A federal judge on Wednesday ruled that the First Amendment does not apply to President Trump.
Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald issued the ruling while presiding over a case in which plaintiffs argued that President Trump shouldn’t be allowed to block people on Twitter.
When you block someone on Twitter you’re exercising your First Amendment right to freedom of speech and expression. It’s no different than drafting a strongly worded letter, or holding up a protest sign, or speaking out about your beliefs: You’re exercising expression. And if the President isn’t allowed to block someone on Twitter, then nobody should be allowed to.
But we are allowed to. And it would be ridiculous to suggest otherwise. And so it’s ridiculous that Judge Reice Buchwald has ruled, effectively, that one’s freedom of expression is eliminated just because he or she becomes President.
Moreover, blocking is different than muting. When you mute someone, you can’t see what they’re saying. When you block someone, you prevent them from flooding your posts with replies. So blocking someone means they can no longer pollute your Twitter feed, while muting them means they can but you no longer have to see it.
For that reason, for most, the block feature is far more attractive when it comes to promoting the type of climate you want for your own Twitter presence. And that’s for you and you alone to decide.
To be very clear: The President is entitled to free speech. I know the media claim he isn’t when they insist that his free speech is an attack on their own (it’s not). And I know this judge ruled that he isn’t. But they’re wrong, and I defy any of them to argue otherwise when confronted with the accurate assessment that their claims are predicated on stripping Trump of his First Amendment rights just because he is the President.
I’ll tell you who is not entitled to free speech: Judges. They can say and do what they want in their personal lives, but they can’t use their coveted authority to ignore the Constitution in furtherance of their own political views and leanings.
And setting aside her ridiculous, laughable ruling on the aforementioned case — I’m looking at her husband’s Facebook page and would confidently bet that Naomi Reice Buchwald is also very much in the “Never Trump” camp…
There’s just no good explanation for how a sober-minded judge could rule that the President is not entitled to First Amendment protections. The ruling, rather, is just another lazy shot at the sitting US President by just another corrupt elitist who is skirting her oath in order to perpetuate her bias.
It’s just like what we’ve seen from James Comey, Jim Clapper, John Brennan and the rest — who evidence strongly suggests weaponized the once-revered intelligence community in order to attack their political opponents.
It’s just like what we’re seeing from the media — who have abandoned their impartiality and now function as anti-Trump propaganda arms.
All over the country we’re seeing once-credible people and institutions exploit their power and platforms in order to exact political vengeance on the sitting United States President. And, thankfully, they’re one by one being exposed for it.
That sound you hear, that whooshing sound, is the sound of that exposure. It’s the sound of the swamp being drained. President Trump promised us that he’d do it. Little did we know that all he would have to do is show up, and the swamp would start draining itself. But that’s what we’re seeing, and activist judge Naomi Reince Buchwald is just the most recent in a long line of examples. No matter what she does in her clownshow of a courtroom, she’ll never convince the American public or more credible courts that the President of the United States is not also protected by the First Amendment.
Maybe you should just retire now, Naomi. Stop embarrassing yourself and hurting your cause. Because that’s all you’re doing.
Make sure to check out WhatFinger News for all the best right-minded media content from around the web.