A federal judge dismisses Trump’s lawsuit seeking to reinstate his Twitter account. NEW YORK TIMES.

 The former president sued Twitter after it permanently blocked his account in the wake of the Capitol riot.

Former President Donald J. Trump was barred from Twitter two days after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.Credit...Veasey Conway for The New York Times

By Neil Vigdor

• A federal judge in San Francisco on Friday dismissed former President Donald J. Trump’s lawsuit against Twitter over the social media company’s decision to bar him from its platform permanently after the Jan. 6 attack at the U.S. Capitol.
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

The judge, James Donato of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, wrote that he was not persuaded that Twitter had infringed on Mr. Trump’s free speech rights when it shut down his account on Jan. 8, 2021, two days after a mob spurred by Mr. Trump’s “stop the steal” lies stormed the Capitol in hopes of overturning the presidential election results.

At the time, the tech giant said that Mr. Trump had violated its rules against glorifying violence with a pair of tweets, including one praising his supporters as “patriots.” The decision stripped Mr. Trump of his favorite megaphone: He had used Twitter to lob insults and grievances and had amassed more than 88 million followers.

In his lawsuit against Twitter, Mr. Trump had asserted that the San Francisco-based company had been pandering to liberal Democrats by barring him from its platform and had sought to silence contradictory viewpoints.

In mounting a First Amendment claim, Mr. Trump had argued that Twitter was effectively functioning like the government. But Judge Donato was unpersuaded, saying that Mr. Trump’s claim that Twitter had behaved like a state actor was unsubstantiated.

“The amended complaint merely offers a grab-bag of allegations to the effect that some Democratic members of Congress wanted Mr. Trump, and ‘the views he espoused,’ to be banned from Twitter because such ‘content and views’ were “contrary to those legislators’ preferred points of view,” Judge Donato wrote.

A Twitter spokesman declined to comment about the ruling. A spokeswoman for Mr. Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Five people whose Twitter accounts were permanently suspended had joined Mr. Trump as plaintiffs in the lawsuit, along with the American Conservative Union. They argued that the bans amounted to censorship.

The ruling came a little more than a week after Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, struck a deal to buy Twitter for about $44 billion.

The acquisition by Mr. Musk, the chief executive of Tesla and founder of SpaceX, prompted speculation about whether Mr. Musk would seek to change the platform’s guidelines for posting and potentially clear a path for Mr. Trump to return. Some Republicans have expressed quiet reservations about a possible Trump return, worrying that he could distract from the party’s messaging ahead of the midterm elections.

While many Republicans cheered Mr. Musk’s planned takeover of the tech giant, Mr. Trump told Fox News last month that he would stick with posting on his own social network, Truth Social, a fledgling platform that has endured early struggles. “I am not going on Twitter,” he said, but he added that he hoped “Elon buys Twitter, because he’ll make improvements to it.”

FINDING NEWS SOURCES YOU CAN TRUST.

 

A Newsmax host determined that he had figured out who leaked the Supreme Court draft opinion that would strike down Roe v. Wade: future justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. But there is a problem with that theory. Jackson isn’t yet on the court.

With zero evidence, Newsmax host says Ketanji Brown Jackson "would be my first suspect when it comes to the leak"

So remember, IF YOU SEE ONE OF THESE...

...YOU ARE BETTER OFF GETTING YOUR NEWS INFO FROM...

Better educated, with actual Editorial Standards.

DON'T LET THESE VICTORIES GO TO WASTE. FULL ARTICLE FROM JULY, 2015. THIS IS THE U.S. SUPREME COURT WE HAD THEN...HOW TIMES CHANGE.

DON'T LET THESE VICTORIES

GO TO WASTE.  PT 1.

The SUPREME COURT RULINGS DURING THIS PAST WEEK ARE EVIDENCE THAT LOGIC, REASON, MORALITY, AND JUSTICE ARE TERMS AND CONCEPTS THAT CAN COME TOGETHER TO ACCOMPLISH A COMMON GOAL.

