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

[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.

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. :)

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: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).

The left has gone full retard.

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Among other things

[Rick Schumann]

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

Re: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.

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.....