The Patriot Post Digest 7-10-2019

________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 7-10-2019
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
_______________________________

The Patriot Post® · Mid-Day Digest

Jul. 10, 2019

https://patriotpost.us/digests/64193-mid-day-digest

THE FOUNDATION

“The right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon … has ever been justly deemed the only effectual guardian of every other right."—James Madison (1798)

https://patriotpost.us/fqd/64192-founders-quote-daily

IN TODAY’S EDITION

Twitter trolls win court case against Trump.1
The administration has bungled the citizenship question on the census.2
Daily Features: More Analysis3, Columnists4, Headlines5, Opinion in Brief6, Short Cuts7, Memes8, and Cartoons9.

IN BRIEF

Court Favors Trump Twitter Trolls10

"The First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise-open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees,” declared Judge Barrington Parker in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruling against President Donald Trump for blocking critics from his Twitter account. The Second Circuit’s ruling upheld the decision of a district court.

This rather confusing ruling has opened the door for more lawsuits, as demonstrated by an almost immediate suit against Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) for her similar practice of blocking people from her Twitter account.

There are several issues here — some of which the court addressed and others it indicated it would intentionally avoid. The first and biggest was the question of First Amendment rights, specifically the free-speech rights of all Americans. The court noted that government officials are not allowed to prevent individuals’ access to publicly presented information, nor may public officials prevent private individuals from speaking freely on that information. Essentially, the court asserted that Twitter was a public forum because Trump was using it as such.

This, however, is the crux of the issue: Twitter is a private company that explicitly notes in its user agreement that it holds full authority over whatever content a user may place on its platform. Citing that user agreement, National Review’s David French observes, “There is no [Twitter user] ‘control’ at all, temporary or otherwise. … There is instead a public official using a private platform to attempt to amplify his specific message, with the permission of the entity that controls the platform. The court’s ruling, in this circumstance, represents government intervention in Twitter’s control of its own service. The court is overriding the permissions Twitter gave its own user.”

Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey makes another cogent point about First Amendment rights: “It doesn’t necessarily follow that I’m forced to listen to [certain speech], either, nor are public officials. The First Amendment guarantees the right to speak, not a right to an audience.” Trump blocking critics on his Twitter account does not block them from Twitter itself, nor does it prevent them from seeing his posts. He is simply refusing to allow hecklers and trolls to post comments on his Twitter feed. Hecklers and trolls are removed from public speeches, too.

For the record, we have criticized Trump’s Twitter habits11 before, and, frankly, were he not such a troll on the platform, this case likely wouldn’t have made it to the courts in the first place.

Meanwhile, the court’s ruling brings into question the censoring practices that Twitter and other social-media platforms have increasingly engaged in. If Twitter serves merely as a public forum, then is not its censorship practice a violation of Americans’ First Amendment rights?

There is no word yet as to whether Trump will seek to appeal the ruling, as he has already been in compliance with the district court’s ruling. But keep an eye on his Twitter feed…

https://patriotpost.us/articles/64190-court-favors-trump-twitter-trolls

Another Judicial Roadblock to Census Citizenship Question12

The legal wrangling over the citizenship question on the 2020 census took another bizarre turn Tuesday, when U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman ruled that the Justice Department cannot replace nine lawyers working on implementing the question so late in the game without sufficient explanation. With just three days remaining in the appeal process, Furman wrote, “Defendants provide no reasons, let alone ‘satisfactory reasons,’ for the substitution of counsel.” Furman is the same judge who initially blocked13 the question itself in January, so this is no surprise.

A brief refresher is in order. President Donald Trump called for a question asking about citizenship to be placed on the 2020 census. Given the constitutional mandate for a census in the first place, and the history of such questions having appeared, it seemed reasonable. Yet, the Associated Press reports, “Opponents of the question say it will depress participation by immigrants, lowering the population count in states that tend to vote Democratic and decreasing government funds to those areas because funding levels are based on population counts.”

This is not an inaccurate criticism but it is an illegitimate one. By that we mean, yes, a citizenship question could result in less representation for Democrats. But they don’t want foreign interference in elections, right? So why do they want our very system of representation skewed by noncitizens? The question is rhetorical, of course — they want to rig elections to guarantee leftist rule14.

In any event, the charge of “racism” evidently held enough sway to persuade Chief Justice John Roberts15 to conclude that the process and motivation behind the question was wrong, even if the actual legality of the question itself was perfectly fine.

After the Supreme Court loss, the Trump administration eventually dropped the question16 only for Trump to reverse that decision. The constantly changing rationale from Trump and other members of the administration seems to be par for the course on this entire effort. “Nobody has any f—king idea” what Trump wants, one official told The Wall Street Journal. The lawyer change is likely an attempt to put other people in charge of arguing the case so as to negate the questions about motivation. But Furman isn’t going to allow it.

The bottom line is that the question is not only entirely legitimate but it should be asked. Unfortunately, the Trump administration seems to have handled the process so poorly that critics were able to persuade judges to block the whole thing.

Footnote: The Washington Times reports, “Two-thirds of voters approve of a citizenship question on the 2020 census, and that includes [55%] of Hispanic voters.”

https://patriotpost.us/articles/64189-another-judicial-roadblock-to-census-citizenship-question

ON OUR WEBSITE TODAY

Featured Analysis: Baby Boomers Are Killing the American Dream17 — Millennials often get the brunt of the blame, but older generations set the current course.
CBO: $15 Minimum Wage Would Kill Millions of Jobs18 — Meanwhile, House Democrats plan to vote on legislation raising the minimum wage to $15.
Grassroots Perspective: USA Women’s Victory Un-American?19 — That unfortunate reality is mainly due to the swaggering team captain, Megan Rapinoe.
Video: Women Are Actually Overpaid in Soccer20 — Matt Walsh shares his insights on the attitude of the women players on the field.
Video: McConnell’s Ancestors Owned Slaves. So Did Obama’s.21 — NBC News helps Democrats’ attack on the Senate GOP leader while ignoring Obama.