Business Insider reports.
In a statement obtained by Insider, Ocasio-Cortez said on Monday that she had "reconsidered" her decision to block [former Brooklyn Assemblyman Dov] Hikind from her account. She conceded that Hikind, an outspoken conservative, was exercising his constitutionally-protected right to free speech by criticizing her on Twitter....
The announcement... comes just one day before Ocasio-Cortez was scheduled to testify in federal court in Brooklyn.
"Mr. Hikind has a First Amendment right to express his views and should not be blocked for them," she said. "In retrospect, it was wrong and improper and does not reflect the values I cherish. I sincerely apologize for blocking Mr. Hikind."
The lawmaker, who has 5.7 million Twitter followers, previously defended her decision to block about 20 Twitter users from her personal account because she argued that their online behavior amounted to harassment....
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously in July that President Donald Trump is violating the First Amendment by blocking critics from his Twitter account....
Here's how Twitchy tells the story:
"‘I was wrong’: AOC chickens out on the DAY she was to testify in Dov Hikind’s lawsuit against her, unblocks and apologizes to him."
Posts
22 comments:
Mind you, Hikind is a Democratic politician. An "outspoken conservative," perhaps, but a Democrat still.
She should have taken it to trial. You should be able to block whoever you wish.
As the Reverend Jeremiah Wright once said, "The chickens are coming home . . . to roost!" Imagine AOC's alarm at being informed that the Trump precedent applies to her too.
@Yancey, if you're not a government official, you can.
I'm no fan of Ocasio-Cortez, but I don't think she should have caved. She should have the right to block anyone from a private account. I get that she is a government official (and therefore sub-human) but, unless the U.S. Congress was providing the twitter account as an official outlet for her seat, she should have the same rights as anyone else.
Don't understand why blocking someone on twitter is an offense. Can I not block a phone number? Or not answer my front door? Must be missing something.
Nope.
1. Twitter owns the account and the content (read their terms and service agreement)
2. Twitter makes the rules on who gets to block whom, and AOC makes her own blocks completely within her rights.
3. First Amend pertains only to government speech-make no law to abridge that freedom.
4. AOC (and DJT for that matter) Can be considered 'government'. But unless Twitter is the sole and only method of communication that the 'government' is using then people can block anyone they want. They can also ignore phone calls, and not send thank you cards, and just pretend that they did not see an email.
5. I would have liked the issue adjudicated by a real court that looks at real law.
Would love to know the settlement dynamic that led to the apology. Wonder if she threw ashtrays at her lawyers or advisors a la Hillary when they told her she had to apologize as part of the settlement, and that she had to sign an apology that was written by (or approved by) the other side. How did that shit sandwich taste, AOC?
It's all about the Benjamins, man!
Dov hilkind was targeted by proto alqueda, the sheikh Rahman cell, back in the spring of 1993,
"5. I would have liked the issue adjudicated by a real court that looks at real law."
Oh, it was. Silly decision, if you ask me, but there it is.
"Dov hilkind was targeted by proto alqueda, the sheikh Rahman cell, back in the spring of 1993,"
Al Quaeda has morphed into The Squad.
Leftists gravitate to anti-free speech. Free speech and free thinking are scary to them.
"They can also ignore phone calls, and not send thank you cards, and just pretend that they did not see an email."
That does not prevent the aggrieved party from attempting to communicate via a method that is open to all others. Blocking on twitter is exactly unlike your examples, since blocking completely prevents the other party from even trying to communicate. Also, the government official is choosing who can "speak" vs who cannot, where as in your examples they are only choosing to whom they would listen.
I, too, would have like this adjudicated better, but if it's sauce for Trump it's also sauce for AOC.
Quaestor is no fan of AOC. When she's not being a shameless phony, Occasional Cortex is often a moronic embarrassment to Brooklyn, which richly deserves a moronic embarrassment for a Representative, truth be told. However, it is only common decency to accept a sincere apology when offered, and the editors of Twitchy consequently owe her an apology for their jejune truculence.
AOC chickens out... Bullshit. Leave that kind of belly-crawling rhetoric to Ritmo and his ill-bred ilk.
If I understand correctly, the precedent is that Donald Trump was sued for blocking some lefty troll on Twitter and it was ruled that As a political figure he could not do so. Sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose, you know.
But I also understand that as of 7:00 EST she still hasn’t actually lifted the block.
My bad. Ocasio-Cortez is blocking someone else.
"I'm like, so totally sorry, and here's your Rum & Coke"
Jim in St Louis
Re point 4, those are not good analogies because when Trump blocks X from his Twitter he thereby prevents X from making a tweet visible to Y. That is not true of your “ignore the phone call” and other analogies. X is actually derived of a platform to reach others. That is in fact usually what X is seeking, to address the multitude rather than to address Trump.
Quaestor
Isn’t the evidence stronger that it’s not sincere? It comes only on the eve of her giving testimony in court, and she is still blocking others who did not sue. Looks insincere to me.
A,B,C are on Twitter.
A blocks B but not C.
If C has not blocked B can't B get to see A's tweets when C pass it on?
Ken B said...
Jim in St Louis
Re point 4, those are not good analogies because when Trump blocks X from his Twitter he thereby prevents X from making a tweet visible to Y. That is not true of your “ignore the phone call” and other analogies. X is actually derived of a platform to reach others. That is in fact usually what X is seeking, to address the multitude rather than to address Trump.
11/4/19, 8:26 PM
A tolerable analysis, but on the other hand by this logic President Trump must not have ejected the hecklers at his rallies but give them time at the microphone to speak against him.
Post a Comment