President Trump Can't Block People On Twitter, Court Rules (knightcolumbia.org) 396
Reader drunken_boxer777 writes: US District Judge Buchwald issued a 75-page ruling today clearly articulating why Donald Trump cannot block Twitter users, as it violates their First Amendment rights.
"Turning to the merits of plaintiffs' First Amendment claim, we hold that the speech in which they seek to engage is protected by the First Amendment and that the President and Scavino exert governmental control over certain aspects of the @realDonaldTrump account, including the interactive space of the tweets sent from the account. That interactive space is susceptible to analysis under the Supreme Court's forum doctrines, and is properly characterized as a designated public forum. The viewpoint-based exclusion of the individual plaintiffs from that designated public forum is proscribed by the First Amendment and cannot be justified by the President's personal First Amendment interests." Further reading: Bloomberg.
"Turning to the merits of plaintiffs' First Amendment claim, we hold that the speech in which they seek to engage is protected by the First Amendment and that the President and Scavino exert governmental control over certain aspects of the @realDonaldTrump account, including the interactive space of the tweets sent from the account. That interactive space is susceptible to analysis under the Supreme Court's forum doctrines, and is properly characterized as a designated public forum. The viewpoint-based exclusion of the individual plaintiffs from that designated public forum is proscribed by the First Amendment and cannot be justified by the President's personal First Amendment interests." Further reading: Bloomberg.
time to start my own suit (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
against my state politicians for blocking my tweets
And you should win.
An elected politician shouldn't be able to block you from replying to them, they're allowed to mute, but not block.
This question would have come up previously but I'm guessing that politicians historically only blocked trolls so no one really looked into it.
But Trump has been blocking legitimate critics, making the question much more important.
Re: time to start my own suit (Score:2)
Re:time to start my own suit (Score:4, Insightful)
Democrats will be allowed to block because hate speech. Which will be defined in any way that favors Democrat or SJW ideology.
And republicans will still be allowed to block offensive hate speech as well. They are saying he can't simply block people who are off message but are within protected free speech. If you get on there just to abuse him or try to propagate some sort of hateful message, he can still block you.
I only wish that this ruling could be used in general, for all people. Emperor Tangerine is maybe an important special case, but there are plenty of people out there with extreme views on things who are able to silence their opposition. Twitter does seem to exercise arbitrary control of its moderation, they either need to be a platform where free (protected) speech is always tolerated, or they need to go quietly into the night.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"facts" (Score:3, Informative)
is a public forum and cannot ban Trump.
Applies to TV networks when they broadcast Presidential speeches as well. Really, do you not get that the variable here is that he's an elected official and that it has nothing to do with Twitter as a company?
Sorry my 1st amendment rights are an inconvenience to the President. But he knew what the job was going in so I don't feel bad about it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Only applies to networks because of limited broadcast bandwidth.
That is not thencase with twitter.
Re:"facts" (Score:5, Funny)
>he knew what the job was going in
I'm not so sure.
Re:"facts" (Score:5, Interesting)
You shouldn't be. Trump actually didn't intend or expect to win the presidency, he intended his candidacy to be only a publicity stunt to promote a news network he planned to launch:
http://www.newsweek.com/mike-p... [newsweek.com]
Re: (Score:2)
But he knew what the job was going in
I wouldn't be so sure about that part.
Re:time to start my own suit (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's some reading comprehension to make everything better.
The judge found that Trump & staff, all agents of the government, cannot censor individuals in the public forum of Twitter by blocking them from Trump's Twitter account.
It said nothing about what Twitter can or can't do. As a private company, they can still kick Trump off if they so choose. The First Amendment limits government's ability to restrict speech. It has nothing to do with what private companies or individuals can restrict.
I'd lay off the cookies if I were you. The beetus might be affecting your eyesight.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder what happens if Twitter were to block* users from the Trump account?
*by block I mean take the same action as Trump could. I don't know too well how twitter works.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not really.
If you invite Trump to your garden party, and he actually just asks as your average guest, making small talk with the other guests and so on, then he's just a guest.
If you invite Trump to your garden party and he starts using it as a political soapbox, then TRUMP doesn't get to kick other guests out of your garden party when they start booing at the buzzkill.
If you invite Trump to your garden party and he starts using it as a political soapbox, then YOU still get to kick the people out who go fro
Re:time to start my own suit (Score:5, Insightful)
Under the current court ruling and general meaning of the First Amendment, nothing happens to Twitter. They have a constitutionally protected right to do that.
