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

No

[Anonymous Coward]

Betteridge's Law of Headlines https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines

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:No

[dffuller]

Except that the White House just said that those are official statements.

Re:No

[tattood]

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.

That would be true, if he used his personal account for personal tweets. But he uses that account to tweet political statements as the President of the United States, so that makes it a political account.

Re:No

[Calydor]

From the bottom of the summary:

In some other news, Press Secretary Sean Spicer said today "@realDonaldTrump's tweets are official White House statements."

If the tweets on that account are official White House statements, then it's no longer his personal handle.

Re:No

[thegarbz]

But @RealDonaldTrump is the president's personal handle, and he can block anyone he likes.

To play the devils advocate, if this were the case then the POTUS should refrain from discussing any politics or policy on this twitter handle. It may be his personal account, but his posts are anything but personal.

Re:No

[Lisandro]

He is using his personal account to fire statements as the POTUS so that line is blurry... at the very least.

Re:No

[Ichijo]

the first amendment only prevents the government from censoring free speech. It doesn't compel them to provide one w/ a listening board.

That's true, but what's happening in this case is that the government is providing a listening board those who agree with them politically, not providing it to their ideological opponents, and not being completely honest and forthcoming about the censorship. Control of information and communication like this is one of Lifton's eight criteria for thought reform which is used judiciously in totalitarian countries to keep the populace under control.

trolling

I do not think it means what you think it means!

Re:No

[wisnoskij]

OK, and wince when does every and all citizens have a right to attend every and all press-release, speech, etc?

Re:No

[OhPlz]

From what I've seen, both accounts tend to tweet identical messages. I think they do it for those people that subscribe to one and not the other. I'm not against them blocking people, I'm not going to be let into any White House press conferences, right? OMG, they're blocking me.

Re:No

[jimtheowl]

FYI - I stop reading when the word Left or Right is used in a political sentence.

Re:No

[capntao]

proposed corollary: Betteridge's law of clickbait: For any headline that contains 'what happens next', what happens next will be underwhelmed disinterest.

Re:No

[PopeRatzo]

I'm not going to be let into any White House press conferences, right?

A reminder that this administration has also blocked certain members of the press from White House press conferences, and has given Alex Jones press credentials.

According to @POTUS himself, Twitter is how he communicates in an "unfiltered" way with Americans. If he starts blocking people, that's kind of the definition of filtered.

Re:No

[Quirkz]

That's funny, I left right when you said "political". :)

Re:No

[Attila Dimedici]

Does not matter. You do not have a First Amendment right to post on government forums, nor do you have a First Amendment right to receive public pronouncements from the government.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Since 1791 when the 1st amendment was ratified: "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*.

And the right to petition includes the ability to, "make a complaint to, or seek the assistance of, one's government, without fear of punishment or reprisals". Being blocked by the POTUS is reprisal for the complaints made earlier. Posting a picture of the Pope looking sternly at Trump isn't a complain? Go back to the first amendment and read the part about freedom of speech.

Re:No

[OhPlz]

Not every member of the press gets invited to the press conferences. Similar to Twitter, if you are in one of those press conferences and you abuse the privilege, you probably will be blocked from attending future press conferences. This isn't a new phenomenon, it's just a new medium.

Tangent: If someone posts something so offensive in a reply to @POTUS and Twitter bans the user, is Twitter now in violation of the law because it was a reply to @POTUS? And if not, how is that different from the administrators of @POTUS banning someone?

I'd care a lot more about this if they were banning based on party affiliation or some such, but it looks like they're just banning abusive users, unlike what Twitter itself is doing. I could care less, but not a lot less.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, now that you mention it, that's a very good analogy. Expecting every single citizen to be allowed to stroll into press conferences whenever they want is akin demanding that each citizen have the right to physically stand behind the president and look over his shoulder any time he tweets anything, which is ridiculous. Citizens don't need to personally attend - the press itself is the medium for publicising official statements issued to the public. Here, he is using Twitter as the medium for the exact same purpose.

Now no member of government has the authority to issue an official public statement and then turn around and selectively block specific individuals from receiving the newspapers that print the statement, or from barring individuals from being able to discuss the statement in any forum in which the statement is actually being discussed. Twitter is a private entity, so it can do mostly what it considers best for itself, but the president and his staff are the ones deciding who gets blocked, not Twitter.

I would have said that the answer to the question is clearly "no", but your jocular comment has convinced me that that the stronger argument is that it may indeed be unconstitutional after all.

Re:No

[LifesABeach]

Your incite has a subtle flaw, while the dumb ass in charge,(DAICOTUS) may have many personal things, he is on the job 7/24 till its term ends. Of course, it could always resign. And performing certain non-government related activities could be grounds for, dare I say it? But oh well, what's another loss to a business person?

Now you have me thinking, does Putin have a gun to the DAICOTUS's head? Then everything makes sense.

Re:No

[Ichijo]

Oops, I meant "extensively" not "judiciously". The word did not mean what I thought it meant!

Re:No

[networkBoy]

I'll take a stab at this:

Tangent: If someone posts something so offensive in a reply to @POTUS and Twitter bans the user, is Twitter now in violation of the law because it was a reply to @POTUS? And if not, how is that different from the administrators of @POTUS banning someone?

Ostensibly you were banned from Twitter by Twitter for a violation of their TOU, not because they didn't like what you said. When @POTUS/@RealDonaldTrump blocks you it is based on your speech, and since this is an official government channel that would be where the violation comes in.

Re:No

[kuzb]

Finally, someone who gets it. It's funny how libs are always screaming to censor people's thoughts and ideas, but when someone censors them they scream bloody murder.

Re:No

[OhPlz]

I doubt that @realDonaldTrump or @POTUS are banning because they don't like what's being said. It's more likely they're banning people that spam ever tweet with harassing or pornographic material. Twitter bans very selectively. That comedian that posted herself with a depiction of Trump's head is allowed to post, but others that reversed the faces were either banned or suspended. It's a rabbit hole. If we were to treat those accounts as government channels, you would want some blocking to remove things that weren't work or family safe, right?

Re:No

[Dog-Cow]

Preventing someone from hearing you speak is not an abridgment of anyone's right to speech. Freedom of Speech is about the speaker, not the listener.

Re:No

[Dog-Cow]

There have been many instances of reporters asked not to come back, or being barred from later attendance. There is no Constitutional right to attend a press conference just because you've done so in the past.

Also, Free Speech is about the speaker, not the listener.

Re:No

[Dog-Cow]

Filtering refers to the speaker, not the listener. The tweets are unfiltered. The listeners are irrelevant.

Re:No

[Dog-Cow]

Anyone banned is free to create a new Twitter account and subscribe. No speech is being blocked, only one particular channel.

Trump is a lot of bad things, but he still has rights. And one of those rights is the right to use Twitter's block feature.

Re:No

[Dog-Cow]

I eagerly await the news that you've been ripped apart by wild dogs and your body parts strewn across your parents' front yard.

Everyone should look forward to something, right?

Re: No

[KGIII]

The right to petition still exists. You don't get to determine the mechanism.

To point out the absurdity, try to hold a protest rally inside the White House at 0400.

I realize this may require some thinking. I'll wait.

Re: No

[KGIII]

Not that this matters, I'm really certain this is still Constitutional and I make no claims about the morality, but does being blocked actually prevent someone from seeing the posts, or does it just block the person from responding?

As you can surmise, I have no Twitter account and haven't actually been there more than a dozen times.

Re:No

[Aighearach]

No, there aren't any examples. And you won't find any.

You're welcome to go and find something different and come back and misrepresent it, and I'll explain it to you though.

Nobody said that you have a right to come back just because you attended in the past. What we're saying is that if you admit that you're keeping a reporter out because of something they wrote, that would be illegal. Nobody would ever admit that. But in the case of these twitter bans, there is no other interaction other than the content of their speech, and everybody else is still allowed to post. There is no fire marshal limit, or anything of the sort limiting twitter.

You're just blinding arguing a "side" without even understanding the civics arguments that are in proximity to you.

Re: No

[KGIII]

I think you missed that that is irrelevant and that needless capitalization doesn't actually change that. You do not have a right to post to his Twitter feed.

You can try a moral argument, but there is no right to post to his feed. There is no right being taken away. To petition for redress is still an option. To speak is still an option. You don't get to demand the medium, or the method, or the locality.

This is pretty basic legal scholarship, the kind you should have learned in civics. Posting with capitalization and calling for your fainting couch doesn't actually change the facts. We are, ostensibly, adults. It'd do you well to conduct yourself as such.

Re:No

[mwooldri]

The 1st Amendment does more than protect free speech. It protects religion - freedom of, and freedom from religion.

It also protects the right of people to petition the government, and this is where I believe the constitutional violation may come in - not in freedom to speak itself, but the freedom to petition the government.

Like it or not, Donald J. Trump is a government official. We have a constitutional right to petition him with our grievances. We have a constitutional right to send a message to the government. We are not however, given the right of reply, the right to learn whether the government has acknowledged the receipt of our grievance, nor the right for the government to broadcast our grievance to the public.

