Click above "Phoenix America"< /strong>Follow us
A U.S. Federal President announced on the 23rd (Wednesday) in New York that the President of the United States Langp's blocking of users on Twitter is an illegal constitutional act. Here, the special controversy over the post of President Trump has made remarkable progress. The proponent of the first constitutional amendment who filed the lawsuit last year also won the final victory.
In her ruling, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald wrote:
"Any government official, including the president, must not go beyond the law. All government officials are deemed to be acting in accordance with the laws that have been announced."
"We think @realDonalTrump this The 'Interactive Space' section of the Twitter account is part of a Twitter user's ability to interact directly with the President's Twitter content. This space is in line with the United States Supreme Court's definition of a 'public forum.' In a public forum, the plaintiff’s politics is blocked. The remarks were opinion discrimination, which violated the first constitutional amendment."
But Buchwald rejected the decision to provide relief to the plaintiff, claiming that her “judgment is sufficient”. .
as multiple Tranians The representative of the generalized Twitter user, the Knight Institute, brought a lawsuit and praised the decision of the U.S. federal judge.
Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight Association, said: "We are very satisfied with the court's ruling. We believe this ruling is the rigorous application of the first constitutional amendment to the government's censorship on the new communications platform. It is harmful and unconstitutional to shield users from criticism on Twitter. We hope that this ruling can end this kind of behavior."
Katie Fallow, the Knight Association’s legal representative representing the plaintiff, said: “This The ruling should guide all public officials and teach them how to communicate with voters on social media."
The United States Department of Justice is Trump's Twitter Event Provides defense. The Ministry of Justice stated that the ban is the president’s “freedom of relationship”: he is the president, but he also has the power to decide who he wants to spend on social media.
White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders and former White House Communications Director Hope HiThe cks were rejected as defendants in this lawsuit.
A spokeswoman for the Ministry of Justice said: "We respect the court's decision and are considering our next steps."
The White House spokesperson did not respond to the matter and did not indicate whether the President would cancel the screening of Twitter users.
March March Hearing
Given the results of the hearing held in March This ruling was surprising. At that time, Judge Buchwald urged the parties to seek solutions outside the courtroom and suggested that: Perhaps Trump can ban, but can not block those comments.
"Why did we hold a hearing here?" Judge Buchwald asked at the hearing. "Did we not have a solution that met the interests of the plaintiff or the president?" she added, " It is better to solve it in some practical ways." After the March hearing, Fallow said she could accept Buchwald's proposal. "I think bans are a viable option. This limits and burdens the plaintiff's right to speak."
But some plaintiffs do not agree with this idea. In June last year, outside the Manhattan Courthouse, a professor of sociology Philip Cohen said that the ban can't solve potential problems.
He said: "I don't know whether the ban is really a solution. If the president really just didn't want to hear what we were saying, as they said, then he could choose to ban the word. But Obviously, he actually wants to suppress our remarks."
Source of information: CNN
Current Affairs | Legal | Study Abroad | Home | Travel | Food | Share