Slashdot Asks: Is Trump's Blocking of Some Twitter Users Unconstitutional? (usatoday.com)

An anonymous reader shares an article: Some Twitter users say President Trump should not be able to block them on the social network. The president makes unprecedented use of Twitter, having posted more than 24,000 times on his @realDonaldTrump account to 31.7 million followers. His tweets about domestic and foreign policy -- and media coverage of him and his administration -- has transformed Twitter into a public forum with free speech protections. That's the opinion of two Twitter users, who have the backing of the Knight First Amendment Institute. They are sending a letter today to the White House asking Trump to unblock them on his @realDonaldTrump Twitter account. Both users say they were blocked recently after tweeting messages critical of the President. Holly O'Reilly (@AynRandPaulRyan), whose Twitter account identifies her as a March for Truth organizer, said she was blocked on May 23 after posting a GIF of Pope Francis looking and frowning at Trump captioned "this is pretty much how the whole world sees you." In the letter to Trump and the White House, the Knight First Amendment Institute's attorneys argue that Trump's Twitter account "operates as a 'designated public forum' for First Amendment purposes, and accordingly the viewpoint-based blocking of our clients is unconstitutional." In some other news, Press Secretary Sean Spicer said today "@realDonaldTrump's tweets are official White House statements."

Comments

1st Amendment

[amiga3D]

I think this is a clear issue that transcends party lines. He's using the forum to communicate directly to the people and they have a right to participate. If they become abusive he can appeal to Twitter to suspend them.

Re:1st Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

1st Amendment is free speech, it does not mean you have a right to send your opinion to a specific person (imagine how spammers would exploit that, if it where).

Re:1st Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

First Amendment reads:

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.

He's not abridging your freedom of speech, assembly, or even preventing you from petitioning the government. How is this a first amendment issue, at all? He's not Congress, and he's made no law - so right there, he's in the clear.

This is simply not a constitutional issue. The President doesn't have to listen to every crackpot who wants to shout at him - in fact, given the sheer number of crackpots in the world, and the incredible value of the President's time, I'd rather not set the precedent that the President "must read" every tweet directed at him by everybody who wants to say something.

Re:1st Amendment

[Carewolf]

1st Amendment is free speech, it does not mean you have a right to send your opinion to a specific person (imagine how spammers would exploit that, if it where).

Yes, but if this is an official channel, the question is: Does the government have the right to refuse input on issues from specific people? If FCC had decided a group of people were not welcome to comment due to them disagreeing with FCC's position, would that be legal.

The POTUS twitter account would be the exact same situation. If it is an official channel, they may not have the right not to listen to people abitrarily.

Yes, He Can Do That

[ewhac]

The President is under no obligation to listen to you. Ignoring constituents is rather poor form, but it's not illegal or unconstitutional, any more than it is illegal or unconstitutional for current or past Presidents to ignore emails, phone calls, or written correspondence.

Re:Yes, He Can Do That

[Fire_Wraith]

It's an interesting question, really.

I think we can agree that the President using the power of the government to enjoin/prevent someone from being able to post on Twitter, at all, would violate the first amendment, first off. I think it's also fair to say that the President (or his staff) are under no obligation to read what any given person wrote to them on Twitter. But that said, this is something that falls between the two, because it's also not just a matter of not seeing you - it's a matter of preventing you from seeing what he's posted. He could easily mute people, rather than block them, for instance.

Now, that latter part may not be a first amendment violation specifically, but it does possibly fall under other legal provisions about transparency laws, since despite it being his personal account, he's clearly using it for official business. Ah well - in the end, it's just more business for the lawyers. :)

Re:Yes, He Can Do That

[s.petry]

It's an interesting question, really.

In your opinion perhaps, but a measurable percentage of people disagree with you. Do try to be less arrogant.

I think we can agree that the President using the power of the government to enjoin/prevent someone from being able to post on Twitter, at all, would violate the first amendment, first off.