So IF @realDonaldTrump is a sanctioned communications channel to a government official, _and_ IF blocking someone on Twitter prevents an American Citizen from "petitioning the government" i.e. Donald. J. Trump (government official), then there is a constitutional argument. If neither is true then there is no constitutional case to answer to.

Answers on a postcard, sent via the United States Postal Service to: Donald J. Trump, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20500. You still have a constitutional right to write and mail a government official, and the USPS will deliver the message. You however have no right of reply.

Re:No

[Zero__Kelvin]

You don't seem to understand how this whole "government" thing works anymore than Chump does. He is the President. Until he finally has a complete breakdown or is otherwise removed from office he doesn't get to have a personal twitter account where he makes political statements. If he wants to stick to tweets about pussy grabbing and financial incompetence he might be OK, but the minute he started using it as a political platform it became no longer a "personal account." HTH you get a clue!

Re:No

[Zero__Kelvin]

When they started televising them. Thanks for playing!

Re:No

[PopeRatzo]

The listeners are irrelevant.

You have described the current state of American democracy to a "T".

Re:No

[Zero__Kelvin]

Sorry to disappoint you. Every single citizen has the right to attempt to be heard. Before the internet there was snail mail. You can write your congressman or the President. This isn't new stuff because we add "... with a computer" to the equation. If he doesn't take the time to read it that is one thing, but blocking the citizen from writing it would be tantamount to having a blacklist at every post office. Do you still think it is a good idea? Should Chump be the first President to implement postal blacklists?

Re:No

[Zero__Kelvin]

Where the hell did you get that bullshit from? You must have gone to Trump University and taken his civics class.

Re: No

[KGIII]

I know you know better. LOL You might fool some of them, but you're not fooling me.

That may be how he communicates *to* people but we both know he sure as hell isn't listening by that medium. Well, maybe for a very loose definition of 'listening' he does, but I have my doubts.

Either way, this is kinda stupid. No, there is no right to post to his Twitter feed. Well, there is no legal right to do so. We don't actually have the right to be heard in any way we want. I am pretty sure I could make a seemingly well-reasoned argument that we should have that right. However, we don't have it and my thoughts on the ideal are pretty much irrelevant.

I have to wonder if these same people think they have a right to go into Trump's bathroom and talk to him while he poops and tweets. There are still myriad ways to petition, seek redress, and assemble. They're probably slightly more effective than tweeting. Probably...

I bet they get confused by the idea that you can't actually send thousands of letters to the president. Well, you can, but they will tell you to stop, eventually. Even if they aren't mean letters, they are gonna tell you to stop. If you don't, they're gonna arrest ya for harassment, and possibly some trumped (see what I did there?) up additional charges. Yeah, even the president has some rights.

Above, I suggested they try to hold a protest rally in his bedroom. It's assembly and speech! Throw in some prayer, and you've got religion too! I actually am moderately concerned that there do exist people who might believe they have a right to do exactly that.

That said, hope you're doing well. I've not seen you in a while. I have been otherwise occupied. I am kinda glad I wasn't frequenting Slashdot during the election cycle.

Re:No

[mwooldri]

However there is a 1A Right to petition the government.

They don't have to hear you, nor acknowledge you.

But you have the right to send a message to the government and be sure that they get it.

With snail mail, you send a letter with delivery confirmation and the USPS says they delivered it - good enough for 1A. Email - the WH email server says "received your email" - good enough. I call WH, leave a voicemail - good enough. DM th President on Twitter - theoretically good enough... but a Twitter block disrupts this.

If Twitter was the only way to petition the President, and he blocked you from sending your message to him, then it's clearly a violation of 1A. The fact that it is not, and the fact that @realDonaldTrump may not be a government sanctioned channel means we got some wonderful material for some constitutional lawyers to play around with. Twitter could easily knock the sails out of this argument by engineering Twitter itself so that people can choose to receive DMs from people they block in a special "blocked DM" section.

But no-one has a 1A right for the government to rebroadcast their message.

Re: No

[KGIII]

That still doesn't change anything.

You could argue that it should be a right, I'd be willing to hear that argument.

However, it isn't a right. It's not a free speech issue, not even remotely.

Re: No

[speedplane]

The right to petition still exists. You don't get to determine the mechanism.

To point out the absurdity, try to hold a protest rally inside the White House at 0400.

I realize this may require some thinking. I'll wait.

This is true, there are "time, place, and manner" limitations on speech that have been allowed. However, they are usually about things like requiring speakers at rallies to be limited to a certain noise level, or limit the hours in which people can rally, all to lower the burden that the speech has on others. This does not appear to be the case with limiting responses to Trump's tweets.

Re:No

[speedplane]

Does not matter. You do not have a First Amendment right to post on government forums, nor do you have a First Amendment right to receive public pronouncements from the government.

This is not a government forum. This is a private forum that the government is censoring.

Re: No

[PopeRatzo]

That may be how he communicates *to* people but we both know he sure as hell isn't listening by that medium. Well, maybe for a very loose definition of 'listening' he does, but I have my doubts.

When you block someone on Twitter, they are also unable to see any future tweets from you. So, basically, the POTUS is saying, "I am making this public statement, except to you, you and you, who are no longer considered part of the public because you said something mean about my tiny hands."

At what point is it OK for the government to forbid certain groups of people from seeing public pronouncements by that government? We're not talking national security here, we're talking about official policy. The fact that they are the insane ramblings of someone suffering from dementia does not change this.

Re: No

[wanax]

You miss the point. Every citizen petitioner has the right to access to the same avenues of petition regardless of their message. You can disallow protests at 4am inside the White House so long as it's a blanket ban. Letting the Society in Favor of Puppies and Kittens have an advocacy event the Green Room before dawn means that any other organization, regardless of how controversial its opinions are, must be given similar consideration (see e.g.: De Jonge v. Oregon or Edwards v. South Carolina).

Re: No

[OhPlz]

Sign up for a new account and don't be stupid with it this time. Seems simple enough.

Re:No

[jimtheowl]

I'll never know what was funny :)

Re: No

[Zero__Kelvin]

We get it. You are an idiot who thinks we are stupid. HAND!

Re:No

[SharpFang]

Wait, the troll messages were official statements?

Outgoing messages from @RealDonaldTrump are still readable to everyone; meanwhile he's absolutely not obligated to listen to the trolls.

Re:No

[SharpFang]

So if someone thinks shouting his complaints into his backyard well is the correct channel to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, the Government is obligated to install a microphone in that well?

There are correct channels for everything. Twitter is definitely not the correct channel to exercise your right petition the government.

Re: No

[SharpFang]

All caps messages exceed the allowed noise level.

Re: No

[SharpFang]

You' stop getting any automated updates on new tweets from the person who blocked you, but you can still just enter their page and read their tweets.

Re:No

[SharpFang]

Citizens DO have the right to be heard by the government, that's in the 1st amendment. But they do not have the right to be heard through every single channel possible - for all their cases proper channels exist, and Twitter is not one of them.

Re:No

[Wycliffe]

Citizens don't need to personally attend - the press itself is the medium for publicising official statements issued to the public.

There is no "press" or at least shouldn't be. Having an official "press" is the first step in crushing the freedom of speech and killing the 1st amendment.
The first amendment also protects the random dude in a basement running an underground press and publishing what he dislikes about the government.

As far this story is concerned, blocking people on twitter is no different that the president not allowing random people access to his private phone number or email address. Yes, you are allowed to petition the government but you are not allowed to march into the White House uninvited or have untethered access to the president anytime and anywhere. If anyone was allowed to call the president's private number or enter the White House unannounced at all hours of the day then it would only take a very small number of people to completely filibuster the president. Same with Twitter. A few thousand dedicated people on Twitter would be more than enough to complete shut down the president's twitter account if he was not able to police it.

Re:No

[Reziac]

They are not being censored. They aren't being listened to. #1A says you have the right to speak without being silenced by the gov't. Nowhere does it say that anyone, including POTUS, must *listen* to you, officially or otherwise. They can still speak; but by his own choice, he can't hear them.

And I'd guess there's a whole lot more to this story, such as incessant crapflooding by the plaintiffs, since judging by the sheer shit that people post in reply to Trump, merely being disagreeable or insulting won't get you blocked.

And Twitter is technically a private space, no matter who chooses to make use of it. You aren't obligated to let anyone into the private space which Twitter "rents" to you (if you had to, there'd be no such thing as private accounts or blocking). If these plaintiffs manage to make it a public space with public #1A protections, it follows that no one can be banned by Twitter either, and here come back all those folks the snowflakes have been assiduously blocking and banning. Goose, meet gander.

Re: No

[Zero__Kelvin]

No. It isn't the same. When Trump blocks a user he blocks that users ability to communicate his thoughts to every US citizen that chooses to do so. He isn't just keeping them from communicating with him; he is quite intentionally reviving their ability to communicate with all of US.

