#BillSchmalfeldt Flunks ConLaw 101

This morning the Cabin Boy tweeted this—BS201308271441Z

Wrong! Thoroughly, totally, and utterly wrong!

Schmalfeldt has no First Amendment right to be on Twitter. No Twitter user does. The First Amendment secures our rights vis-à-vis the federal government and, by extension through the Fourteenth Amendment, the states. Twitter is a privately-owned enterprise. None of it’s users have any First Amendment right to be there. We use it at the sufferance of Twitter’s owners.

Bill Schmalfeldt, like the rest of us, has a First Amendment right to speak publicly within very broad limits. But Twitter has a right to tell him not to trespass on their site if they chose, and they have exercised that right from time to time by suspending some of his accounts.

8 thoughts on “#BillSchmalfeldt Flunks ConLaw 101


  1. BS also mischaracterizes the law concerning threats, which are not protected speech.
    One thought: while Twitter is a private actor, given the cases we are seeing where gay couples are suing photographers and bakers because those business owners do not want to provide services, I think at some point a group of people may sue Twitter and FB for something similar, but the ground for it will be discrimination based on religion. You cannot refuse to serve Muslims in a restaurant because they are Muslim, for example; therefore, you should not be able to refuse to serve Christians and Jews on Twitter and FB because of their faith, as long as their speech is not threatening.


    • As I’m sure our host and most of his readers are aware, FB blatantly discriminates in the application of its TOS in favor of radical Leftists, Anarchists and Islamists. I agree wholeheartedly that the eventual suit will come from some brave traditionalist. Best of luck to them and may they merit God’s blessings in such an endeavor. In the mean time, I will continue to support the small fight Messers Hoge and Walker are enduring for right, justice and good.


  2. It’s amazing how idiots have interpreted the 1st to mean they have a right to an audience, as well.

    (And many of the same group will demand all sorts of restrictions on religious liberty, never realizing which amendment forbids government from doing that.)


    • And we love those folks who, having expressed a stupid opinion (or otherwise embarrassed themselves in public), believe they are being harassed when others mock them for having done so.

      Boneheads. Weak minded dolts.


  3. Note the irony of BS whining about free speech, and then commanding, like Zeus, that no one shall mention his mother. I know someone who exhibits a lot of BS’s pathology, sans the cyberstalking, homoerotic obsession and anal rape fixation. If BS didn’t have his PD and his mother to get into a self righteous snit over, it would be over a bunion. Or a job. Or an Amazon review. He also doesn’t understand trolling – HE trolls people’s conversations and injects himself into them.

Leave a Reply