Twitter appears to be en route to the US Supreme Court in pursuit of absolution for its desire to keep Donald Trump abreast of a government warrant. Basically, around this time last year, a federal court ordered the social media platform now known as x to turn over Trump’s file, but not to tell the former president about it. And Twitter was none too keen on being silenced. So it fought back. Twitter objected on First Amendment grounds claiming a right to alert Trump who may elect to try to fight the disclosure. Now this argument are in the ire of the court, in addition to a $350,000 fine for Twitter. And even though the social media platform ultimately gave prosecutors Trump’s smile, Twitter has continued to fight the matter. After losing again last week in the DC Court of Appeals, well, it’s likely to challenge that fine, and it’s for silence in the US Supreme Court. Now, while I am no fan of Donald Trump, or what’s become of Twitter, I firmly believe that the First Amendment deserves defense here. And I’m glad that Twitter is investing resources in pushing back. Our justice system cannot simply trim a little fat off the constitution to hold Trump accountable. We must play by the rules to foremost, I completely and totally recognize that Twitter does not have standing here or any legal right really to challenge the warrant itself. That’s between Trump and DOJ. Also, I’m not even going to touch an executive privilege argument as that is a complete farce. But I will affirm that Twitter has a First Amendment right to use its voice without an unjustified government interference. That’s kind of how that first amendment thing works. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. That right can’t be curtailed or trampled simply because the defendant is not really a good person there is abhorrent and he engages in undemocratic behavior. What would it say if we can don’t unconstitutional acts in pursuit of punishing someone who has undermined the Constitution itself? We really be no better than Trump in that case. No. Now in this case, some may question Twitter’s motivation to litigate given the role social media played in Trump galvanizing his minions on January 6, or given the fascist the Jason antics and which Twitter’s owner Elon Musk regularly seems to engage in regardless, social media platforms have a vested interest in not being forced by the government to stay silent. We the people all do. There must be a constitutionally compelling reason to justify the limiting of speech. And I appreciate that Twitter is pushing to ensure that sufficient justification is present here. Now all that being said, I agree with the DC federal courts and I think that there was sufficient justification to curb Twitter speech here. prosecuting a former president is unprecedented and it definitely raises national security implications. And disclosing data would likely have jeopardized the prosecutor’s investigation. Whether the US Supreme Court agrees with me well, that is yet to be seen. Until then we must uphold the US Constitution without exception or fail. Because if we don’t, how can we expect to hold individuals like Donald Trump accountable for failing to do so?
Commentary
Our commentary partners will help you reach your own conclusions on complex topics.
‘Have a little compassion’: Americans talk high holiday prices, anxiety
Dec 11 Dr. Frank Luntz‘System is rigged’: Black Americans on the American Dream
Nov 27 Dr. Frank Luntz‘Extremist’ or ‘phony’: Americans share who they voted for and why
Nov 21 Dr. Frank Luntz‘Extreme’ or ‘fake’: Swing voters weigh Trump or Harris
Nov 4 Dr. Frank LuntzTwitter, now X, can use its voice without government meddling
By Straight Arrow News
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has declined to reconsider a previous ruling that permitted special prosecutor Jack Smith to use a search warrant to access former President Donald Trump’s private Twitter feed without Trump’s knowledge. This warrant, served against Twitter (now known as X), was a part of a criminal investigation into Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Initially, Twitter resisted compliance with the warrant and later sought a rehearing of the case.
Although Twitter lacks a legal right to challenge the warrant, Straight Arrow News contributor Adrienne Lawrence asserts that the social media platform is obligated to defend its First Amendment rights in its ongoing dispute with the U.S. Justice Department.
Twitter appears to be en route to the U.S. Supreme Court in pursuit of absolution for its desire to keep Donald Trump abreast of a government warrant. Basically, around this time last year, a federal court ordered the social media platform, now known as X, to turn over Trump’s file, but not to tell the former president about it. And Twitter was none too keen on being silenced. So it fought back.