Re:No

[david_thornley]

What's illegal about barring a reporter? What's supposed to happen then is that the reporter publishes his or her ban and asks why, and what the President is up to. Unfortunately, the President's supporters appear to have decided to believe only what they like from sites that give them what the want to hear to a considerably greater degree than usual, so the usual political consequences are blunted.

Re: No

[david_thornley]

And when my Senators or Representative don't publish my letter to them in the Congressional Record they block my ability to communicate my thoughts to everybody that reads the CR. Just because Trump's got a bigger forum doesn't mean he has to share with anybody who asks him.

People are free to tweet in general, create their own websites, publish what they like, and use all sorts of ways to get their message out. Getting people to pay attention is their problem.

Re:No

[unixisc]

Except that the White House just said that those are official statements.

Irrelevant. Access to the president ain't a part of the First Amendment

Re: No

[david_thornley]

It's always been OK for the government to make official statements to people of their choice, and that's typically been the news media. It's the job of the media to disseminate such to the extent that they need dissemination.

Re:No

[david_thornley]

I can petition via public demonstration within certain practical limits. I can write letters. I can send emails. I can fill out web forms. I can buy advertising in various media. I can file a lawsuit (although this works only for certain sorts of grievances). These are all methods to petition the government for a redress of grievances that are completely allowed. I don't have the right to do whatever I want as long as I frame it in First Amendment terms.

Re:No

[unixisc]

His personal account has more followers, which is why he uses that to tweet official stuff that followers who don't follow @POTUS can get. One thing interesting: while the media covers his tweets about Russia, Comey, Fake News and so on, they rarely cover his other tweets about the policies of the government, such as the new bill on Air Traffic Control, or meetings w/ heads of state, or things of that nature.

Re:No

[unixisc]

Again, genius, First Amendment has NOTHING to do w/ access to the president! He can fill up that room w/ FNC, Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, Townhall.com, WND, Breitbart and all his fans, and yank the press credentials of CNN, *NBC, ABC, PBS, NPR, et al. None of the latter would have lost their First Amendment rights as a result

Re: No

[EndlessNameless]

Every citizen petitioner has the right to access to the same avenues of petition regardless of their message.

If people are disruptive or uncooperative, they can be removed from places where they would otherwise have a legitimate and legal reason to be. This includes government facilities and legal proceedings. I don't see why Twitter feeds should be any different.

In this case, it doesn't really matter. You can view public tweets without being logged in at all. These "blocked" users still have access to the message, and they have access to the existing methods of filing a grievance---you know, the legal processes and telecommunications infrastructure that exist outside of Twitter.

When the President or the administration make official statements, they do not take any and all questions. There is no reason to expect them to listen to every word from everyone on Twitter (and to give those users a platform) when the White House press corps doesn't even get that level of access.

This whole issue is nothing more than a distraction anyway. I already know more about his stupid Twitter posts than I really want to, and anyone who wants to waste time discussing them on Twitter can.

Re: No

[Zero__Kelvin]

When they publish the ones they and not the ones they don't then there is an issue. Think before you post next time.

Re: No

[KGIII]

You miss the point. If you go to one of those hypothetical events, and act stupidly, they kick you out. You still retain your rights, just not at that venue. He can let the puppy people in and decline to meet with Nazis.

Re:No

[MachineShedFred]

Yeah, if Twitter was somehow the only official channel to petition the government, then you may have a point.

Twitter is a private entity, and has nothing to do with the US Government. Your official channel for redress is still your representative in the United States Congress. Go back and read the first 5 words of the amendment yourself.

Re:No

[PopeRatzo]

Again, genius, First Amendment has NOTHING to do w/ access to the president!

You mentioned the First Amendment, not me. I think this is more about how authoritarian regimes behave than anything regarding US law.

If you're OK with not hearing from President Trump, I'm certainly OK with it.

But let's remember this little conversation the next time you try to tell us that Twitter violated the First Amendment by suspending the accounts of alt-Nazis.

Re:No

[MachineShedFred]

Now only if there were some other method of redress. Like any of the ones that have existed for the last 230+ years before Twitter.

Re:No

[Aighearach]

Right, if you take half a construct it isn't the same as the whole thing.

Half of what I said isn't the same as the whole thing.

Barring a reporter based on the content of their speech is not the same thing as "barring a reporter."

Normally they wouldn't give a reason in that situation, so you wouldn't be able to prove it. But then that secrecy and ambiguity also limits their ability to use the action as a bludgeon to control what people say. But when they come straight out and say why they did it, apparently because they want to maximize the impact of the action, well then that changes everything.

There are lots of things that the government isn't supposed to do, that they normally can get away with, because they have good lawyers. If the decision-maker ignores the lawyers, they might no longer be able to get away with doing those things. That need for ambiguity is a limiting factor that is important to making government work even though all the individuals in it are biased and incompetent. They don't want to do the right thing, they're not trying to do the right thing, but they have to pretend that they're doing the right thing. The result is often that their actions are nearby to the right thing, and it works out.

Re: No

[Zero__Kelvin]

You are one stupid motherfucker

Re: No

[Zero__Kelvin]

Ah ... The inevitable douchebag who thinks using the term ad hominem makes him less of a stupid motherfucker.

Re: No

[Zero__Kelvin]

It only hurts when it is true dumbfuck. Now off you go to luck your wounds ...

Re: No

[LifesABeach]

Poor naive A/C. We're not questioning MY intelligence.

Re:No

[unixisc]

Petitioning the government != Government listening to the petitioners

Re:No

[unixisc]

If people are gonna use 'First Amendment' to claim that someone else has no right to block them, anybody who knows better would be fully qualified to educate their sorry asses. Something you didn't even disagree w/ in your attempted ad hominem.

I've seen responses to his tweets. Plenty of which are completely off-topic & irrelevant to the posts at hand, but which clutter and cover relevant responses. Which is why it's perfectly legit for him or Dan Scavino to block those. He can't ban anyone, since he's not Twitter. If anything, Twitter is pretty much opposed to him politically - something obvious from browsing their sources pages.

Re: No

[unixisc]

Now we are. For someone who's bombed Syria and forced NATO to take seriously its own defenses, it sure is something Putin would have hoped for.

Besides, this topic was on whether the president can block anyone from responding to his tweets. How Russia becomes relevant is something only Left wing whack jobs can produce

Re:No

[unixisc]

Sorry, that's not the way to petition the president. The way to do it would be to email him 'president@whitehouse.gov', and then hope he responds. Or go through officials, such as elected reps, or so on. On Twitter, he posts about events or his view of events that he wants people to pay attention to. That's not a place to tell him what you want him to do.

Yeah, one could send a postcard, or email him, or do something on change.org, or better yet, go via congressmen, senators or other people known to be close to him, to get a better chance of being heard. But if he tweets about Comey or Qatar, and you respond, 'You are a sellout to Comcast for getting rid of net neutrality', that's irrelevant, and enough of those, and he or Dan has every right to block you.

Re:No

[unixisc]

Not just that, it was his handle before he became president, and will remain so after. @POTUS was previously Obama's, and would pass on to his successor, but @RealDonaldTrump was, is and will remain his alone.

Re:No

[unixisc]

No, you're the clueless one. As AC noted, it was his handle before, and will remain so after he is president. While @POTUS will change hands, this one will remain his. Now, he uses @RealDonaldTrump b'cos he has more followers there than on @POTUS, but that doesn't make the former an official government account. Also, even @POTUS has the right to block anyone. People who want to petition him anything can email him, or go via congressmen who have a good rapport w/ him.

Re: No

[unixisc]

Did you even read whose message you're responding to? I don't disagree w/ a word you said above, although you make it seem like I did.

Re: No

[LifesABeach]

The russian people are a good people, a noble people. It's the vodka, I hate it; it's not a mans drink, Whiskey is.

Dumb enough for you comrade?

Re:No

[ArmoredDragon]

I don't know who actually reads Trump's rambling nonsense, let alone bothers to send tweets to him.

Re:No

[EmptyHead]

Since 1791 when the 1st amendment was ratified: "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*.

And the right to petition includes the ability to, "make a complaint to, or seek the assistance of, one's government, without fear of punishment or reprisals". Being blocked by the POTUS is reprisal for the complaints made earlier. Posting a picture of the Pope looking sternly at Trump isn't a complain? Go back to the first amendment and read the part about freedom of speech.

That's silly. Should they also be able to post on the main web page for the Department of State with their semi educated diarrhea that even makes their barista friends roll their eyes? Simply laughable. if they want to spew some political filth, they can do that on a news site comments board, Reddit or even here.

Re:No

[speedplane]

When you block someone on twitter, does it prevent others from seeing you or just the blocker? If it's the latter, I agree, but I thought it was the former.

Re:No

[Reziac]

I'm not sure since I don't use blocking, but my grok is that people reading the comment chain won't see the blockee either. Presumably this was so your other followers can't be harrassed by the blockee. But that doesn't stop your followers from following the blockee.

Not really different from being thrown out of a bar -- after that no one in THAT bar can hear you, but you can still go next door to drink, and if someone from the first bar wants to hear you, they too can go next door.

