Gay Patriot Header Image

What is it with snowflakes and their hyphenated names?

Per her own LinkedIn profile, Rebecca Buckwalter-Poza is a “Leading progressive legal analyst, advocate, and author.”

She says that President Trump blocked her on Twitter – from his personal @realDonaldTrump account (rather than from @POTUS). Her article is called, Trump Blocked Me on Twitter and It’s Costing Me My Career. If you’ve been around kids, you can hear the “whine” in that title.

She’s devastated that, on Twitter at least, she can no longer live off of Trump:

Most of my writing is about the Trump administration…On Twitter, the bulk of my recent follower growth and new relationships with others in the politico-legal sphere have come out of responding quickly when the president tweets…

So when President Donald Trump blocked me in June…he harmed me professionally.

Her language bespeaks her sense of entitlement and self-importance; she makes it sound almost like she discovered Twitter:

Twitter initially became a haven for me when I recognized it as a great equalizer in the media world…

when I make a point pithily and it’s liked and retweeted by thousands of people, some of the people who agree with my point or like the way I make it follow me…

Anyway, she’s suing:

Every day I’m blocked I lose opportunities to advance my views…

I can’t fire off a 140-word tweet… [thus] constraining my career…

When it comes to Twitter, I thought my fights would be confined to threads and direct messages. It never occurred to me that I’d end up in court.

I like the victim-y passive voice. Remember, she’s suing. It’s her choice. No, she didn’t just “end up in court” from, say, getting sued.

But here’s the thing. Does a public figure have an obligation to allow anyone to make a living off of his public activities? For example, if Kanye West denies a particular reporter a photograph on a public street, can the reporter sue?



  1. Someone want to tell this loser that she can see his tweets if she logs out of Twitter? Oh, but she can’t respond to them directly? Awww…she can do it indirectly, like plenty of others, namely conservative Tweeters who have been blocked by liberals, have done.

    All you need is a second web browser. Or a cell phone along with a PC.

    But no, you have no imagination (well, except for your imagined career). I mean, seriously, who makes money off of Twitter?

    Comment by Craig Smith — July 14, 2017 @ 6:23 pm - July 14, 2017

  2. She says it’s about the professional contacts and networking. (Eyeroll)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 14, 2017 @ 6:48 pm - July 14, 2017

  3. A legal analyst knows the lawsuit has no merit. Not sure if there are exceptions but you can’t force people not to ignore you, actually she’s harassing Trump. Her actions define the basic concept of harassment.

    She wants Trump’s personal account to be able to receive her sent tweets. But she’s blocked. She’s not blocked from seeing Trump’s tweets in any way, except from the blocked account. People have multiple accounts from which to view anything they please & Trump’s @realDonaldTrump tweets are published daily in some form or another.

    It’s like the press, which often thinks it has a right to be paid attention to or that people are obligated to respond. They’re not obligated or respond or acknowledge the press.

    She’s grandstanding, of course.

    Comment by Hanover — July 14, 2017 @ 7:10 pm - July 14, 2017

  4. Reality overcomes fiction once again.

    You would find it over the top in a Simpsons episode.

    Comment by Cyril — July 14, 2017 @ 7:31 pm - July 14, 2017

  5. How does this differ from paparazzi suing a target because she closes the curtains on her bathroom window?

    I suppose a proctologist has the right to climb up someone’s posterior if he names that someone to be a potential client.

    A “Tweet” is limited to 140 characters. This woman wails: I can’t fire off a 140-word tweet… [thus] constraining my career…

    So much confusion about the law and Tweets …. I wonder if her coconut is a quart low on juice.

    Comment by Heliotrope — July 14, 2017 @ 8:09 pm - July 14, 2017

  6. First Amendment

    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.

    First Amendment — Leftist Version

    The WorldWide Web and its websites shall make no feature preventing the harassment of non-leftist, or impeding the easy exercise thereof; or giving them the freedom of blocking us or of our connections; or the opportunity for non-leftists disagreeably to ignore us, or to make a laughing stock of ourselves as we sue them for a compensation of our hurt feelings.

    Comment by Cyril — July 14, 2017 @ 9:56 pm - July 14, 2017

  7. This is what occurs when Baby Boomers coddle their children. They have a superior sense of themselves and are often narcissistic.

    Comment by davinci38 — July 15, 2017 @ 12:09 am - July 15, 2017

  8. I’m being a little snarky, but:
    Of course,….they need to have their [ hyphens ], because you can’t spell, “namby-pambies”, without a hyphen!

    [Please note: “namby-pamby” might be a slang word, that is not from your era. Please look it up, if it is a word that you’re not familiar with].

    Comment by TR — July 15, 2017 @ 1:38 am - July 15, 2017

  9. The whole point of social media is to keep up with who you want, follow who you want, and not follow who you don’t. No one has to allow you to follow them and you don’t have to follow anyone. Everyone has the right to choose, no matter who they are. This woman is an idiot. No one has to allow her to follow them if they don’t want, no matter who they are. I deny people all the time on Facebook because I don’t know them. I block ads all the time because I don’t care about the product. I am keeping them from getting an income then, aren’t I? So, can those companies sue me for hiding their ads because I am not allowing them to be seen? I have written to celebrities on social media and never received a reply…can I sue them for not responding to me? She isn’t paying for twitter, so how is this hurting her? Is she paid by Twitter? Is she paid for how many tweets she writes? Or how many times she is re-tweeted? Is his blocking her keeping others from supporting her on Twitter? The point is, anyone should be able to follow or not follow or block or not block whomever they want. Just because you are a reporter or whatever does not mean I or anyone else owes you anything.

    Comment by TAD — July 15, 2017 @ 1:48 am - July 15, 2017

  10. Twitter in a nutshell:

    (42 seconds)

    Comment by Roy Lofquist — July 15, 2017 @ 7:53 am - July 15, 2017

  11. #10…LOL…totally accurate, based upon what this woman is saying

    Comment by TAD — July 15, 2017 @ 1:12 pm - July 15, 2017

  12. #10 also, my favorite reply was…”He has gender fluid in his pants” LOLOLOLOLOL…ewwwww

    Comment by TAD — July 15, 2017 @ 1:50 pm - July 15, 2017

  13. President Trump has the right to regulate who he associates with, including deciding under what circumstances warrant blocking an individual’s access.

    Nobody should be prohibited from blocking access from his social media account, even the POTUS.

    That would be like prohibiting the president from controlling who’s invited to his home.

    Comment by Samuel — July 15, 2017 @ 2:19 pm - July 15, 2017

  14. [Please note: “namby-pamby” might be a slang word, that is not from your era. Please look it up, if it is a word that you’re not familiar with].

    I don’t need to look it up, you little whippersnapper. Now get off my lawn and let me enjoy my egg cream in peace.

    Comment by RSG — July 15, 2017 @ 6:58 pm - July 15, 2017

  15. I mean, seriously, who makes money off of Twitter?

    You mean other than @jack?

    Comment by RSG — July 15, 2017 @ 7:00 pm - July 15, 2017

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.