Twitter can block any follower of Trump or even Trump himself. When Twitter does it, they're exercising their free speech rights which are protected by the First Amendment. When Trump takes the same action, it's government censorship which the First Amendment generally forbids as it's the government denying someone their First Amendment rights.
Twitter is a private company. Trump is an agent of the government. The First Amendment has a different meaning for both of them because of their roles.
Re:time to start my own suit (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
For example, if the City Council decides to rent a big restaurant to hold a public meeting, the meeting is still a public meeting and the City Councilors are under all the normal public meeting laws.
And the restaurant is still a restaurant, they didn't turn into government property.
There is literally no conflict of rights or responsibility there, simply overlapping use of land.
"Public forum" applies to the situation the City Council creates, it doesn't stick in rem to the land.
Re: (Score:3)
I am not so sure. Twitter in this case is either a public forum or not. It could even be argued that they are similar to a government contractor providing the service since as one of the most prominent twitter users, they profit quite a bit from Trump's use of their platform. I think the judge in this case has a decent high level theoretical argument but is completely wrong. I can't see this not being reversed. When you begin to follow each logical implication of this ruling it just gets messier and messier. I'm not sure what the answer should be but... this can't be it.
Even if they were a contractor they'd only be bound by the first amendment to the extent that they were acting on Trump's behalf, ie, when they carry out the action of the block when trump clicks "block" they're bound by the first amendment.
But when they're acting on Twitter's behalf they're still in the clear.
I don't see any significant issue with this ruling and reading the difference between blocking and muting the result seems pretty obvious and intuitive.
Re: (Score:3)
That is not a curveball at all.
Even if he flips a coin, he can't do it. If he hires a foreigner to press the button, he still can't do it.
There is no gray area there. There is also nothing about companies being "in bed" with the government.
It is literally exactly the same as if the City Council rents their meeting room instead of buying a "City Hall" building. Happens in small towns every week.
Re:time to start my own suit (Score:4, Insightful)
It is a public forum because it's the president who has decided that Twitter is his official means of communicating with the public. The decision would seem to apply to any politician using Twitter in a similar way, Republican, Democrat, or Other.
Re: time to start my own suit (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, it's fucking brilliant. Sauce for the goose. In declaring Trump's part of twitter a government forum in order to ban Trump blocking people they have also created the argument for preventing Twitter itself from doing the same.
As soon as someone's speech is declared "political", it becomes a bit of a sacred cow. Rules suddenly change (get overridden) to favor protecting the speech in question.
This same rule would apply to any politician on any service.
Not that the S/N ratio on those are great to beg
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not so sure. Twitter treats accounts of public officials and government agencies different from other accounts.
Also, saying what a Twitter user can do is different than saying what Twitter can do.
Re: (Score:3)
It only applies if they use Twitter in some kind of official government capacity. Trump's tweets are clearly part of his presidency and are archived on the official record.
Random people talking about politics are unaffected.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes it is.
“Public forum” is a well-defined LEGAL term. That Twitter verifies sources with blue checks reinforces that fact. That @realDonaldTrump is now considered an official government entity Twitter can’t just shut it down.
It also has ramifications for other Twitter policies. Banning individuals for wrong think is now an attack on thei first amendment rights to interact with the President.
Re: (Score:3)
This exactly. People pointed this out before the suit was filed, when it was first reported that Trump was banning people.
What was unprecedented was using this company's service as a place to make official statements, when the service allows for unlimited replies from anybody, and puts the person posting in control of who to filter out of the conversation. Well, it turns out that if it is the Government running the account, they won't be allowed to use that filtering feature to remove people based on the co
Re: (Score:2)
Not just the President. Any elected US official.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Government officials are not. Trump the private person on his personal, pre-presidency account may be another issue.
Re: time to start my own suit (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure that the US Constitution or SCOTUS case law really distinguishes between a public figure's personal life and his public life. Would be interesting to find some proof one way or the other.
Re:time to start my own suit (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think this isn't really about 'personal life' vs 'public life'.
Its not public life vs private life ... its simply that he's designated that twitter account an *official* communications channel, by using it as such, and even referring to it as such... now it IS that.
And now its held to the same rules and regulations that all official communications channels with the government are held to.
Re: (Score:2)
My reply was in response to the GP "Expect any decent politician to have a pair of accounts, one that is a ''Senator from Illinois'' account, and one that is a personal account,". And not specifically about the situation with President Trump.
Assuming if a decent politician maintains two accounts, is that second personal account subject to the same requirements as a public one? If you don't know, that's fine, but don't pretend I asked a completely different question.