But back to Twitter... when anyone complains, they need to remember Twitter's blocking policies are not under Trump's control; they were put in place at the behest of Special Snowflakes who don't want anyone they disagree with in their safe spaces. They don't just want to not hear the Bad People; they want the Bad People silenced entirely, so NO one can hear them.

Re: No

[Zero__Kelvin]

Wow. You have to be one of the most stupid motherfuckers to ever figure out how to create a Slashdot account. He is the president. As long as he is the president everything he says, no matter where or how he says it is from the president and everything he writes is the property of the people. If he doesn't like that deal he is free to resign. Until he does it is OUR Twitter account. Get a fucking clue dumbfuck.

Re: No

[unixisc]

Under that brilliant argument, Melania is everybody's wife and so everybody is free to screw her, b'cos what is his is everyone else's! Now I can see why people target you in their subject headers

Re: No

[Zero__Kelvin]

Holy shit... You really have no idea what oath he took and it's implications, do you? To be fair he clearly doesn't understand it either. I assure you it isn't an "argument" ... It is a fact true for every single person that ever took the oath. Get a 6th grade level civics education.

Re: No

[unixisc]

Comprehension ain't really your strong point, is it?

Re:No

[speedplane]

Twitter's blocking policies are not under Trump's control; they were put in place at the behest of Special Snowflakes who don't want anyone they disagree with in their safe spaces. They don't just want to not hear the Bad People; they want the Bad People silenced entirely, so NO one can hear them.

If you want to support free speech, support speech that you hate.

Re:No

[Reziac]

Exactly. The free speech you save may be your own.

Twitter is for stupid twits

[DontBeAMoran]

To learn more about it, follow my Twitter at... oh wait, some other idiot stole my name.

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

[sl3xd]

I'm pretty sure TFA isn't saying the users accounts are being suspended; just that his account is blocking tweets from users sending abuse his way -- just like any other Twitter user.

I'll go out on a limb here and say that a reporter desperate for clickbait is reporting on a few people who appear to have failed their civics course in high school.

It's not a partisan issue at all - I've met a number of people like this on the street or train. They're not powerful, wealthy, or have celebrity - they're just an average Joe that has no more sway on the POTUS than the other 321 million of us; yet they are so full of themselves they think they should have the President's ear

Re:1st Amendment

[nine-times]

First, no, I don't think this is a First Amendment issue. Because (a) you can still post to Twitter; (b) even if you couldn't, Twitter is a privately owned site, and the first amendment doesn't guarantee you access to someone else's soapbox; and (c) even if the government were running a website, I would think they should be able to moderate it to some degree, e.g. posting porn to a discussion forum for infrastructure spending.

But also, honestly, of all the stupid and screwed up things the Trump administration is doing, this shouldn't even register.

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

[rubycodez]

bullshit. the only thing that is clear is that twitter allows blocking, and any twitter user can do that. there is no concept of "rights" here. clearly you are imaging things like "censorship" apply to forums hosted by private companies. no such thing

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.

Re:1st Amendment

[Carewolf]

Did Obama's whitehouse.gov page have an unmoderated comment section?

Do you think their moderation was arbitrary and blocking people just for disagreeing?

Moderation is completely legal, was is not allowed is the government removing people from the public discussion for arbitrary reasons such as disagreeing politely with official positions.

Re:1st Amendment

[Carewolf]

Sure it can.
300 million americans are not allowed into the whitehouse on any given day.
Is that unconstitutional?

What does that have to do with speech and public forums? Are you gaslighting?

The question is this: If the government have a public channel for discussing public issues, can they deny specific people access for arbitrary and person reasons, or do they have to let people express their opinions as long as they do it in a way that doesn't violate explicitely set down rules for the debate?

Re:1st Amendment

[OhPlz]

We're talking about Trump, not Obama.

Re:1st Amendment

[AmiMoJo]

Their argument is that the account represents a "designated public forum", The 1st Amendment issue is that the government is stopping _them_ from speaking in this forum.

Re:1st Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

" (c) even if the government were running a website, I would think they should be able to moderate it to some degree, e.g. posting porn to a discussion forum for infrastructure spending."

First Amendment law already accounts for this. They're called reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. For example, it doesn't violate the First Amendment if National Park rules preventing overnight camping happen to prevent you from camping overnight as some expressive act.

HOWEVER, First Amendment rulings have explicitly, and repeatedly, stated that these restrictions cannot explicitly target activity based on on who people are or what their message is (in other words, no law that says "No Republicans can protest here after 7 pm") or be unforced in a biased and selective manner against specific people or messages (in other words, if you have a general 7 pm curfew, you can't arrest anti-war protesters who break curfew while ignoring everyone else breaking the same rule.)

In other words, general rules against posting porn or malware would be okay, but according to SCOTUS, "moderating" away only people who criticize the government is unambiguously unconstitutional.

This all assumes that twitter in general, and being part of the group who follows Trump is treated as a public forum, or a semi-public forum. How media platforms have been treated has been uneven enough that I really have no clue what the courts would say. Superficially, Twitter is a private entity running its own private forum, and it can arbitrary ban who it wants. On the other hand, other private entities (such as companies who own and run malls) have been constrained by the First Amendment because their properties have been deemed semi-public forums; because they invite the public to treat their property as a public forum and gain some sort of benefit from doing so, they don't have unlimited freedom in how they choose to take away that privilege from specific people. Further complicating this case is the fact that, while Twitter is technically the party doing the banning, it's doing so entirely at the behest and the discretion of an elected official.

Re:1st Amendment

[Aighearach]

Had you collected the story before determining the answer, you'd already know that @RealDonaldTrump is official White House communication.

Derptastic performance from the new kid.

Re:1st Amendment

[Aighearach]

It doesn't matter who owns the site.

What you're saying is like the city saying it can regulate who is allowed to write letters to the editor of a local newspaper, because the newspaper is private. It just makes no sense at all.

All that matters is if the actions of the government were content-based and denied somebody some sort of access or participation. If so, then they're probably not allowed to do it.

It probably means that it is unwise to have any routine government communications on a social media platform.

Re:1st Amendment

[nine-times]

What you're saying is like the city saying it can regulate who is allowed to write letters to the editor of a local newspaper, because the newspaper is private.

No, what I'm saying is that the local newspaper can throw away your letter without reading it.

It probably means that it is unwise to have any routine government communications on a social media platform.

Well... yeah. The government shouldn't be relying on social networks (or any private company) to disseminate information. And it's probably not wise for an individual to take the PotUS's Tweets as official communications. Especially not if it's from his personal account. And especially not if the PotUS is a moronic child with self-control issues.

Re:1st Amendment

[prisoner-of-enigma]

It doesn't matter who owns the site.

Actually, it does. You have a Constitutional right to say whatever you want. Twitter is under no obligation to post it. Period.

If you disagree, consider you can mail a letter to any newspaper, magazine, website, whatever you want but are they required by law to print it? If true for you then what about the tens of thousands of other people who do it? Must they be published as well or is it just you that gets the special treatment? And if everyone gets it, the newspaper/magazine/whatever ceases to be whatever it was before and goes out of business from sheer volume of crap.

Twitter as a private company isn't required to do anything for you, give you anything, listen to you, accommodate you, do business with you, or obey you.

Re:1st Amendment

[Brett Buck]

Your input to government is your elected representatives, not the president.

Re:1st Amendment

[Dog-Cow]

And what (legal) right would that be, exactly?

Re:1st Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

As a long-time follower, he isn't blocking people who disagree, or even say "you suck asshole" or similar.
The block affected about ten users that automatically posted hate and vitriol, probably using bots.

Let me explain: within seconds of a new Twit going up, there would be hate post replies that got instantly re-twitted or liked by the thousands, also within seconds
Because of these, they would instantly move up in line, with the first 20-30 posts or so being the same damn hate-spam, repeated all over. Now I have no idea whether these were the notorious "correct the record" bots, or just the dedicated DNC shills, but it was completely killing any discussion. You'd have to scroll to about 5-10 pages (painful in Twitter, because of on-demand loading: no possibility to PageDown 10 times), before getting real comments by real people, not the canned hatepost things. It was always the same stuff, totally killing any discourse.

With those few "bot" accounts blocked, it is actually possible now to follow the discussion.

Re:1st Amendment

[Dog-Cow]

Is abject stupidity worthy of the death sentence? Sadly, no.

Re:1st Amendment

[Aighearach]

Well, you're not even talking about the same subject as everybody else.

Everybody else is talking about something that President Trump did, not something that somebody at Twitter did. Clue up, stickman.

Re:1st Amendment

[Dog-Cow]

It's like saying that if you send a letter to your local newspaper care of your local representative, the representative is allowed to burn the letter without reading it. Furthermore, he can instruct the mail handler at the newspaper to do that for him.

Oh look, that's perfectly legal, because elected official or not, he doesn't have to read your god-dammed letter.

Re:1st Amendment

[Aighearach]

Nobody is claiming any misconduct by twitter. That dog doesn't hunt, that dog doesn't even exist.

