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."

44 of 430 comments (clear)

  1. Wrong approach by williamyf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    @realDonaldTrump IS NOT a public forum. Is the personal Twitter account of Mr. Donald J. Trump.

    @POTUS is a public forum, as is the account of the President Of The United States.

    The lawsuit soud be about Mr. Donald J. Trump using his PERSONAL twitter Account to conduct matters of state and public interest...

    --
    *** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
    1. Re:Wrong approach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Some in his WH cabinet have claimed it is official.

    2. Re:Wrong approach by BitterOak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree, and not only that, there's nothing to prevent people from creating a second Twitter account. You can even read someone's tweets while you're not logged into any account as long as the account isn't private. So, by blocking people, he isn't really preventing anyone from reading his tweets.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    3. Re:Wrong approach by fermion · · Score: 2
      It is a statement that could be defended, but usually we don't differentiate the POTUS from the person who occupies it.

      Certainly Trump appears to believe that all of his actions fall under the protection of the office, not just his official duties. So when he is at his golf resorts on most weekends, and leaks classified information, he is not prosecuted as Donald J Trump, businessmen, but protected as POTUS.

      Likewise he uses his personal Twitter account to make statements as POTUS, and bragged that it is the way he communicates with the people. For instance he uses the feed to release official information, calling himself president, not just DJT who is occasionally the president.

      It is one thing for Trump to never hold a town hall. We cannot fault him for being a coward and hide behind campaign rallies where he can control who attends. However, if he is going to be POTUS, and going to make use his personal twitter account to make official US announcements and policy, which is has, then he has to follow the rules just like anyone else.

      We are not a fascist country, and the POTUS is not a dictator who can do anything he wants.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    4. Re:Wrong approach by geekmux · · Score: 4, Insightful

      @realDonaldTrump IS NOT a public forum. Is the personal Twitter account of Mr. Donald J. Trump.

      @POTUS is a public forum, as is the account of the President Of The United States.

      The lawsuit soud be about Mr. Donald J. Trump using his PERSONAL twitter Account to conduct matters of state and public interest...

      I have a better idea. Let's stop trying to recognize a fucking Twitter account as a form of communication for the President of the United States.

      His position entitles him to take over the entire spectrum of public transmission in order to broadcast a message to the masses if necessary. And I'm pretty sure the US Government budget can swing the costs of their own domain name. Perhaps we should stop pretending his ability to communicate to an entire country is somehow reliant on cheesy social media freeware.

    5. Re:Wrong approach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      His position entitles him to take over the entire spectrum of public transmission in order to broadcast a message to the masses if necessary.

      Please dear Lord, do not let that asshole know that.

      24x7 wall-to-wall ads for Trump products.
      On every broadcaster. Forever.

    6. Re:Wrong approach by tinkerghost · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    7. Re:Wrong approach by taniwha · · Score: 2

      This suit is not about the US govt stopping the President from having his/her say .... it's about the president (ie the govt) stopping citizens from having their say - this is a suit from people who have been silenced and are unable to respond to Trump's tweets

    8. Re:Wrong approach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The question is whether he has actually conducted public business on his personal account and whether the President can even have a personal account. This question would eventually lead to the SC for a final decision.
      All he does on his personal feed is make snide and hyperbolic personal comments on the various topics addressed on his feed.

      But the people behind this lawsuit are trying anything and everything to bring the Trump administration to an end. And if these plaintiffs are so concerned about their freedom of speech why haven't they created new accounts with a different user name? A new account will give them access to the feed again so they can root out any evil taking place behind their backs.

      Make no mistake there is a coup in process. It is being conducted by the MSM along with the sore losers in the last election. Trump has a 4 year term limit and then can be shown to the door. Those wishing to take his place after the next election should probably be busy re-evaluating their policies and tactics. So far all they have done is issue daily and unsupported accusations against the President. Even the accusations are reported in such a way to hide the fact that all of the accusations are about actions that are not even illegal. Apparently it is against the law for a private US citizen to talk to a Russian. Apparently it is also against the law for using a private US citizen as the intermediary in efforts to establish a back channel that can be used between the US and Russia. I guess Obama was grandfathered in when he setup a back channel to the Iranian government? Creating back channels for communicating with other countries is SOP and has been ever since the country was founded. But reading the news you would think this is an illegal activity that now needs to be investigated.

      Every single news item concerning Trump start with headlines that are not supported in the article content. The content is littered with "maybe", "could have", "may have", or "might" adverbials while claiming the "facts" were provided by an Anonymous source or by an official that is "not authorized to speak" so the name is withheld. Are we expected to just trust the media without question because they are protecting the little people? The adverbials listed above work as a shield to protect the media sources against libel suits. Their defense can revolve around the fact that they didn't actually say anything definitive and it was more speculation on their part so they are lawsuit proof.

