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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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).

1st Amendment

[amiga3D]

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

Re:1st Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:1st Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

First Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

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

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

Re:1st Amendment

[Carewolf]

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

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

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

Yes, He Can Do That

[ewhac]

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

Re:Yes, He Can Do That

[Fire_Wraith]

It's an interesting question, really.

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

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

Re:Yes, He Can Do That

[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

[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]

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=

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!

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.

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

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.

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: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?

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

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: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.