Re:1st Amendment

[Dog-Cow]

You are a retarded shit. Assault is assault, no matter the reason and no matter the perpetrator. Your ridiculous example is not a Free Speech issue, either.

Re:1st Amendment

[Dog-Cow]

Yes, you do. And the campaigner is allowed to wear ear plugs.

Re:1st Amendment

[Aighearach]

That's a pretty tortured construction. You have every right to abuse logic with such a bizarre hypothetical, but don't expect it to be taken very seriously.

My advice, try a hypothetical drawn from existing things in society. Sending a letter to the editor in care of a representative is not even a thing people do, and there is no reason they would want to. It has no parallel to the real situation that is happening on planet Earth being discussed here.

But if your Representative in some way convinced the publisher not to publish your comments, and admitted that he interfered because of the content of your speech, that would clearly violate the 1st. And if it was for some other reason, it would probably violate the 14th. But nobody worries about the 14th when the 1st is a slam dunk, because it is more strongly worded and has more weight when balancing.

You don't address the issue of the action by Trump being content-based, but that is way over 90% of the issue. Without addressing that, you can't say anything worthwhile.

Re: 1st Amendment

[KGIII]

They are not being prevented from speaking. They are not being prevented from sending him messages. They are being disallowed to send him messages by that specific platform.

It may be stupid. It might even be immoral. It is, however, not illegal. I realize this isn't what you want to hear, but you don't actually have a right to communicate by the method of your choosing. You can write on the bathroom wall at the White House, for example.

You have all the rights you've always had. Responding to Trump, by Tweet, is not even remotely a right. You can call him an idiot by mail, phone, and email. Feel free, you have the right and he is an idiot. However, tweeting the president is not a right.

This is pretty basic civics. You don't even have a right to attend his press conferences. If you did, you don't even have the right to say anything you want at one. I'm not actually sure why people would think they have this right. I assume they smoked crack.

Re:1st Amendment

[nine-times]

No, I think you might just be missing my point here. It's fucking Twitter. An emotionally unstable and mentally retarded man-child has decided not to read your tweets. This is not a constitutional crisis.

Re:1st Amendment

[rastos1]

... the incredible value of the President's time ...

Are you still talking about Trump??

Re: 1st Amendment

[leptechie]

What about Petition Government? Your response show a lack of knowledge of the amendment you cite.

Re:1st Amendment

[david_thornley]

Look, I have plenty of problems with the guy. I have very strong suspicions that he's violating the Constitution, and he certainly has no respect for it. He is doing some very bad things to the country.

So, why should I worry about his Twitter account, when there's so many more substantive things to complain about?

Re:1st Amendment

[david_thornley]

The rest of the world is moving on without us. That's part of the problem. The US used to be a leader among nations, with moral authority, and Trump is pissing that away.

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

[Smidge204]

On the other hand, as a government official using what is arguably an official government platform to do that communicating, it could be that blocking a Twitter user is a form of censorship.

At the very least, blocked users do not show up on your list of followers, so perhaps a case could be made that by blocking @ewhac the President is suppressing your public visibility and is therefore censoring you... a violation the 1st amendment.

IANAL though. I just don't see it as quite that clear-cut.
=Smidge=

Re:Yes, He Can Do That

[by (1706743)]

But that's not really equivalent -- ignoring/not listening/not responding is not the same as blocking.

Unless I'm misunderstanding the issue, this Twitter issue would be like blocking this form for certain IPs. Now I'm not sure that would be illegal (IANAL), but imagine if Trump blocked, say, San Francisco-based IPs, or if Obama had blocked it for rural West Virginia IPs.

Re:Yes, He Can Do That

[Anonymous Coward]

Except you can simply open a private tab and visit his Twitter page if you need to see it. Nice try though, cucktard.

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

[JimFive]

The first amendment does not mean that anyone has to be forced to listen to you or agree with you.

The first amendment is more than just freedom of speech. It also contains the right to "petition the government". It is arguable that this requires that the government be forced to listen to (not agree with) you. If the twitter account is considered an official communication platform (per Spicer) then it MAY be that the President (or his designee) would be required to listen to people who communicate with it.

Secondly, the GPs statement was a hypothetical: IF the president was using the power of the government to prevent someone from posting on twitter at all then we would all agree that this violates freedom of speech.
--
JimFive

Re:Yes, He Can Do That

[Carewolf]

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.

The only one being an arrogant ass here is you. There is nothing arrogant about saying "Hmm, this is interesting", there is however an extreme amount of arrogance on attacking people personally and calling them arrogant just because they have mild curiosity for a position that is different than yours.

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."

Re:Yes, He Can Do That

[Smidge204]

No, because that is one-on-one communication and would not be interfering with your ability to get your message out to the general public.

A private phone call is not a public forum.
=Smidge=

Re:Yes, He Can Do That

[prisoner-of-enigma]

The first amendment is more than just freedom of speech. It also contains the right to "petition the government". It is arguable that this requires that the government be forced to listen to (not agree with) you. If the twitter account is considered an official communication platform (per Spicer) then it MAY be that the President (or his designee) would be required to listen to people who communicate with it.

Except that your right to petition the government still exists in many other forms, none of which are affected. Twitter is a private company not a government news organ. Every governmentally-available channel for you to "petition" still exists.

This is kind of like people inventing a right to board an airplane because the Constitution protects freedom of movement. No, snowflake, you have no right to board a plane just because you want to go somewhere. It means the government can't stop you from getting there. Nobody is stopping you from driving, or riding a horse, or even walking. The Constitution doesn't protect your right to do everything your way. This is not Burger King.

Re:Yes, He Can Do That

[Smidge204]

The first amendment prevents government officials from prohibiting or preventing speech. It does not apply to private organizations or businesses like Twitter, who are free (at least constitutionally) to block/ban anyone or delete any message, for any reason. The government cannot prevent you from expressing your views or opinions, but nobody is obliged to facilitate you either.

Twitter as a business is not a government communications platform, but we have a case where a government official is blocking users from equal access to what has been declared as official government communications... even if that communication is via a private third party.
=Smidge=

Re:Yes, He Can Do That

[prisoner-of-enigma]

On the other hand, as a government official using what is arguably an official government platform to do that communicating, it could be that blocking a Twitter user is a form of censorship.

Sigh. No, it's not. It's not even close. If Trump blocks someone from his Twitter feed can the blocked individual still tweet? Yes. Can the blocked individual still see Trump's tweets? Yes. So you see dear snowflake, censorship requires the blocked person to be prevented from doing these things. So long as an outlet exists for a person to get their "speech" out -- even if no one is listening -- you can't call it censorship.

Anyway all this is stupid and pointless since Twitter is a private company and can do whatever they want. Private companies are under no Constitutional obligation to provide anyone with a megaphone. If Twitter banned all Republicans or all Democrats or all Communists or all Socialists tomorrow no one could sue them for a rights violation. Which is just as it should be. Unlike you, the Founding Fathers were wise about such things and thought about the ramifications of what they were doing.

Re:Yes, He Can Do That

[Dog-Cow]

Blocking an account does not block the person. Unless Twitter somehow manages to enforce a one-account-per-person rule.

Re:Yes, He Can Do That

[Dog-Cow]

A blocked user can still twit all he wants. He just won't be seen by the blocker. And there's no right to be heard.

Re:Yes, He Can Do That

[Dog-Cow]

No user has been blocked. There is no facility for doing so. Only accounts have been blocked.

Re:Yes, He Can Do That

[Zero__Kelvin]

He isn't blocking people so he doesn't have to listen to them. He is blocking them so everyone can't see that most people know he is a nutjob.

Re:Yes, He Can Do That

[SharpFang]

And it's still accessible to everyone through https://twitter.com/realDonald... regardless of their blocked status, so the public does retain access to the statements.

It is not an official grievances channel as required per 1st Amendment. President's courtesy is the only reason why any replies and messages directed by public to @realDonaldTrump are read, but he's fully at liberty to disregard or block them - the official e-mail address of president@whitehouse.gov is still fully active; he has zero obligation to treat the personal Twitter account as an equivalent.

Re:Yes, He Can Do That

[SharpFang]

No need to open private tab - you can simply read the page even when you're blocked. You're just not getting live updates to your timeline. But this is the standard modus operandi of government releases: you need to reach given outlet and read the statements. Sending them directly to your inbox is just a completely voluntary choice of the government and they are free to revoke it at will.

Re:Yes, He Can Do That

[SharpFang]

Except it wouldn't: the government must provide inbound communication channels for all citizens, but it's free to restrict certain channels to certain groups, as long as alternatives for them exist. There's president@whitehouse.gov, there's @POTUS, there's that form, there's snail mail address... the government has absolutely zero obligation to make @realDonaldTrump yet another inbound contact channel.

Trump is pure genius!

[fustakrakich]

He is the new *King of all media*. People can't wait (and apparently will sue) to hear what he'll say next. It's perfect!

Re:Trump is pure genius!

[Zocalo]

STFU, you idiot! Some marketing weasel might start getting ideas...

Re:Trump is pure genius!

