This is not remotely accurate.

Nothing about the 1st amendment protects equal attention.
Nothing about it protects parity of time.
Nothing trumps tweets do stop me from responding.

Notice I didn't say most evil, but like everything else with this administration, it is CLASSLESS.

You are not the AP and your response, while maybe noteworthy, does not have the influence of our national media or a major newspaper.

What do you mean by"equal attention" and protecting "parity of time"?

The AP, every national reporter, every politician, celebrity, and past president can shred his every tweet publicly for everyone to see.

Twitter might not force my tweet response to gain as much attention (that would be parity), a Barack Obama response would likely get as much or more.

There is nothing about Twitter or trump using it that is unconstitutional.

In a better world, a free press would loudly call attention to his shabby treatment of his constituents.

I think he is abusing the First Amendment. Just as is FOX News.

Its not what you think it is

What do you think it does?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."



Congress shall make no law....

Trump using Twitter in any way he might choose will never violate the first most important words of the 1st amendment.

Because he isn't Congress, and tweets don't make law.

by prohibiting open discussion and honest examination of his tweets? Also, some might argue that he is abridging the freedom of the press in their ability to inform the public, by only giving his supporters his viewpoints.

Tweets can make law by executive order.

Executive orders are policy directions made to implement a law made by congress, they are not themselves law.

Every time trump tweets, the media and the entire world has a chance to respond. It's more transparent and open than him saying and acting in private.

When trump tweets, anyone can read it. Not just his supporters. Anyone who "follows" him will get a notice about his post, but anyone is able to read it.

He doesn't abridge the freedom of speech by speaking. He could do so by stopping others from speaking.

The way that he might actually violate that 1st amendment would be if he used Twitter's block a person feature on the official @potus account to block a citizen from replying or tweeting at him some grievance.

The act of blocking that person from tweeting at @potus might violate the airing of grievances clause.

He does not want opposing viewpoints and does his best to prevent them.

By your assumptions, Russia would have "free speech".

I guess we just disagree.

We agree entirely that trumps use of Twitter is damaging but it's not at all a violation of the constitution, as I have explained.

You and I might not be happy with trump, but we cant be ignorant t of the facts or reality because we feel bad about it. We need clear understanding of facts so we can spend our energy defeating this dangerous man and his outrageous views and messaging.

. . . prescribes a limitation on governmental action so as to "secure" -- to employ the word used in the Declaration of Independence -- a preexisting right held by the people (e.g., freedom of speech). Since Trump's failure to take comment on his Twitter account, or to respond to those comments, does not in any way infringe on or abridge a person's freedom to comment itself, there is no First Amendment issue.

That's pretty much the long and the short of it, as far as I'm concerned.