Re: (Score:3)
So... (Score:3)
...will he go on a twitter rant about this ruling about twitter rants about his twitter rants?
And will it acquire its own twitter rants?
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Now every politician, left, right, up, down, cannot block twitter trolls. Go get 'em, 4chan.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Now every politician, left, right, up, down, cannot block twitter trolls. Go get 'em, 4chan.
Except the Judge explicitly said that muting was allowed.
The key differences with blocking is the blocked party can't see the POTUS account or, more importantly, can't @reply to the account. The @reply is the critical bit since it's effectively blocking the person from participating in the conversation, and considering @replies to Trump's Tweets regularly make the news it's actually a pretty significant 1st amendment issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm afraid that the constitution is specific to US citizens. It outlines specifically powers they are granting the government specifying that they retain all others. It has nothing to do with non-citizens.
I'm afraid that you are very wrong [forbes.com]. IANAL, but clearly you aren't either.
It's not about viewing his posts (Score:3, Informative)
Critical part:
It's not about viewing his posts - it's the ability to reply, and join in the cesspool that follows each of his tweets, that's emphasized in the judgement.
75 Pages? (Score:2)
It took 75 pages to say that?
The judge didn't issue an injunction (Score:2)
Accordingly, though we conclude that injunctive relief may be
awarded in this case -- at minimum, against Scavino -- we decline
to do so at this time because declaratory relief is likely to
achieve the same purpose. The Supreme Court has directed that we
should “assume it is substantially likely that the President and
other executive . . . officials would abide by an authoritative
interpretation of [a] . . . constitutional provision,” Franklin,
505 U.S. at 803 (plurality opinion); see Utah v. Evans, 53
Re: (Score:2)
The judge doesn't need to issue an injunction and it's noted why in what you quoted. But woe be unto Trump if he doesn't follow this court order, that would give the court the ability to hold him in contempt.
Re: (Score:2)
The judge doesn't need to issue an injunction and it's noted why in what you quoted. But woe be unto Trump if he doesn't follow this court order, that would give the court the ability to hold him in contempt.
You misunderstand. She didn't issue a court order.
The ruling would apply to ALL government officials (Score:4, Insightful)
The ruling would apply to all government officials, including judges...
And not only to their Twitter-accounts, but to their offices — and courtrooms too.
Re: (Score:2)
I do love armchair lawyering.
So tell me, by what legal theory do you make your claim?
Re: (Score:3)
Huh, the ruling explicitly says that it doesn't make a distinction between Trump and other government officials. Now, he cannot block people because he's using his account for official business, so anyone who correctly maintains two accounts will be fine.
Look on the bright side (Score:2)
At least now some of the trump-warriors (on both sides) will focus spreading their vitriol more on Twitter and less on here. I for one approve!
It's not government owned or controlled (Score:2)
From the Washington Post:
"Noah Feldman, a Harvard law professor, said he thinks the case was wrongly decided and expects it to be reversed. For a public forum to exist, the government has to own or control it, he said, but in this case, Twitter also controls Trump's account.
Twitter has long been dogged by questions about how far its users’ right to speech may extend. In the past, its own executives have described the company as being “the free speech wing of the free speech party,” holding
I fail to see how blocking someone... (Score:3)
...violates their freedom of expression.
Like all other forms of freedom of expression, people also have the right NOT to listen.
Goes also to "freedom of association".
IBOR (Score:4, Insightful)
The court has ruled Twitter a public forum, and used that basis to protect free speech even though it's owned and operated by a private entity.
This means that, just like businesses, parks, universities, etc. that are generally open to the public, Twitter, Facebook, etc. must not discriminate, must respect free speech rights, etc.
This is a win for the people trying to make that "Internet Bill of Rights" happen.
Re: Interesting implications (Score:2)
Plenty of people do not have access to TV or radio or newspaper and lack the funds to travel to Washington DC as well.
I think the point made is that this Twitter account is an official government account (either established by law or by its use) and thus US citizens cannot be blocked from using it, if a particular person is not a US resident they could technically still be blocked from it.
Re: Interesting implications (Score:5, Insightful)
US citizens cannot be blocked from using it
The 1st Amendment says NOTHING about "citizenship".
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.
Where in the phrase "no law" does it say that laws abridging the freedom of speech of non-citizens are permitted?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Seems to assume all Twitter users are U.S. citizens.
That not allowing someone to talk to you is a violation of their right to free speech.