Twitter objected on First Amendment grounds, claiming a right to alert Trump, who may elect to try to fight the disclosure. Now this argument earned the ire of the court, in addition to a $350,000 fine for Twitter. And even though the social media platform ultimately gave prosecutors Trump’s file, Twitter has continued to fight the matter. After losing again last week in the D.C. Court of Appeals, well, it’s likely to challenge that fine and its forced silence in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Now, while I am no fan of Donald Trump, or what’s become of Twitter, I firmly believe that the First Amendment deserves defense here. And I’m glad that Twitter is investing resources in pushing back. Our justice system cannot simply trim a little fat off the Constitution to hold Trump accountable. We must play by the rules, too. Foremost, I completely and totally recognize that Twitter does not have standing here or any legal right really to challenge the warrant itself. That’s between Trump and DOJ. Also, I’m not even going to touch an executive privilege argument, as that is a complete farce. But I will affirm that Twitter has a First Amendment right to use its voice without unjustified government interference. That’s kind of how that First Amendment thing works.
Twitter appears to be en route to the US Supreme Court in pursuit of absolution for its desire to keep Donald Trump abreast of a government warrant. Basically, around this time last year, a federal court ordered the social media platform now known as x to turn over Trump’s file, but not to tell the former president about it. And Twitter was none too keen on being silenced. So it fought back. Twitter objected on First Amendment grounds claiming a right to alert Trump who may elect to try to fight the disclosure. Now this argument are in the ire of the court, in addition to a $350,000 fine for Twitter. And even though the social media platform ultimately gave prosecutors Trump’s smile, Twitter has continued to fight the matter. After losing again last week in the DC Court of Appeals, well, it’s likely to challenge that fine, and it’s for silence in the US Supreme Court. Now, while I am no fan of Donald Trump, or what’s become of Twitter, I firmly believe that the First Amendment deserves defense here. And I’m glad that Twitter is investing resources in pushing back. Our justice system cannot simply trim a little fat off the constitution to hold Trump accountable. We must play by the rules to foremost, I completely and totally recognize that Twitter does not have standing here or any legal right really to challenge the warrant itself. That’s between Trump and DOJ. Also, I’m not even going to touch an executive privilege argument as that is a complete farce. But I will affirm that Twitter has a First Amendment right to use its voice without an unjustified government interference. That’s kind of how that first amendment thing works. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. That right can’t be curtailed or trampled simply because the defendant is not really a good person there is abhorrent and he engages in undemocratic behavior. What would it say if we can don’t unconstitutional acts in pursuit of punishing someone who has undermined the Constitution itself? We really be no better than Trump in that case. No. Now in this case, some may question Twitter’s motivation to litigate given the role social media played in Trump galvanizing his minions on January 6, or given the fascist the Jason antics and which Twitter’s owner Elon Musk regularly seems to engage in regardless, social media platforms have a vested interest in not being forced by the government to stay silent. We the people all do. There must be a constitutionally compelling reason to justify the limiting of speech. And I appreciate that Twitter is pushing to ensure that sufficient justification is present here. Now all that being said, I agree with the DC federal courts and I think that there was sufficient justification to curb Twitter speech here. prosecuting a former president is unprecedented and it definitely raises national security implications. And disclosing data would likely have jeopardized the prosecutor’s investigation. Whether the US Supreme Court agrees with me well, that is yet to be seen. Until then we must uphold the US Constitution without exception or fail. Because if we don’t, how can we expect to hold individuals like Donald Trump accountable for failing to do so?
Give time, love and togetherness for the holidays
‘Hero’ label for CEO killer reveals health care system outrage
Conservative activist Leonard Leo a danger to American culture
Linda McMahon is bad news for US education system
How Gov. Gavin Newsom is ‘Trump-proofing’ his state
Underreported stories from each side
Israel arrests Jerusalem man for spying on behalf of Iran
17 sources | 11% from the left Getty ImagesKFile: Pete Hegseth spread baseless conspiracy theories that January 6 attack was carried out by leftist groups
14 sources | 0% from the right AP ImagesLatest Stories
Congress unveils stopgap bill to avert shutdown
GrubHub agrees to $25m settlement for ‘deceptive’ practices
Disney pulls transgender storyline from upcoming Pixar series
RFK Jr.’s lawyer: NYT report over polio vaccine petition ‘categorically false’
'Dirty Dancing,' 'among 25 films named to National Film Registry
Popular Opinions
In addition to the facts, we believe it’s vital to hear perspectives from all sides of the political spectrum.
Give time, love and togetherness for the holidays
Wednesday Adrienne LawrenceDid Democrats learn anything from 2024 election?
Tuesday Ruben NavarretteGEC shutdown strikes a blow to government censorship
Tuesday Ben WeingartenElon Musk budget cuts will devastate GOP voters
Monday David Pakman