Connect with us

U.S.

Trump Can’t Block Twitter Users, Appeals Court Rules

Published

on

  • A court ruled that President Donald Trump violates the First Amendment when blocking Twitter users because doing so prevents people from seeing official policy-related information and engaging in public conversation. 
  • Even though the ruling has been issued, people who have been blocked by Trump do not believe that they will be unblocked. 
  • Trump is also not the only politician under fire for blocking individuals. 
  • After Tuesday’s court ruling, two people filed lawsuits against Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for blocking them as well. 

Appeals Court Backs Ruling

A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that President Donald Trump cannot block users on Twitter as it is a violation of the First Amendment. 

The Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling backs a decision made by a judge in 2018.

In their opinion, the court wrote that Trump “engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination by utilizing Twitter’s ‘blocking’ function to limit certain users’ access to his social media account, which is otherwise open to the public at large, because he disagrees with their speech.”

“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 otherwise‐open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees,” the ruling added. 

The case was brought forward by The Knight First Amendment Institute, an organization that fights for free speech and press in digital space. They filed the lawsuit on behalf of seven people who had been blocked by Trump after they criticized him in replies to his tweets.

Justice Department lawyers defending Trump said that because this is his personal Twitter account, blocking users does not violate the First Amendment. However, the ruling noted that Twitter has been one of the president’s main tools of communication and has been used for official purposes. 

The Knight Institute’s Executive Director, Jameel Jaffer, issued a statement after Tuesday’s ruling explaining that blocking prevents people from engaging in public dialogue. 

“Public officials’ social media accounts are now among the most significant forums for discussion of government policy,” Jaffer said. “This decision will ensure that people aren’t excluded from these forums simply because of their viewpoints, and that public officials aren’t insulated from their constituents’ criticism.”

The seven people involved in the lawsuit have since been unblocked. 

Blocked Users React

Now others who have been blocked by Trump are responding to the news. Model Chrissy Teigen, who has been blocked by Trump since 2017, questioned if he would actually unblock her.

Author Molly Jong-Fast, who has also been blocked by the president, also expressed doubts about Trump abiding by the ruling.

“I promise you I will never be unblocked because the reality is, even if they say Trump has to do it, when has something being illegal ever stopped him?” she told Vox. “It seems like such a dumb thing to care about, but it’s a larger metaphor for his larger lack of interest in the actual law.”

Lawsuits Filed Against AOC

Trump is also not the only politician under fire for hitting the block button. On Tuesday, two lawsuits were filed against Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) by users who had been blocked. 

One was filed by former New York State Assemblyman Dov Hikind. He tweeted about his case and said that if Trump can’t block people, why would she “think she can get away with silencing her critics?”

The controversial prank YouTuber Joey “Salads” Saladino, who is now running for Congress in New York, also filed a suit against Ocasio-Cortez. He tweeted a picture of the documents and asked, “will the standards apply equally?”

See what others are saying: (Vox) (Los Angeles Times) (The Hill)

U.S.

How Safe Injections Sites in the U.S. Are Fighting Back Against The Opioid Crisis & Do They Work?

Published

on


America has been hit with a historical opioid crisis. In 2018, more than 31,000 people died from opioid overdoses, which is more than any previous year recorded in American history. Healthcare professionals and public health experts are offering alternatives to the status quo treatments, which leads us to today’s topic: supervised injection facilities (SIF). 

Also known as overdose prevention sites and medically supervised injection centers, SIF’s have been proposed as a solution to combat America’s opioid problem. In these centers, no drugs are supplied to the users—they bring their own and are given clean syringes to prevent bloodborne diseases. Advocates or these sites are saying that they would stop countless fatal overdoses because there would be medical staff on site. Countries like Switzerland, Canada, and Australia have implemented versions of these facilities and so far there has not been any reported fatal overdoses at a SIF in the world. 

While cities like Seattle, San Francisco, New York City, and Philadelphia have all proposed plans to make sites, they have been met with heavy opposition. The federal government opposed these sites because they claim it breaks federal laws and some residents in these cities are against them due to concerns over attracting more crime. In this video, we’ll be focusing on Philadelphia, as it might become the first U.S. city to legally open a supervised injection facility, along with the court case between the non-profit who is trying to establish the SIF and the federal government.

Continue Reading

U.S.

Elon Musk Defends Calling Rescue Diver “Pedo Guy” in Lawsuit

Published

on

  • In court documents, Elon Musk defended a tweet where he called a diver who helped rescue the Thai soccer team from a cave a “pedo guy” because it “was a common insult used in South Africa.” 
  • The diver sued Musk for defamation last year after Musk sent an email to BuzzFeed where he referred to the diver as “child rapist” who had taken a “child bride who was about 12 years old.” 
  • The court documents from the suit, which were made public Monday, also revealed that Musk paid a private investigator more than $50,000 to look into the diver.
  • Musk also said he gave the statement to BuzzFeed based on information provided by the investigator, and because he was concerned the diver could be the next Jeffrey Epstein. 

Court Filings Made Public

Telsa CEO Elon Musk defended calling a rescue diver “pedo guy,” court documents revealed Monday.

Musk originally made the comment in July 2018, after Vernon Unsworth, a British diver who helped rescue the Thai soccer team trapped in a cave last year, gave an interview to CNN where he had some choice things to say about Musk.

Notably, Unsworth said the submarine Musk had designed to rescue the soccer team would not work and that it was just a PR stunt.

Musk responded by calling Unsworth a “pedo guy” in a now-deleted tweet.

Source: Elon Musk

He also sent an email to BuzzFeed reporter Ryan Mac, in which he accused Unsworth of being a “child rapist” who had taken a “child bride who was about 12 years old at the time.”

Source: BuzzFeed

Musk said he thought the email was off the record, but BuzzFeed said they never agreed to that. In September 2018, Unsworth filed a defamation lawsuit against Musk in the Central District of California.

Court filings from the defamation suit against Musk were made public on Monday.

Musk Defends “Pedo Guy” Tweet

In those documents, Musk claimed that referring to Unsworth as “pedo guy” was not a direct accusation of pedophilia.

“‘Pedo guy’ was a common insult used in South Africa when I was growing up,” Musk wrote. “It is synonymous with ‘creepy old man’ and is used to insult a person’s appearance and demeanor, not accuse a person of acts of pedophilia.”

“I did not intend to accuse Mr. Unsworth of engaging in acts of pedophilia,” he continued. “In response to his insults in the CNN interview, I meant to insult him back by expressing my opinion that he seemed like a creepy old man.”

The fact that Musk is arguing he was expressing his opinion is important in this context because under the First Amendment, opinions are usually protected speech and not considered defamatory.

The documents also included Musk’s deposition, where he talks more in-depth about the “pedo guy” tweet.

In the deposition, Musk said he sent BuzzFeed the email because he was worried it could turn into a Jeffrey Epstein situation, referring to the wealthy financier who was accused of sexually assaulting dozens of young women, including many underage girls. 

“What if we have another Jeffrey Epstein on our hands?” he said. “And what if he uses whatever celebrity he gains from this cave rescue to shield his bad deeds? This would be terrible.”

Musk’s Epstein argument might become problematic. First of all, he made the statements to BuzzFeed before the new allegations surfaced, which some have argued proves he just is using current news to frame Unsworth in a certain way, and that he did not actually consider Epstein at all.

That argument is also furthered by the fact that it has been reported that Musk had attended several events with Epstein, all of which were after Epstein pleaded guilty to soliciting prostitution from an underage girl in 2008.

Musk even said he visited Epstein’s house “several years ago.” Epstein also told The New York Times he had advised Musk while Tesla was trying to go public in 2018, though Musk denies those claims.

Private Investigator

Notably, Musk also said in the filings that he paid a private investigator more than $50,000 to investigate Unsworth after receiving an unsolicited email from the PI in August 2018.

In the documents, Musk says that the investigator: “reported that Mr. Unsworth met and began a relationship with his alleged Thai wife when she around twelve years old.”

He also added that the investigator “reported that Mr. Unsworth associated with Europeans who engage in improper sexual conduct in Thailand,” and that he “learned that Mr. Unsworth frequented Pattaya Beach which is well known for prostitution and sex tourism, and that Mr. Unsworth was unpopular at the rescue site because other rescue workers thought that he was ‘creepy.’”

Musk goes on to say this was the basis for the comments he made in his email to BuzzFeed.

“I did not authorize Mr. Mac or BuzzFeed to publish the contents of the email nor did I intend or expect that they would,” he said. “Especially without first independently verifying and confirming its information.”

He later added that he gave the information to Mac “so that BuzzFeed could conduct its own investigation into Mr. Unsworth and corroborate the information.”

Musk’s lawyers even admitted in the court filings that the private investigator’s findings “lacked solid evidence of Mr. Unsworth’s behavior.” 

Following the release of the court documents, Unsworth’s lawyer gave a statement to BuzzFeed condemning the Musk’s defense.

“The motion filed by Elon Musk today is a disgusting and transparent effort to continue falsely smearing Vernon Unsworth without any credible or verified supporting evidence,” the lawyer said.

“Mr. Unsworth’s opposition to Musk’s motion will reveal the whole truth of Musk’s actions and the falsity of his public statements and his motion with respect to Mr. Unsworth will be exposed.”

See what others are saying: (BuzzFeed News) (The Washington Post) (Business Insider)

Continue Reading

U.S.

Controversy, Racism, and Genius Kids?! How One Sperm Bank Changed Everything…

Published

on


The Repository for Germinal Choice is the most controversial sperm bank in U.S. history. While it was operational some people believed this bank was racist and they even compared the companies goals to Nazi eugenic practices. But even though this sperm bank was highly controversial, it also completely changed the sperm bank industry.

So check out our video for the full story on how this controversial sperm bank would go on to shape an entire industry.

Continue Reading