And that digital forums are 'public', despite plenty of homeless and impoverished citizens lacking access to them.
AC here,
The right to free speech does not guarantee your ability to project your voice into any forum you want unimpeded. It only guarantees that the Government will not do the impeding. Uncle Sam can't shut you down very easily, but Twitter, or your local news channel, or YouTube, is not required to give you a microphone to say whatever you want.
Re:Interesting implications (Score:5, Insightful)
That's true, but one issue is that Trump has used his personal account as though it were an official forum, and it's the officials who take the action to block someone - not Twitter. The other issue in the judgement is that the downstream responses to Trump's comments are protected political discussion, and denying someone the ability to participate in that is harmful.
Put together, a government official is using his office to stop the free discussion of politics, and the court has determined that's not right. It's a very limited scope to the argument, and I congratulate the lawyers who made it.
Re: (Score:2)
The other issue in the judgement is that the downstream responses to Trump's comments are protected political discussion, and denying someone the ability to participate in that is harmful.
Twitter, Facebook, et al regularly block users, label outgoing links "dangerous", etc. for their own political purposes.
Apparently only anti-Trump discussion is "protected" ...
Medium vs. the message? (Score:3)
Does this mean that politicians can no longer use traditional one-way media? Are they forbidden from using TV or radio broadcasts where listeners aren't given an opportunity to reply on the same platform?
This seems like a ruling that depends on the specific technology being looked at, rather than any universal judicial principles.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
His only defense was to consider it his personal account. If he stated it was an official presidential one, he loses that.
Some, not all (Score:2)
It doesn't assume anything. It notices that the plaintiffs are in fact US citizens, who have been blocked based in the viewpoints they posted. The ruling is that the President's office can't block based on viewpoint. They could perhaps set it to US-only, which would send the Democrats into a tizzy.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see that, what page is that? (Score:2)
We should clarify one thing. I said "US only", you said "citizens". Those are two very different things.
If you are saying I'm wrong, that the government can't keep out people from other countries, what page number do you see that on? I don't see it.
Under your theory, that the US government can't block people from other countries trying to come to a public place, all of our border security would be unconstitutional. The US would not have sovereignty.
Re: (Score:2)
We should clarify one thing. I said "US only", you said "citizens". Those are two very different things.
You said both: "It notices that the plaintiffs are in fact US citizens, who have been blocked based in the viewpoints they posted. The ruling is that the President's office can't block based on viewpoint. They could perhaps set it to US-only, which would send the Democrats into a tizzy."
If you are saying I'm wrong, that the government can't keep out people from other countries, what page number do you see that on? I don't see it. Under your theory, that the US government can't block people from other countries trying to come to a public place, all of our border security would be unconstitutional. The US would not have sovereignty
What? That's both a false equivalence and terrible logic. What it says is that if you have a public meeting in your town, your mayor cannot block the public from attending regardless of their viewpoints OR their citizenship.
Re: (Score:2)
You are aware that some people who legally reside in the US are not US citizens right? That is true of other countries. For example some of my friends who have their visas and are married to citizens and waiting to go through the process of naturalization.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Freedom of speech has nothing to do with citizenship, government sponsored things (e.g. DT's twitter) not allowing you to talk is one of the basic examples of violating free speech, the four seasons is a place of public accommodation despite requiring a certain income level, and you can access Twitter from a library.
Re: (Score:3)
Seems to assume all Twitter users are U.S. citizens. That not allowing someone to talk to you is a violation of their right to free speech.
That's not remotely what the ruling says. Twitter can be considered a public forum and that public officials cannot block the public from a public forum regardless of their citizenship. If a mayor has a public town meeting, they can't block non US citizens from it who might be visiting or residing in the town.
And that digital forums are 'public', despite plenty of homeless and impoverished citizens lacking access to them
Have ever heard of a public library? Mine allows homeless and poor people in them to use the computers.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not remotely what the ruling says. Twitter can be considered a public forum and that public officials cannot block the public from a public forum regardless of their citizenship. If a mayor has a public town meeting, they can't block non US citizens from it who might be visiting or residing in the town.
But you can be ejected from the public forum for bad behavior
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which is a completely different matter. However in the case of the plaintiffs, they posted tweets critical of the President's policies.
There is a difference between "critical" and "offensive and harrassing".
The latter would get you ejected from any public forum. I wonder if the plaintiffs submitted to the court the tweets that got them blocked?
I don't think this ruling will stand on appeal.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a difference between "critical" and "offensive and harrassing". The latter would get you ejected from any public forum. I wonder if the plaintiffs submitted to the court the tweets that got them blocked?
