Like her pal Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Julia Salazar is a New York socialist who’s been caught fudging details about her background. So it makes sense that she’d come to kindred spirit AOC’s defense.
Earlier this week, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Donald Trump, as “a public official,” cannot block Twitter users from seeing his tweets because it violates those users’ First Amendment rights. The ruling was dumb, but the Resistance cheered it anyway because Orange Man Bad. Unfortunately for them, their victory over Trump turned into a headache for AOC, as it opened up an avenue for people blocked by AOC — like former New York Democratic Assemblyman Dov Hikind — to sue her for violating their First Amendment rights.
And Julia Salazar doesn’t think that’s fair at all:
Blocking people on social media—esp as women, typically subjected to an avalanche of hateful and misogynistic speech online—is not a violation of their First Amendment rights. None of us have a constitutional right to use someone’s Twitter to abuse them.https://t.co/V0RiH8G5lD
— Julia Salazar (@JuliaCarmel__) July 10, 2019
If you truly want to engage in political discourse, there are numerous ways to do so, including Twitter (although social media isn’t always the most effective medium). Someone blocking you on Twitter doesn’t actually curb your political speech. You could even still tweet at them.
— Julia Salazar (@JuliaCarmel__) July 10, 2019
To me it’s clear: If you truly want to communicate with people elected to represent you—your own Congresswoman, Senator, Assembly Woman, Council Member etc—Twitter is not most effective route.
But Hikind is mad because tweeting at AOC is less cathartic for him if she blocks him.
— Julia Salazar (@JuliaCarmel__) July 11, 2019
Of course blocking someone on Twitter isn’t a violation of their First Amendment rights. But the Resistance insisted that it was, and now that a court has stupidly agreed, here we are.
Make up your mind.
— AverageAmerican (@ReallyTrumpFan) July 11, 2019
You can't have it both ways. I'd Trump can't block, AOC can't block.
— Natalie (@OKHomeopath) July 11, 2019
Then Trump can block people. It’s a two-way street Julia. PERIOD.
— Mayasich (@MNHockey17) July 11, 2019
Ah, but based on this retweet, she doesn’t think it is:
At least she’s flat-out admitting that she’s applying a double standard here. Too bad that doesn’t help her argument.
While I agree with you in principle…
The courts ruled that Trump (and by extension any elected official under this ruling's logic) can't block any user on Twitter
So unless people who praised and endorsed that decision want to take it back
It's gotta be consistent— Cerebral Caesarean (@CerebralCSarean) July 11, 2019
TrumpLaw strikes again. Take it up with the 2d Circuit, Julia. https://t.co/LBtHhIPxXy
— Mo Mo (@molratty) July 11, 2019
It’s almost as if these people don’t understand the “law of unintended consequences”
— Tryx™️? (@Tryxt3rocks) July 11, 2019
I seem to remember an old saying that goes something like "Bad cases make bad law". Some folks still seem to believe certain laws and rules should only apply to politicians they hate.
Sadly for them, laws kinda apply to everyone ?
— Persnickety (@Dawnsfire) July 11, 2019
Play stupid games ("Trump shouldn't be allowed to block people, we have to go to court to force him see our insults!"), win stupid prizes ("no other politician, including AOC, can block people either"). https://t.co/a5uUTIupuC
— Esoteric Jeff (@EsotericCD) July 11, 2019
It's almost as though suing Trump to make him unblock people was a bad precedent.
Seriously, how many times can they get burned by their own fires before they join pyromaniacs anonymous? https://t.co/bsHIRns1dM
— neontaster (@neontaster) July 11, 2019
Making "get Trump" the basis of the law is going to be something people rue, but that's a lesson that's only going to be learned the hard way. https://t.co/Fe7bycKb6H
— Varad Mehta (@varadmehta) July 11, 2019
Be careful what you wish for.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member