Slashdot Mirror
Twitter Users Blocked By Trump Sue, Claim @realDonaldTrump Is Public Forum (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: A handful of Twitter users, backed by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, sued President Donald Trump on Tuesday, claiming their constitutional rights are being violated because the president has blocked them from his @realDonaldTrump handle. The suit claims that Trump's Twitter feed is a public forum and an official voice of the president. Excluding people from reading or replying to his tweets -- especially because they tweeted critical comments -- amounts to a First Amendment breach, according to the lawsuit.
"The @realDonaldTrump account is a kind of digital town hall in which the president and his aides use the tweet function to communicate news and information to the public, and members of the public use the reply function to respond to the president and his aides and exchange views with one another," according to the lawsuit (PDF) filed in New York federal court. "Defendants' viewpoint-based blocking of the Individual Plaintiffs from the @realDonaldTrump account infringes the Individual Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights. It imposes an unconstitutional restriction on their participation in a designated public forum," the suit says. "It imposes an unconstitutional restriction on their right to access statements that Defendants are otherwise making available to the public at large. It also imposes an unconstitutional restriction on their right to petition the government for redress of grievances."
"The @realDonaldTrump account is a kind of digital town hall in which the president and his aides use the tweet function to communicate news and information to the public, and members of the public use the reply function to respond to the president and his aides and exchange views with one another," according to the lawsuit (PDF) filed in New York federal court. "Defendants' viewpoint-based blocking of the Individual Plaintiffs from the @realDonaldTrump account infringes the Individual Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights. It imposes an unconstitutional restriction on their participation in a designated public forum," the suit says. "It imposes an unconstitutional restriction on their right to access statements that Defendants are otherwise making available to the public at large. It also imposes an unconstitutional restriction on their right to petition the government for redress of grievances."
Some in his WH cabinet have claimed it is official.
It is a private forum. The owners of that private forum should have already cancelled the tiny handed one's Twitter account for multiple violations of TOS. Others have been banned for far less than what the orange clown has said.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
actually, his communications officer has declared it to be an official communication channel. Which by the way, means deleting tweets from it between his first and last day in office is a violation of the communications preservations acts.
The smashing, violence, and beatings is overwhelmingly coming from the left. That's how it's been for many years.
I have to agree. My personal theory is that many of the violent people have convinced themselves that their political enemies are in fact bad people and "fair game" for anything. It goes like this: It's okay to punch a Nazi; conservatives are all Nazis... and then comes the punching.
Here is a web page linking multiple articles arguing that the violence used to prevent Milo Yiannopolous from speaking at Berkeley was justified. "Violence helped ensure safety of students" is a real headline. There was also this quote: "...some white nationalists got their ***** beat." (Just like the Nazi thing above, only this time using "white nationalist".
Someone who wanted to hear Milo speak --> white nationalist --> someone it's okay to send to the hospital.)
http://www.dailycal.org/2017/02/07/violence-self-defense/
Also, the media coverage may tend to embolden these people. The people who smash things, light things on fire, and send people to the hospital are described as "protesters". The people who wanted to hear Milo speak are described as "alt-Right extremists". I don't want to overstate the contribution of the media but I think it's a part.
Personally I think that the correct remedy for bad speech is counter-speech. Violence isn't acceptable to prevent speech, even if you really disagree.
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
"Some in his WH cabinet have claimed it is official."
Leave it to an AC to not know the difference between "public" and "official." He has an official plane, too. Doesn't mean you get a ride in it.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
In the context of the First Amendment, such a meeting is called a limited public forum, and is subject to some restrictions by the government that organized it. http://www.firstamendmentcente... goes into more depth about what is and isn't allowed.
I very much doubt that the @realDonaldTrump Twitter account will be held to be either a traditional or limited public forum for the purposes of First Amendment analysis. It meets the usual criteria for a nonpublic forum, and any "public" uses of it align closely with Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37 (1983) as described at https://canons.sog.unc.edu/lim....