If you read the ruling, the President's legal team did not even attempt to argue that the posts were harassing. Rather they tried to frame his account as private and therefore not subject to any jurisdiction.
This case requires us to consider whether a public official may, consistent with the First Amendment, “block” a person from his Twitter account in response to the political views that person has expressed, and whether the analysis differs because that public official is the President of the United States. The answer to both questions is no.
I don't think this ruling will stand on appeal.
Please explain why you would think this would be overturned on appeal. This case was decided in Summary Judgement which means the court did not feel that a trial was even necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a difference between "critical" and "offensive and harrassing". The latter would get you ejected from any public forum. I wonder if the plaintiffs submitted to the court the tweets that got them blocked?
If you read the ruling, the President's legal team did not even attempt to argue that the posts were harassing. Rather they tried to frame his account as private and therefore not subject to any jurisdiction.
This case requires us to consider whether a public official
may, consistent with the First Amendment, “block” a person from
his Twitter account in response to the political views that person
has expressed, and whether the analysis differs because that public
official is the President of the United States. The answer to
both questions is no.
I don't think this ruling will stand on appeal.
Please explain why you would think this would be overturned on appeal. This case was decided in Summary Judgement which means the court did not feel that a trial was even necessary.
She's one judge and she has been overturned plenty of times. Judges aren't infallible even if they think they are speaking Ex Cathedra.
I posted the rational separately. Twitter is not government owned or operated. If this ruling stands Twitter as a private company would be unable to enforce it's own policies on blocking users because such blocking would prevent the user from participating in the public forum.
Re: (Score:2)
She's one judge and she has been overturned plenty of times. Judges aren't infallible even if they think they are speaking Ex Cathedra.
That's a false equivalence isn't it? Judges get overturned on appeal; however, do you know how often a judge is overturned on Summary Judgement much less this particular judge? Because of the nature and rules of Summary Judgement, I would argue that they are less often overturned because they are often
Twitter is not government owned or operated. If this ruling stands Twitter as a private company would be unable to enforce it's own policies on blocking users because such blocking would prevent the user from participating in the public forum.
The part you are not understanding is this is not a ruling against Twitter. This is a ruling against the President who is a public official. Twitter did not block the users; the President did. The rules of pub
Re: (Score:2)
That's the thing with appeals, you don't get a chance to provide new arguments that you forgot to bring up during the original trial. In this case they didn't even have good enough arguments to make it to the first trial.
Re:Interesting implications (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems to assume all Twitter users are U.S. citizens.
That not allowing someone to talk to you is a violation of their right to free speech.
And that digital forums are 'public', despite plenty of homeless and impoverished citizens lacking access to them.
No, it assumes that the onus of proving that they aren't US citizens is on the President, not the citizen.
By using Twitter, President Trump is effectively creating a forum where US citizens can interact directly with the him as president. He cannot legally choose to selectively block citizens from that.
If he doesn't like that, he is free to not use Twitter. Honestly, that might be better for everyone in this situation.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't afford to fly to NYC's Central Park, so is that no longer a public space because I cannot get there? Get out of here.
I can't afford to get out of here, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:2)
Seems to assume all Twitter users are U.S. citizens.
Citizens aren't the only people the Constitution applies to. Also, I'm willing to bet the 75-page ruling (which you probably didn't read, and neither did I) is more nuanced than that.
That not allowing someone to talk to you is a violation of their right to free speech.
Replies to tweets are viewable by anyone, and anyone can reply to your reply, so you aren't just 'talking' to Trump. If this was about PMs, then maybe, but it's not.
And that digital forums are 'public', despite plenty of homeless and impoverished citizens lacking access to them.
I don't know why this would matter. By that definition pretty much nothing would be a public forum... e.g. any official written statement of any politician wouldn't
Re: (Score:2)
Seems to assume all Twitter users are U.S. citizens.
Well first, this case was brought by citizens (as far as I know). The way court cases work is they usually don't decide on a completely broad and all-encompassing question. I haven't read the whole decision yet, but it probably doesn't universally bar Trump from blocking anyone under any circumstances. It probably specifies that Trump can't block Twitter users from his feed in the particular way that he blocked those people.
However, it's worth noting that the Bill of Rights does not guarantee rights to
Re: hmm... (Score:3)
No, but they cannot order the post office not to deliver your messages. Whether or not someone reads or listens to your message, you still have the right to your soap box.