THEY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. THE DECISIONS TO AFFIRM THE LEGAL STANDING OF THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT,  ALONG WITH THE RULING THAT GOVERNMENT CANNOT DENY SAME-SEX COUPLES THE RIGHT TO LEGALLY MARRY, ARE PROOF OF THIS.

Of Course,  Some of those who Opposed Such JUDICIAL DECISIONS ARE CRYING FOUL, AND WILL DO ANYTHING IN THEIR POWER TO OPPOSE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE DECISIONS INTO THE LEGAL SYSTEM AND PUBLIC POLICY.

HOWEVER, THEIR ARGUMENTS AND TACTICS HAVE NOT CHANGED. EQUALITY, RIGHTS AND JUSTICE ARE TERMS MANY DELIBERATELY USE INCORRECTLY, TO SUPPORT AN IRRATIONAL POINT OF VIEW THAT DOES NOT STAND UP TO SCRUTINY.

BUT THEY ARE NOT THE REAL DANGER.  THE  SELF- CENTERED INDIVIDUAL WHO CARES NOTHING FOR OTHERS, ALONG WITH THE RELIGIOUS ZEALOT WHO BELIEVES GOD IS THEIR PERSONAL PIPELINE, ARE WITH US NOW AS IN THE PAST.  THEY CAN BE DEFEATED, AND WILL BECOME LESS AND LESS OF A FACTOR, AS LONG AS THOSE WHO ARE CELEBRATING TODAYS VICTORIES REMEMBER THE ETHICAL JUDGMENTS, AND MORAL ABSOLUTES THEY SUPPORTED TO ACHIEVE THESE GOALS.

DON'T LET THESE VICTORIES

GO TO WASTE.  PT 2.

So what Moral Absolutes am I Talking about?  I have Discussed These in Earlier Posts, and on other Pages, but it is Important to Remember Them.

-  Creating a National Health Care Plan that Benefits all Americans, by Making Medical Insurance Affordable and Accessible, is a MORAL DECISION THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BELIEVES IS A DUTY AND RESPONSIBILITY IT HAS TO THE CITIZENS OF THE U.S.  To Some it will be an Immediate Benefit, to Others a Safety Net Against Loss of Employment and a Reduction in Financial Status.  Many Americans may Never Need to Use it, but it REMAINS A SAFEGUARD TO PROTECT THE HEALTH AND WELL- BEING OF ALL.

SO WHY IS IT A MORAL ABSOLUTE?  THE "GOOD" THAT COMES FROM SUCH A LAW TRANSCENDS THE ECONOMIC POSITIVES OR NEGATIVES THAT MAY ISSUE FROM THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THIS PLAN.  IT IS NOT CONSIDERED TO BE AN ETHICAL QUESTION THAT SHOULD BE LEFT TO THE WHIMS OF THE MAJORITY, WHICH WOULD MAKE IT IMPRACTICAL TO ADMINISTER IN THE LONG RUN.

There are PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS THAT CAN LEAD TO ECONOMIC BENEFITS FOR THE NATIONAL ECONOMY, THAT WILL BE A PRODUCT OF THIS NEW LAW.  However, that is AN ANALYSIS THAT CANNOT BE DONE AT THE INITIAL STAGES OF IMPLEMENTING THE SYSTEM.

FOR NOW, IT IS SIMPLY THE "RIGHT" THING TO DO.

I will DISCUSS THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE LEGALIZATION OF SAME- SEX MARRIAGE IN THE NEXT POST.

Date-  7/10/2015.

Scroll down for future posts.

DON'T LET THESE VICTORIES

GO TO WASTE.  PT 3.

Let us Sit Back, and Think Carefully. What does the LEGALIZATION OF SAME- SEX MARRIAGE IN THE U.S. REALLY MEAN?

What Does it Create?-  COUPLES OF THE SAME GENDER CAN NOW ENTER INTO A LEGALLY RECOGNIZED MARRIAGE, WHICH IS, AT ITS HEART, A CIVIL CONTRACT.  

