.”

The extremely narrow interpretation of the First Amendment to be used in one way to restrict the communication practices of the POTUS, seems to be a further step away from the original intent of the Founding Fathers. Granted, their world was not a wired world, but it is highly likely they did not intend to force people to listen to opposing viewpoints as they considered the British Crown’s imposition of mandated limitations on their freedom of speech and upon their freedom to print what they believed. However, the issues of Free Speech and a Free Press are swirling in the public arena once again. The seminal question is whether true Americans care enough about God-given rights to stand up and speak out against the concerted attack upon such fundamental freedoms.


Only YOU can save CFP from Social Media Suppression. Tweet, Post, Forward, Subscribe or Bookmark us

Dennis Jamison -- Bio and Archives | Comments

Dennis Jamison reinvented his life after working for a multi-billion dollar division of Johnson & Johnson for several years. Currently retired from West Valley College in California, where he taught for nearly 10 years, he now writes articles on history and American freedom for various online publications.

Formerly a contributor to the Communities at the Washington Times and Fairfax Free Citizen, his more current articles appear in Canada Free Press and Communities Digital News. During the 2016 presidential primaries, he was the leader of a network of writers, bloggers, and editors who promoted the candidacy of Dr. Ben Carson. Jamison founded “We the People” - Patriots, Pilgrims, Prophets Writers’ Network and the Citizen Sentinels Network. Both are volunteer groups for grassroots citizen-journalists and activists intent on promoting and preserving the inviolable God-given freedoms rooted in the founding documents. 

Jamison also co-founded RedAmericaConsulting to identify, counsel, and support citizen-candidates, who may not have much campaign money, but whose beliefs and deeds reflect the role of public servants rather than power-hungry politicians.  ​

Commenting Policy

Please adhere to our commenting policy to avoid being banned. As a privately owned website, we reserve the right to remove any comment and ban any user at any time.

Comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence and death, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal or abusive attacks on other users may be removed and result in a ban.
-- Follow these instructions on registering: