Twitter, now X, can use its voice without government meddling

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?