Well, so much for being less arrogant because "NO", we can't agree. President Trump is not preventing anyone from getting or using a Twitter account. Nor is he blocking anyone from reading anything on Twitter including his posts. You don't even need a Twitter account to read his posts, you can do so anonymously. There is no punishment for reading his posts, no punishment for people posting disagreements or contrary positions, and not stopping people from the insensate ad hominem attacks against him.

There isn't an in-between as you claim, because your opening statement is simply fake.

The first amendment protects your right to speech, but also protects my rights to ignore you if I choose. The first amendment does not mean that anyone has to be forced to listen to you or agree with you.

Re:Yes, He Can Do That

[Dutch Gun]

It's an interesting question, really.

No, it really isn't.

This is the most absurd attempt at stirring up controversy yet, and that's saying something, what with Mr. Controversy Magnet as our POTUS. The phrase "tempest in a teacup" best describes the bizarre notion that being blocked from realDonaldTrump on Twitter is some sort of Constitutional crisis. Maybe it's a violation of someone's safe space, but not their First Amendment rights.

This isn't "fake news", but it sure seems like "manufactured news."

The left has gone full retard.

[Anonymous Coward]

The left will block people pre-emptively but block them and it's a damn constitutional crisis. Please run The Rock in 2020.

Among other things

[Rick Schumann]

He should have turned over his Twitter account to his Press Secretary when he took office and all Tweets should have been vetted and cleared before being sent. But of course that's just the smallest thing on a huge list of things he should or should not be doing, up to and including having run for president in the first place.

Re:No

[unixisc]

Fully agree w/ this. It would be one thing if they didn't want to be blocked from @POTUS, but even that is fine. But @RealDonaldTrump is the president's personal handle, and he can block anyone he likes.

Recap for all Left wing self-styled First Amendment 'experts': the first amendment only prevents the government from censoring free speech. It doesn't compel them to provide one w/ a listening board. Neither Trump, nor anyone, is obligated to allow people who they deem annoying to keep trolling them

Re:da fuq

[unixisc]

Yeah, ever since EditorDavid, Beau, Msmash et al got to the helm. Today's Slashdot is to /. what SGI was to Silicon Graphics

Re:I Would Say No

[vux984]

Freedom of Speech doesn't involve Freedom To Have People Listen To You.

But our right to communicate with our government is protected. If you send a letter to the whitehouse, you can't make the Twit read it, but don't you think it crosses a line for him to tell the post office refuse to even deliver it to him if its from you?

Plus Twitter become a forum of political discourse; (such as it is); and has been officially endorsed by the whitehouse as his official statements...

I do think he's unnecessarily muddying the waters by mixing his personal and official Twitter accounts

As you say, he's muddied the waters. I'd prefer to err on the side of freedom of speech and transparency in a case like this.

Horse shit

[s.petry]

Twitter is not the Government, and has nothing to do with the Government. President Trump did not make a requirement to petition Government following him on Twitter. Another fantasy (fake) issue won't make you or GP correct. You can petition Government all you want without Twitter, and I'll suggest that in 140 characters or less a Twitter petition is as "useful as a poopy flavored lollypop" (@tm Patches O'Hoolihan).

Claiming a violation of rights is occurring because "hypothetical" seems to be a common trend (see CNN, MSNBC, and other members of the trash we call MSM) yet is a failure of basic logic. if A therefor B is a propositional fallacy in the best case, or you are using a formal syllogistic fallacy. Using circular logic to continue to argue B is plain old insanity.

Just another example...

[argStyopa]

...of the sort of ceaseless whinging that is ALREADY getting Trump votes for 2020.

Seriously, when the Russia "investigation" determines that yes, some members of the administration did talk to Russians before the election (like Hilary's team did), but that no, there's no actual "there" there, the frothing, insensate masses of the Left will have to pause for at least a moment and realize they've given him 4 more years.