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus H. Fucking Christ, you clowns are going to elect Howard Stern as President next aren't you?

Re:Trump is pure genius!

[phantomfive]

you clowns are going to elect Howard Stern as President next aren't you?

Do you think he would be worse? I mean, really?

Re:Trump is pure genius!

[fustakrakich]

You got somebody better?

Re:Trump is pure genius!

[HornWumpus]

I'd vote for him.

Re:Trump is pure genius!

[PopeRatzo]

I'd vote for him.

I'd put out lawn signs and canvas door to door.

If only to hear him ask Theresa May if she likes anal.

Re:Trump is pure genius!

[HornWumpus]

I want to see 'fartman' at the correspondents dinner.

And hear Mr Methane play at the inauguration, I bet he can do a hell of a version of 'hail to the chief'...

Re:Trump is pure genius!

[Zero__Kelvin]

At least if Stern were President we'd get real honesty in the bargain!

Implications

[Anonymous Coward]

If it is illegal for Trump to block them, it is also illegal for Twitter to BAN anyone. Infringement of their access to a public forum, you know.

Re:Implications

[Fire_Wraith]

Not necessarily. The local paper isn't required to print your letter - it's a private institution.

But that said, the First Amendment prevents the Government from telling/forcing them to not print your letter. See the difference? The first is a voluntary choice, the second is the Government making them do something. If the Government told Twitter to ban you, that's a clear First Amendment violation, but if Twitter does it on their own, that's not the same.

Which of course, doesn't mean that Trump blocking someone is the same thing. I'm not a lawyer, but it does seem as if there might be at least a slim reed to hang this argument off of (that blocking prevents you from making statements related to the government, and that if he doesn't want to listen he can just mute instead). Should be interesting to see how it pans out, either way.

Re:Implications

[Train0987]

The local paper isn't required to report Trump's missives either.

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.

Re:The left has gone full retard.

[david_thornley]

The left will block people pre-emptively

Got an example, anonymous internet tough guy? Or is it a matter of people on the left blocking certain people from certain forums they control, just like people on the right do?

Re:The left has gone full retard.

[Triklyn]

well, @sweden, controlled by some library entity or something, with a rotating list of curators, had one of its moderators instigate one of the anti-gg blocklists. which ended up blocking people like pewdiepie, among others. one of which was a sitting member of parliament for their conservative party.

http://adland.tv/adnews/how-di...

of course that list included the israeli ambassador, and apparently a war correspondent covering ISIS. putatively because they were all trolls.

Re:The left has gone full retard.

[Triklyn]

apparently also noam chomsky and bill gates.

Re:The left has gone full retard.

[david_thornley]

So you have an example of "people (who may be on the left) blocking certain people from certain forums they control". The attached article didn't explain what @Sweden is or who controls it (which you do not appear to know either). It described what looks like a mistake in trusting a certain person. While one of the people blocked is a conservative, and one is considered to have Nazi affiliations, we don't know of any actual political slant to the blocklist. It could be a case of a leftist blocking people pre-emptively (there's no evidence that it's "the left", whatever we are), but the evidence is pretty scanty.

A usable public forum will have some mechanism to keep trolls at least contained. Slashdot has downmods and flagging.

I'm very unimpressed by this example. Do you have a better one?

Re:The left has gone full retard.

[Triklyn]

the attached article was pretty quickly found, the details as i understand them were. it's the official twitter handle of sweden. any swedish citizen currently in sweden or around can be nominated for the position by anyone for one week.

https://www.thelocal.se/201705...

it's hard to get all the facts, but it seems that the putative purpose was to block anyone the individual felt was a troll or expressed hateful, racist or far right-wing opinions.

they reversed the blanket block after it was revealed that the block included members of parliament and the israeli ambassador. in addition, the blocklist can no longer be produced because it was deleted, which may or may not contravene documents and records laws for government agencies in sweden.

the members of government were slightly upset that the block seemed to imply that they were alt-right or nazi sympathizers. soo yeah.

Re:The left has gone full retard.

[david_thornley]

Thanks for the details.

So, we have one individual producing a blocklist that was temporarily applied to an official website, to remove trolls and hate speech, and it caught some people it definitely should not have. The organization seems embarrassed by it, and deleted it when they shouldn't have. This still doesn't look like an impressive example.

Re:The left has gone full retard.

[Triklyn]

well, you asked for an example. i think the official administering office defended it for a period, until they realized that it had caught sitting politicians who had never interacted with the twitter handle, then they reversed position. Also, the putative reason was because the people on the blocklist were alt-right, nazis and harassing accounts/trolls.

dave rubin was blocked... i think his mom called him to ask if he was banned from sweden.

larger examples are the whole deplatforming movement. which is largely a left move on college campuses. if you ever mentioned a single thing that offends a single marginalized group, they'll all flock to shout you down, or pressure an administration to revoke your invitation etc. etc.

it's not that they don't want to hear you speak, it's that they want to prevent other people from hearing you speak, even if, say, college republicans, a group that are similarly part of the college community just as they are, invite, and obtain permits for a lecture.

and if it gets bad enough, then the antifa violence comes out, damaging starbucks storefronts... because of the obviously alt-right nature of windows.

Is Betteridge's law a real thing?

[Megol]

Hmm?

What am I missing

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought you could just go to https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump without needing any Twitter account in order to see what Donald Trump has tweeted. Now I suppose being blocked would cause an inconvenience for someone logged in via Twitter smartphone app.

CAPTCHA: decorum

What a stupid time to be alive...

[Train0987]

What a stupid time to be alive...

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:Among other things

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe he could also get someone else to do his talking and gesturing for him. Would make the whole act seem alot less retarded.

No.

[Derekloffin]

Not really. There is several ways we can look at this, but none of them lead to the government censoring those blocked. The first is Trump is using Twitter as an individual, in which case he has all his rights as an individual including the right to not listen to you. Freedom of association. The second is Trump is acting as public official, but in this still doesn't get us there as he is on a private platform. Just like a speaking event can deny you access to the president, Twitter can do the same. It is not interfering with your right to speak as you don't have a right to Twitter's platform as it were. Even if we consider Trump in control here (which he isn't but regardless lets consider it as he has some control) it still wouldn't get us there as freedom of speech is not the right to be heard by a particular party, only the right to be able to speak. Even as a public official, Trump doesn't have to listen to you, and thus there is no violation. You're still allowed to say anything about Trump yourself, even on Twitter, just it wouldn't be carried on his feed. The closest I can see we can get is that these twitter posts could be seen as matters of public record, and therefore accessible by the public which Trump is interfering with by blocking users. However, I don't think this will hold as many public records have blocks to getting them. It is enough that they are accessible via some means through freedom of information requests.

Re:No, He Can't Do That

[DRJlaw]

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.

He doesn't have to listen. But if he permits comments from his supporters and uses the account for presidential purposes, then he has to accept ALL comments without editing out those he doesn't like or blocking commenters that he doesn't like. It's not like the question has not come up before in other contexts. Mike Pence even ran into the buzzsaw.

Public officials can either accept comments or not, but they can't selectively curate their audience and the audience's comments to assuage their fragile egos.

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:Twitter is a PRIVATE company.

[dffuller]

ABC is a private company. Does that mean that opposing party response to presidential speeches is no longer required?

Re:No, He Can't Do That

[phantomfive]

I'm not sure that analysis is correct. The case you linked to (in the indystar) never went to court. To consider it differently, if you are at a town-hall meeting, and CODEPINK runs in and starts shouting, they can be arrested.

The real question is whether Donald Trump, by having a Twitter feed, has created a public forum or not. Obviously that isn't something the creators of the constitution had thought about when they wrote the amendment, and none of the prior judgements really address the point, so the Supreme Court ruling would be based entirely on the opinions of the members of the court.

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.

Does Betteridge's Law of Headlines always apply?

[quantaman]

No.

Re:I Would Say No

[rubycodez]

No, twitter is a privately owned forum. It is not a venue to communicate with your government, no protections apply. Trump AND YOU can block anyone one twitter you like. You want protected communication with your government? think harder

Yes --- and No

[williamyf]

He has every right to block anyone from HIS PERSONAL @realDonaldTrump account...

He has NO right to block anyone from @POTUS.

Having said that, the legality of using his personal @realDonaldTrump account to discuss matters of state is a whole different can of worms.

PS: IANAL

Re: Yes --- and No

[KGIII]

Just so that I understand what it is you think...

You believe you can go tweet the official POTUS account stuff like, 'I would have sex with your little boy, if it were legal.' Additionally, you believe you think they can't ban you, legally?

What would make you believe that?

Re:Twitter is a PRIVATE company.

[HornWumpus]

Never been 'required' for cable channels. Only those that use the airwaves.

Re:Intellectual Laziness

[HornWumpus]

Presidents cannot violate the constitution via executive order. Even assuming that all executive orders were/are constitutional.

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.

You have a right to free speech, not to be heard

[aklinux]

There is no constitutional "right" that says anybody has to listen to you

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.

Re:Just another example...

[acrimonious howard]

This.

... whinging ... 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.

Oh really? Is that why close aid of 30 years Paul Manafort had to resign just before Trump took office?

Keep in mind Trump is in desperate need of people to fill so many government positions, it's the most vacant of any presidency.

And so is that also why National Security advisor Gen Flynn resigned just a month into his presidency?

And is that also why Pence had to backtrack his statements and started claiming Flynn had lied to him?

And is that also why Jeff Sessions, Trump's Attorney General pick, after repeatedly claiming there was zero reason to recuse himself, finally recused himself from the Justice Department’s Russia-related investigations of Trump?

When someone at any of these top positions has to resign, something may be going on or maybe it's normal course of business. But when so many of them do it, so quickly, when the Administration people needs people so badly, my goodness, the Trump team themselves - they're saying there's a there there.

Re:Just another example...

[acrimonious howard]

Ugh, sorry have to edit I forgot two more:

... whinging ... 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.

Oh really? Is that why close aid of 30 years Paul Manafort had to resign just before Trump took office?

Keep in mind Trump is in desperate need of people to fill so many government positions, it's the most vacant of any presidency.

And so is that also why National Security advisor Gen Flynn resigned just a month into his presidency?

And is that also why Pence had to backtrack his statements and started claiming Flynn had lied to him?

And is that also why Trump fired Attorney General Yates, after she started speaking out about the Flynn fiasco?

And is that also why Jeff Sessions, Trump's Attorney General pick, after repeatedly claiming there was zero reason to recuse himself, finally resigned from the Justice Department’s Russia investigation?

And is that also why Trump fired FBI Director Comey, 2 years into a normally 10-year term "because of Russia" (-Trump)

When someone at any of these top positions has to resign, something may be going on or maybe it's normal course of business. But when so many of them do it, so quickly, when the Administration people needs people so badly, my goodness, the Trump team themselves - they're saying there's a there there.

Re:No. Er.. no...

[Eristone]

Actually you missed on this one. Mr. Trump has decided to use Twitter as a way to be in communication in his capacity as President of the United States. In addition, he has used his own Twitter ID instead of the POTUS one that was established for these communications. As such, this becomes a channel to reach a government official and selective blocking of that channel becomes a Constitutional issue. The White House Press Secretary has confirmed that official pronouncements come from the RealDonaldTrump account, so he is now SOL with regards to trying to say it is private/personal.

Then end all block lists.

[sethstorm]

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Public Forum Law

[SeattleLawGuy]

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

The First Amendment puts limits on how the government may limit access to a fully public forum. Check out the case law if you want, but at least take a glance at the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:No, He Can't Do That

[Aighearach]

Cases like that not going to court doesn't imply it is unknown. While it depends on the actual situation, the government isn't personally paying for the lawyers and so generally will defend its position whenever it can win. These cases not going to court implies that the government would lose badly.

Re:Previous cases?

[Aighearach]

No, no POTUS has gone on social media like this in the first place, so the context to do it hasn't even existed.

Governors, including Pence, and police departments, have already been through this on Facebook; deleting unfavorable comments; getting called out on it; talking to their lawyers about it; and then stopping the practice and apologizing.

Expect the last part to be different here.

to the tune of let it be

[Falconhell]

Whe I find myself in tweets of trouble
Mother Russia comes to me
Speaking words of wisdom
Covfefe.....

Re:No, He Can't Do That

[prisoner-of-enigma]

He doesn't have to listen. But if he permits comments from his supporters and uses the account for presidential purposes, then he has to accept ALL comments without editing out those he doesn't like or blocking commenters that he doesn't like.

Really? Find me the part in the Constitution where it says the President is required to accept all comments -- or, in other words, "speech" -- from everyone? So the President is, by law, required to listen to everyone about everything everywhere everytime? The poor man would never get to sleep much less get any governing done! Hell, you could paralyze the government by lining people up and effectively fillibustering the POTUS in the Oval Office!

But I digress. You won't find such a "right" because it doesn't exist. Your voice in the government exists via the ballot box. The government is under no compulsion to entertain your childish drivel about bizarre rights you dreamed up because you think you deserve them. Once the election is over you have to wait your turn -- a difficult concept for entitled snowflakes to grasp, I know -- to get another chance in the next election.

Re:Twitter is a PRIVATE company.

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Does that mean that opposing party response to presidential speeches is no longer required?

Well since ABC, as a private company, is already not required to air opposing views I guess it's definitely not required, eh? There, that was simple, wasn't it?

Just because the networks have traditionally carried both viewpoints doesn't mean they were required to do so by law. They did so because it's what their viewers wanted and expected.

The only possible thing ABC/NBC/CBS/etc. might have run afoul of by, say, covering nobody but Hillary Clinton and nothing about Trump, might have been campaign finance laws, not the Constitution. A network that covered only one candidate could conceivably be construed as being an advertisement for that candidate, especially if all they gave was positive coverage of the candidate. Such "campaign contributions" would violate election finance laws as airtime has an intrinsic value even if the networks "gave it a away" for free for their chosen candidate.

No right to be listened to, only a right to speak

[Roger W Moore]

Does the government have the right to refuse input on issues from specific people?

Yes - it's a right to free speech, not a right to be listened to. If you want a government to listen you have to use your freedom of speech to convince enough voters that you are correct then either they listen or you vote in a government which will at the next election.

Given the number of complete wackjobs out there with every insane point of view you can think of plus a few more it would be madness to require a government to listen to input from everyone. Having to persuade a reasonable number of the population that you know what you are talking about before a government will listen is a very reasonable filter. After all, if you can't persuade your fellow citizens you are unlikely to be able to persuade a government.

Re:No, He Can't Do That

[DRJlaw]

Get a law degree and learn about "designated public forum[s]." Or don't. The caselaw is out there, and the right is rooted in the first amendment exactly as summarized in the article.

Re: I Would Say No

[KGIII]

They don't actually have to let you in to a public forum, nor do do they have to allow all speech within one. These people can still speak, still seek redress, and still petition. They just have to use alternative methods. There is no right to access by any mechanism you want.

I could probably make a well-reasoned argument as to why this should be a right, but it is not currently a right. The normal communications channels are still in place. This appears to just be outrage for attention. It's pretty basic stuff, actually.

You can't even hold a protest on the White House lawn.

Re:No. Er.. no...

[Theaetetus]

Actually you missed on this one. Mr. Trump has decided to use Twitter as a way to be in communication in his capacity as President of the United States. In addition, he has used his own Twitter ID instead of the POTUS one that was established for these communications. As such, this becomes a channel to reach a government official and selective blocking of that channel becomes a Constitutional issue. The White House Press Secretary has confirmed that official pronouncements come from the RealDonaldTrump account, so he is now SOL with regards to trying to say it is private/personal.

By this logic, since the phone in the Oval Office is an "official" one for the President of the United States to use for communication, it's therefore a channel to reach a government official and the government can't block people from calling it.
But I'm pretty sure they do, and I'm pretty sure that no judge would agree that it's an unconstitutional infringement on your right to petition the government. There are many other means to do so, and this is a reasonable time, place, or manner restriction that is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest - preventing harassment of the President.

Look, I don't like the Cheeto any more than you do, but let's not go off the deep end and insist that it's unconstitutional if we don't have unlimited access to the President.

Whinging

[jomama717]

For any other confused Americans too lazy to google it, "whinging" is apparently a British form of the word "whining". The 'g' is not silent. To your point, the ceaseless whining is a major distraction and threatens to doom us all to 4 more years of this asshole, but I think it hinges much more on the candidate that gets put up against him.

Re:Whinging

[david_thornley]

So, given all the whinging/whining/whatever directed at Obama, how was it possible to elect a Republican?

Re:No, He Can't Do That

[phantomfive]

In that particular case, I think it was more like the police station didn't want to spend millions on a legal fight they didn't really care about. Even if they ultimately won, that would mean they would get to delete comments off their Facebook page. What a victory.

Re:No, He Can't Do That

[Aighearach]

Police do not apologize unless somebody is about to take away their donuts. And even then usually not.

Stop with your drama already

[zifn4b]

Does the First Amendment grant you the right to enter my property and make me listen to what you have to say? No. In fact, I can have you arrested for trespassing. Therefore, it's not unconstitutional.

For crying out loud, snowflakes, you're making yourself look like idiots with these absurd claims which amount to nothing other than "I want to force you to have to listen to my shit" even though elsewhere you'll pitch a fucking fit about people wearing Halloween costumes on a college campus claiming that you shouldn't be "forced" to have to look at them. Hypocritical nonsense double-standard!

Re:No, He Can't Do That

[SharpFang]

"The government" is obligated to listen to listen to everyone about everything, everytime, per 1st amendment.

Noticed how I dropped one point? "Everywhere". Nope. The government is mandated to designate channels for this communication, which are open to everyone, about everything and everytime. As long as these exist, it's free to create any other channels that have arbitrary restrictions.

All the disgruntled blocked Twitter users are still perfectly welcome to send emails to president@whitehouse.gov and as long as that work they should STFU about 1st amendment.