THEY NOW HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS, AND THE SAME RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES OF HETERO- SEXUAL COUPLES.

THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS DECISION THAT CREATES FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES A DIFFERENT OR ALTERNATE SET OF RULES IN THE EYES OF THE LAW, THAT WERE CREATED BECAUSE OF THE DECISION.

-   A  LEGAL SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IS SUBJECT TO THE SAME CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES, FOR VIOLATING CERTAIN PARTS OF THE LAW, (I.E., 

MINIMUM LEGAL AGE TO BE MARRIED, INCEST, POLYGAMY, CONSENT, MEDICAL REQUIREMENTS etc.), THAT HETERO- SEXUAL COUPLES ARE SUBJECT TO.

SO WHAT'S THE PROBLEM, WHERE DOES THE CONTROVERSY LIE?

Date-  7/16/2015.

Scroll down for future posts.

DON'T LET THESE VICTORIES

GO TO WASTE.  PT 4.

Unfortunately, the Controversy

can be found in the Usual Place, WHEN WE DISCUSS ENFORCING OR LEGISLATING RELIGIOUS FAITH INTO LAW:

IT IS THE SELF-CENTERED JUDGMENT THAT FAITH ALONE SHOULD DECIDE THE MORAL AND ETHICAL GUIDELINES THAT ARE TO MAKE UP AN ESTABLISHED CODE OF LAW, BINDING ON ALL.

FREEDOM OF RELIGION, as it is defined within the CONCEPT of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, Means:  

ALLOWING THE MANNER OF WORSHIP, PERFORMANCE OF RITUALS, AND THE PUBLIC EXPRESSION OF A BELIEF SYSTEM TO BE FREE OF GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE AND POSSIBLE SANCTIONS...

...UNLESS SUCH BEHAVIOR VIOLATES A SEPARATE CODE OF CONDUCT,

ESTABLISHED TO PRESERVE AND MAINTAIN THE REPUBLIC ITSELF, ALONG WITH THE SAFETY, FREEDOM, AND WELL- BEING OF ITS CITIZENS.

WHY?

A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC CREATES TWO SETS OF LAWS WHICH SEPARATE THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES OF PROPER AND ACCEPTABLE MORAL BEHAVIOR...

SEE NEXT POST.

Date-  7/22/2015.

Scroll down for future posts.

DON'T LET THESE VICTORIES

GO TO WASTE.  PT 5.

CATEGORY #1-  Laws that place Guidelines on Behaviors and Judgments that Could Undermine the Peace, Safety and Liberty of the Government and its Citizens.

CATEGORY #2-  Laws that Protect Individual Beliefs and Behaviors that do not

Endanger the Stability of the State, or Infringe upon the Civil Liberties of other Individuals.

What Many Americans Forget, or Don't Realize,  THAT A RIGHT IS NOT A GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD, ALLOWING ANY CITIZEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO USE THE BILL OF RIGHTS TO EXCUSE OR JUSTIFY ANY BEHAVIOR OR JUDGMENT AGAINST ANOTHER.

For Example;

FREEDOM OF RELIGION-  Does not Include:

-  Child Abuse.

-  Polygamy.

-  Forced Observation of Certain Holidays.

-  Enforcing Moral Attitudes on Everyone Else.

,,,AMONG OTHER THINGS.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH-  Does not Include:

-  Insulting Your Employer, without any possible

Repercussions.

-  Disturbing the Peace.

-  Slander.

-  Perjury.

...AMONG OTHER THINGS.

... AND SO ON.

SO MANY AMERICANS SEEM TO IDENTIFY WITH THE FOLLOWING...

A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC IS A POLITICAL SYSTEM SET UP TO

PREVENT GOVERNMENT INTRUSION INTO CERTAIN ASPECTS OF AN INDIVIDUALS LIFE.

YET, THEY FORGET...

IT IS ALSO SET UP TO PREVENT CITIZENS FROM INTRUDING INTO CERTAIN ASPECTS OF OTHER INDIVIDUALS LIVES.