      The tactics being used today to disrupt the Executive Branch will be finely honed and implemented with a vengeance on whoever becomes the next President. Lines have been crossed and uncrossing them may take armed conflict down the line. People and countries always seem to forget that in any type of conflict the enemy also gets a rebuttal and a vote. This occurs in the domestic political conflicts and International conflicts. Keep a close eye on all those preening G-29 pussies making proclamations about doing this or that hoping to pressure the US into allowing them to continue their military freeloading and EXPECTING the US to always have their back no matter what. The EXPECT the US to accept trade policies that may not hurt the US economy but they will certainly not help it either.

      It's past obvious that those wishing to get rid of Trump believe their policies are 100% right and everyone else is wrong. They gracefully acknowledge that those that disagree with them may mean well but allowances need to be made to compensate for their stupidity. The media outlets have resorted to using Opinion pieces instead of any real news.

      have no limits on what they are willing to do. After all it's for a really good cause

    9. Re:Wrong approach by CanadianRealist · · Score: 2

      If anyone is pretending that the president's ability to communicate is reliant on Twitter, it would be Trump himself, who keeps using Twitter to communicate. And as long as he continues to do so, people will continue to recognize it for what it is.

    10. Re:Wrong approach by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's the President who is choosing to communicate via social media channels, we're not making that choice for him, so unfortunately we do have to recognize that the President of the United States is using a "fucking Twitter account" as a form of communication.

      Until he stops, that's how it is. When the next fad means of communication comes out, if he's using it, it's a form of communication. Sorry.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    11. Re:Wrong approach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Does that apply to emails written by the Secretary of State? Asking for a friend.

    12. Re:Wrong approach by Tjp($)pjT · · Score: 2

      Does his communications officer have the authority to declare it is an official communications channel? I think not. When Congress or the POTUS sounds off on it with either legislation or an EO, then it has some weight.

      --
      - Tjp

      I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!

    13. Re: Wrong approach by Entrope · · Score: 2

      Deleting data from a government system does not necessarily break any laws. Only government records, as defined by the relevant laws, have to be preserved and archived.

      For example, the Presidential Records Act defines presidential records as certain kinds of things that the president (or his staff) create or receive "in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President".

      When Trump uses Twitter to point out that CNN, the NYT and the WaPo are spouting fake news, it probably doesn't come close to counting under that law. In fact, little (of anything) on his Twitter account would qualify.

    14. Re: Wrong approach by Entrope · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The plaintiffs in this lawsuit have no right, First Amendment or otherwise, for the general public to be forcibly exposed to their responses to Trump's blather.

      They can even set up a public mirror of his tweets, and respond there, if they want. Call it @realSmallHands or something, although that's probably taken.

    15. Re:Wrong approach by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When he uses it to publish public statements about policy then it is an official communications channel. He is the highest official in the land and is using it to communicate with the public.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    16. Re:Wrong approach by hey! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It has nothing to do with authority. It has everything to do with how the president uses that channel of communications.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    17. Re: Wrong approach by Entrope · · Score: 2

      You have the right to write angry responses to the Twit In Chief. You have the right to jeer when he speaks. You do not have the right to force anybody else to read your responses or listen to your jeers. You have the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, but bitching and moaning on his personal Twitter feed is not the constitutionally approved mechanism for that.

    18. Re:Wrong approach by msauve · · Score: 2, Informative

      "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
    19. Re:Wrong approach by msauve · · Score: 2

      " it's about the president (ie the govt) stopping citizens from having their say - this is a suit from people who have been silenced and are unable to respond to Trump's tweets"

      The suit is as fucking stupid as they are. Because that's not happening in any way, shape or form. People can complain all they want, under their own Twitter accounts or pretty much anywhere else they feel they'll be heard. Guess what - you can't submit an article and automatically get it published in the Congressional Record, either. No one is being silenced.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    20. Re:Wrong approach by dwillden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And how are the people who have been blocked any different from protestors who repeatedly interrupt a speech and get removed from the venue? Their boorish behavior got them ejected/blocked. That is not a violation of their rights. It is a consequence of them trying to take their rights so far that they infringed on the rights of others and were therefore ejected/blocked.

      Those citizens are free to create another account and resume monitoring of the feed, they can try to comment more moderately or just comment elsewhere. Or even resume the activities that got them blocked in the first place, in which case they will likely soon be blocked again. Actions have consequences, the freedom of speech is not without limits, insist on being obnoxious and disruptive and removing you from the venue to allow others to exercise their rights is not a violation of your rights.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    21. Re: Wrong approach by Entrope · · Score: 4, Informative

      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....