Re:You have a right to free speech, not to be hear

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, that's not how the constitution works.

You have rights until the government takes them away. That's how America works.

Secondly, the government is required to not discriminate based on a number of factors. Whether the POTUS (who is using his account in an official government capacity to give direction to executive orders) is discriminating will be left up to the courts, as usual.

Re:Twitter is a PRIVATE company.

[david_thornley]

The electromagnetic spectrum is legally considered a limited public resource. ABC (well, its affiliates) use that particular public resource, and there are restrictions on what they are allowed to do. There are no corresponding limitations on broadcasts by other means, such as cable TV or YouTube, because they don't use such resources.

Re:Shoe on the other foot for the left.

[david_thornley]

Any person of any political persuasion is free to establish some sort of private discussion group that is restricted to some political slant. People all over the political spectrum do that. Is it your opinion that I should have the right to speak favorably of abortion rights in any Republican forum?

Re:No, He Can't Do That

[phantomfive]

Yeah that was about to happen. The money for a lawsuit defense wasn't coming out of their retirement fund.

Anyway, that's a stupid way to determine the quality of a lawsuit. It's far more interesting to get into the facts of the case. Do you think by creating a Facebook page, they created a public forum? and if so, what type of public forum? Should the courts create a new type of 'forum' to deal with this situation, or should it be stuck into a category (of forum) they've already created?

Re:No, He Can't Do That

[Aighearach]

The Court does not consider the argument that something is new just because "on a computer." They've been very clear about that.

There is long-standing precedent here. You have to introduce the argument that there even is a new element, and say what that element is. Just saying "twitter" or "facebook" doesn't introduce anything new.

There have been cases, for example, where a city council is having a meeting in rented private space, and refuses access to somebody with contrarian views. That violates their rights. Can't do it. The government isn't allowed to make deny access based on content. There is no equivocation there.

The argument that it is even questionable is pathetic. The reason it is untested when combined with the word "facebook" is that the idiots who blocked facebook users and deleted comments merely stated in public they thought it was OK and maybe something new, and then they talked to their lawyers who told them they're idiots, and then they came out an apologized and reversed the actions to prevent the lawsuit by fixing the problem. Nothing about that situation implies that there is legal uncertainty. That's absurd.

Re:No, He Can't Do That

[phantomfive]

Well, that's definitely a better analysis lol

Re:No, He Can't Do That

[DRJlaw]

As long as these exist, it's free to create any other channels that have arbitrary restrictions.

Nope. It's either open to comments by all under content neutral standards or it's announcement only. Arbitrary restrictions are not permitted in a designated public forum.

Re:No, He Can't Do That

[DRJlaw]

I'm not sure that analysis is correct. The case you linked to (in the indystar) never went to court. To consider it differently, if you are at a town-hall meeting, and CODEPINK runs in and starts shouting, they can be arrested.

Yet I am sure, since there's a bit more law in this area then the example that I provided. If you pay me, I'll teach you. Otherwise, I've given you more than enough resources and keywords to figure it out in your own.

Obviously that isn't something the creators of the constitution had thought about when they wrote the amendment, and none of the prior judgements really address the point, so the Supreme Court ruling would be based entirely on the opinions of the members of the court.

Law fail. Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37, 45 (1983), as explained in Section III.A. of Christian Legal Soc'y Chapter of the
Univ. of Cal., Hastings Coll. of the Law
v. Martinez, 130 S. Ct. 2971 (2010).

Re:No, He Can't Do That

[SharpFang]

Press conferences would end only when every single person present had their questions answered.

Shoe on the other foot for the left.

[sethstorm]

Given that the left organizes lists to make sure they only hear, discuss, and distribute official Party narrative, it's amusing to see them complain about their creation used against themselves.

Doubly amusing to see them try to repeatedly enforce it on /.

Re:No, He Can't Do That

[DRJlaw]

Press conferences would end only when every single person present had their questions answered.

Non sequitur. Twitter posts are not press conferences, and Trump's posts remain open for retweets and replies by those he likes.

Also, nobody said that you couldn't use content-neutral controls like time limits. However, Trump is using his account for official business while selectively blocking only those who disagree with him.

Re:No, He Can't Do That

[SharpFang]

Press conferences are a channel of gathering questions/requests for information from the public, providing answers on the spot. Only select members of public are authorized to participate, only selected from these get to ask the questions. Or do you have some more contrived definition of a channel of communication?

Re:No, He Can't Do That

[DRJlaw]

Jesus H. Christ... another non-sequitur.

The controversy is not over a press conference, it's over a twitter account that allows followers, retweets, and replies, and for that matter one which Sean Spicer has publicly said is an official channel of the Presidency.

I don't give a damn about your theories concerning press conferences, because for Trump's twitter account every non-blocked member of the public is authorized to participate, and every non-blocked member gets to follow, retweet, and reply to tweets. I don't have to have some more contrived definition of a channel of communication because Sean Mother-F'in Spicer says that @realDonaldTrump is an official channel of communication and it's not operated remotely similarly to a press conference.

It's your burden to establish a valid analogy between a Twitter account and a press conference. You're the only one to bring it up in this thread. I utterly reject the premise.

Re:No, He Can't Do That

[DRJlaw]

Too bad, this channel is a social media account and not a press conference. Davison v. Loudoun County Board of Supervisors, 2016 WL 4801617 (E.D. Va. Sept. 14, 2016).

Defendants concede that in adopting a Social Media Comments Policy, see Compl. Exh. 11 [Dkt. 1-11], the County designated its Facebook page a limited public forum. See Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss [Dkt. 4] at 13-14; see also Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819, 830 (1995) (a state policy facilitating speech creates a "metaphysical" forum). Once opened, the public may utilize a limited public forum to the extent consistent with the restrictions placed upon it by the state. See id. at 829; see also Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37, 71 n.7 (1983) (a limited public forum is "created for a limited purpose such as use by certain groups . . . or for the discussion of certain subjects.").

"Once it has opened a limited forum . . . the State must respect the lawful boundaries it has itself set." Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 829. This rule applies as much to Defendants' Facebook page as to any other limited public forum. See Bland v. Roberts, 730 F.3d 368, 386 (4th Cir. 2013), as amended (Sept. 23, 2013) (noting that speech on Facebook is subject to the same First Amendment protections as speech in any other context).

Once you open a limited public forum, you cannot exclude those qualified to participate on the basis that they are posting content or expression that you do not like. Full stop, per the Rosenberger Supreme Court case.

Re:No, He Can't Do That

[phantomfive]

thanks

Re:No, He Can't Do That

[SharpFang]

What about being disruptive, disorderly and a nuisance to the users and hosts?

Can I just walk into a limited public forum and start screaming through a megaphone whenever someone tries to speak? Can I claim 1st amendment protection on performing a DDoS comprising of political criticism messages?

Re:No, He Can't Do That

[DRJlaw]

What about being disruptive, disorderly and a nuisance to the users and hosts?

Define disruptive, disorderly, and a nuisance. Without using the content of the messages being posted.

Can I just walk into a limited public forum and start screaming through a megaphone whenever someone tries to speak?

Demonstrate that the blocked users screamed through a megaphone whenever anyone tried to speak. I'm thinking that it will be difficult given that this concerns a tweets, there's no volume, and users posting simultaneous replies is inherently part of the platform.

Can I claim 1st amendment protection on performing a DDoS comprising of political criticism messages?

Demonstrate that @realDonaldTrump has even been DDoSed by replies to his tweets.

Keep desperately pretending that these users were blocked for doing anything that any @realDonaldTrump supporter was doing but for being critical instead of supportive in their tweets.

Re:No, He Can't Do That

[SharpFang]

Prove otherwise. The messages are gone, so it's up to you to prove that the administration overstepped the bonds.

Are you going to say that setting cars on fire, as done on the inauguration day, is a protected free speech as well? Or setting a campus on fire, when a speaker for the conservatives is to give a speech? The "opponents" have a long and sordid history of violating the rules of civil discussion, so in absence of solid proofs that this instance specifically this was not the case, I'm strongly inclined to believe you're trying to dig up dirt on the administration where there is none.

Re:No, He Can't Do That

[DRJlaw]

Prove otherwise.

Ok.

There's two. Especially the second one.

The messages are gone, so it's up to you to prove that the administration overstepped the bonds.

You poor, ignorant sod. The messages are not gone -- the users were blocked. The messages remain. The news on this topic even includes copies of many...

Are you going to say that setting cars on fire, as done on the inauguration day, is a protected free speech as well? Or setting a campus on fire, when a speaker for the
conservatives is to give a speech?

Classic whataboutism. Ignored.

The "opponents" have a long and sordid history of violating the rules of civil discussion,

Labeling all members of a perceived group according to the worst anecdote that you can recall. Clear due process violation. Ignored.

so in absence of solid proofs that this instance specifically this was not the case, I'm strongly inclined to believe you're trying to dig up dirt on the administration where there is none.

Proofs provided.

While we're at it, please explain how one twitter message amongst 43K replies can disrupt the discussion