Re: (Score:3)
> Holy shit slashdot is full of idiots.
Your self awareness is remarkable.
Re: The balance of power is shifting uncomfortably (Score:5, Insightful)
The derp is strong with this one.
Trump could be using the potus twitter for official work, and then he'd be free to block all he wants on his private.
But he's conducting potus business, including announcing policy and government action, on the account.
Blocking prevents users from seeing official policy changes.
Thus 1st amendment - right to petition the government- issue. You can't petition the government if you can't see the announcement.
Re: The balance of power is shifting uncomfortably (Score:5, Insightful)
Blocking selectively prevents people from replying to what he posts, which he permits so long as the replies are sufficiently approving. Blocking selectively prevents people from retweeting his posts, which he permits so long as he approves of those doing the retweeting.
It's not merely a matter of (easily) seeing what he posts. So long as he posts official business as the officeholder and permits public response to those posts, he does not get to block members of the public merely because they criticize or disagree with what was posted.
Terms of Service Exemption (Score:3, Interesting)
If that were true, Trump's twitter account would already be shut down. He has violated the terms of service many times (such as linking to hate groups), but he has an exemption. [businessinsider.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yes his twitter account has OP trolling powers because he sometimes uses it as an outlet for official pronouncements. It is only fitting that the public be able to respond, whether or not he agrees to the expressed opinions is irrelevant.
Re:The balance of power is shifting uncomfortably. (Score:5, Insightful)
So if you're the leader of the United States, you're not allowed to use privacy features on a privately-owned social media platform.
Not on your official public account. If Trump has a private account that is allowed; however, the judges specifically discounted the idea that it was Trump's private account.
But that social media platform can block, hellban, censor and terminate the accounts of anyone, including the President, over arbitrarily decided, biased terms of service.
The court can only rule what the President as a public official can do; they were not deciding what private citizens and companies can do which has always been the case.
The First Amendment applies here. (Score:3)
"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."
Donald Trump has maintained that his Twitter account is an official outlet, so to block accounts would violate the right to petition. He can't have it both ways: it's either unofficial, or it's subject to Constitutional requirements.
The
Re: (Score:2)
Donald Trump has maintained that his Twitter account is an official outlet, so to block accounts would violate the right to petition.
So, let's say I'm the mayor of a city. I get a phone installed in my office with an unpublished number that I use to make outgoing official calls. According to this argument, if someone starts distributing my unlisted number and thousands of people start calling that phone, so many that I cannot use it for anything, I can't tell the telephone company to block all incoming calls because I would be violating all of those people's right to "redress" or "petition", using that phone line? Because I use the phone
Re:The First Amendment applies here. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
https://xkcd.com/898/ [xkcd.com]
Re:Seems like an odd ruling to me. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
This ruling seems to require that the recipient listen/read (deal with)
Not at all. Listening and reading have nothing to do with preventing speaking or typing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, this is saying that a government official can't allow some citizens to comment but block others - especially if the reason behind the blocking is because of their political views.
To use your example, if I go walking in a park and see a politician talking to some citizens, he can't refuse to talk to me because he knows that my views run counter to his. If he's talking to people in the park, he can't make a rule that "Only people with political views X, Y, or Z can talk to me" when he is representing peop
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Seems like an odd ruling to me. (Score:5, Informative)
To me the first amendment gives individuals the right to say things in public. This ruling seems to require that the recipient listen/read (deal with) what is being said.
Exactly the opposite. Muting (not listening to) IS allowed, blocking (preventing replies) is banned.
Re: (Score:2)
So can Twitter itself suspend accounts? Since that would be blocking them from reaching out to Trump?
Well, if the account follows @readDonaldTrump, and gets banned, they might have a case (assuming this ruling holds up).
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
The ruling was that Trump can't block because he's a government official. Anyone else is free to block without raising First Amendment concerns. Trump could also block if he used his Twitter account for personal updates and the @POTUS account for official updates. When he uses his @realDonaldTrump for government-related updates, though, he (as a member of the government, and a powerful one at that) can't pick and choose who gets to "talk" to him based on political views. When the government stops people from talking to them based on opposing political views, that's the very definition of First Amendment violations.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Since the White House claims that the President's tweets are his official statements, his twitter feed becomes a government-managed forum. As such, the comments cannot be restricted based on the content of the commenters. Think about this like going to your local town council meeting and being told you can't speak because you disagree with some members of the council.
Re: (Score:2)
Because Trump announces government positions on Twitter. It wouldn't be a first amendment issue if he just tweeted at the real housewives.