THE U.S. CONSTITUTION PROTECTS AMERICANS FROM UNDUE AND UNNECESSARY INTRUSION INTO THEIR LIVES BY GOVERNMENT, AND BY OTHER CITIZENS.

Date-  7/29/2015.

Scroll down for other posts.

FROM -11/26/2020: THE TRUMPIANS AND THE TRUMPOCRATS PERFORMED THEIR ROLES WELL. DONALD ADDS A THIRD SUB-PAR INTELLECT TO THE SUPREME COURT. FASCISTS REJOICE. UPDATE.

Always remember, Trump and the Republicans did the most damage in situations where SENATE DEMOCRATS OFFERED LITTLE OR NO RESISTANCE.

I QUOTE THE WORDS OF CHUCK SCHUMER, UPON THE CONFIRMATION OF A THIRD

SUPREME JUSTICE, CHOSEN BY TRUMP.

But Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) called Monday’s vote “one of the darkest days” in the history of the 231 years of the Senate, and said Republicans will regret their power grab in the long haul.

“I want to be very clear with my Republican colleagues: You may win this vote, and Amy Coney Barrett may become the next associate justice of the Supreme Court, but you will never, never get your credibility back,” Schumer said. “The next time the American people give Democrats a majority in this chamber, you will have forfeited the right to tell us how to run that majority.”

MY RESPONSE...

CHUCK, YOU ARE A CORRUPT JOKE, AS IS EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT INCUMBENT IN THE U.S. SENATE. YOU SOLD OUT PRESIDENT OBAMA, HILLARY CLINTON, AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. NOW WE HAVE A SUPREME COURT WITH THREE JUSTICES WHO WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY A COMPETENT AND HONEST PRESIDENT. 

THE REFUSAL OF THE DEMOCRATS IN THE SENATE TO CONTEST THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL AND SENATE RETURNS, (WHICH COST THE DEMOCRATS THE WHITE HOUSE AND CONTROL OF THE SENATE), WAS NOTHING SHORT OF CRIMINAL. I HAVE JUST PUBLISHED U.S. SENATE RESULTS FROM 2008- 2018, TO COMPLEMENT THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION RESULTS. AMERICANS CAN SEE THE TYPE OF VOTER RETURNS THAT WERE NEVER QUESTIONED OR DEBATED, BUT THAT YOU AND YOUR FLUNKIES ACCEPTED WITHOUT A WORD.

IT IS AMAZING THAT IN 2016 AND 2018 DONALD TRUMP ACCUSED THE DEMOCRATS OF ELECTION FRAUD WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE, AND THE ACCUSATIONS WERE PROVEN TO BE GROUNDLESS. YET, WITH EXTENSIVE EVIDENCE OF FRAUD BY THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AND RUSSIA IN THE 2016 ELECTION, THE DEMOCRATS IN THE U.S. SENATE DID NOTHING. 

PERHAPS, YOU AND YOUR "COLLEAGUES" CAN EXPLAIN YOUR REASONING FOR NOT CALLING OUT MITCH MCCONNELL FOR HIS REFUSAL TO GIVE PRES. BARACK OBAMAS SUPREME COURT CANDIDATE A CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED PUBLIC HEARING AND VOTE BEFORE THE U.S. SENATE, SETTING UP A REPUBLICAN DOMINATED SUPREME COURT, WHICH FOLLOWED FROM THE FRAUDULENT 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

YOU MUST FEEL PROUD. WHAT WAS WORTH BETRAYING YOUR COUNTRY?

I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THIS IS NOT A CRITICISM OF NANCY PELOSI OR ANY OF THE DEM. HOUSE MEMBERS. THEY SHOWED THEIR COURAGE DURING THE TRUMP IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS, HANDLING THE PRESSURE VERY WELL, AND INTRODUCING HONEST AND CAPABLE WITNESSES TO SHOW THE DEPTHS OF TRUMPS DISHONESTY.

DAVID.