    22. Re:Wrong approach by dwillden · · Score: 2

      They have disrupted his feed with their obnoxious responses. So he blocked them, it is analogous to removing protestors from a speech at a real world venue. Their behavior cost them their access, but it is NOT an infringement of their rights. Their rights end when it begins infringing on his rights and the rights of others.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
  2. Complete idiocy by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is the kind of utter nonsense that's likely to get us a second Trump term, making everybody on the ant-Trump side look like complete morons.

    (And no, I didn't vote for the SOB.)

    1. Re: Complete idiocy by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, what's cute is a anonymous loser saying he IS going to be impeached without having the intellectual honesty (or capacity, obviously) to mention any tangible reason why he would be, let alone actually be convicted of anything. The fact that you don't include such musings is a measure of what a phony you are on the subject. But please! Carry on! Continue with unhinged, delusional snarkery right on through the 2018 elections. Because unhinged liberal delusions are exactly what cost the Democrats nearly a thousand legislative seats under Obama, most of the governorships, both houses of congress, the White House, the Supreme Court, and hordes of two-time Obama voters who turned their back on condescending, petulant ranty liberals in a final fit of disgust. More please! So, thanks for every bit of fact- and context-free snark you can continue to provide - it helped in November, and will continue to. Thanks in advance.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:Complete idiocy by bobbied · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is the kind of utter nonsense that's likely to get us a second Trump term, making everybody on the ant-Trump side look like complete morons.

      (And no, I didn't vote for the SOB.)

      I did vote for him, and I think your analysis is right. THIS is exactly the kind of idiocy that will get us a 2nd term. The obvious obstructionist hypocrisy is on full display. You can only trade in hype and hyperbolae for so long before folks become desensitized to your effort and you have to invent some new crisis to whip up the base again. Rinse, hype up to a lather, and repeat. I don't see how Trumps opponent can compete. By the time the next presidential election rolls around, assuming he doesn't shoot himself in the foot and get caught up in something real, he will have the persona of a guy who survived the full onslaught of the opposition, the winner he claimed to be the first time around... How does his challenger compete with that?

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re: Complete idiocy by Jahoda · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If Hillary Clinton had been elected and was accused of even 1/10th of what Trump is under investigation for there is zero doubt in my mind that there would be armed revolt in the streets with rifles and everything else.

      Returning to the topic at hand, if the President feels that twitter is the appropriate way to address the nation, then the account should be treated no differently than any other instrument of the executive office.As you have noticed, the democratic party controls none of the federal government, so let us not worry so much about them as much as the ruling party and it's actions - and I know that you hold them to the same standard as you did Obama and the Democrats.

      >> But please! Carry on! Continue with unhinged, delusional snarkery

      You know, there's irony, and then there's irony.

    4. Re: Complete idiocy by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 2

      "Hillary's healthcare bill that would have brought 10,000 Hong Kong police to the US under accelerated naturalization"

      That's a new one I haven't heard of, and I thought I knew almost all of the conspiracy theories. Any citations for this? I can't find anything online remotely mentioning this.

  3. It is not going to work by AlanObject · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't think that's going to work. The White House and most if not all Senators and Congressmen have web pages for many years and have never given up the right to control what goes on them.

    Free speech does not mean that the government has to publish whatever you want to say. When the president gives a speech he does not have to give up the microphone to you.

    Further, if this actually got to court they could point out that the plaintiffs have multiple other avenues to having their voiced heard. There is no constitutional reason it has to be on the president's twitter feed.

    Big Meh

    1. Re:It is not going to work by Zaelath · · Score: 2

      Yeah, it's the last part that's the crux of the matter, you have the right to speak, but I don't have to listen to you.

    2. Re:It is not going to work by Serenissima · · Score: 5, Funny

      It would be absolutely hilarious if this went to court, the court ruled it was a private account, and the next day Twitter blocked the account because of too many abusive language flags.
      They could say, "It's a private account, the President is still able to post through the @POTUS account."
      It'd never happen, but man, it'd be funny if it did. :)

      --
      Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. But light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
    3. Re:It is not going to work by quantaman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I don't think that's going to work. The White House and most if not all Senators and Congressmen have web pages for many years and have never given up the right to control what goes on them.

      I don't see how that's relevant (unless you mean things like Facebook).

      Free speech does not mean that the government has to publish whatever you want to say. When the president gives a speech he does not have to give up the microphone to you.

      No, but if he creates a bulletin board for people to post comments about his speech he can't take down all the ones he disagrees with.

      Further, if this actually got to court they could point out that the plaintiffs have multiple other avenues to having their voiced heard. There is no constitutional reason it has to be on the president's twitter feed.

      Big Meh

      The first amendment doesn't work like that, you can't do viewpoint discrimination just because the person could publish their views somewhere else.

      That being said I'm still not convinced Twitter does qualify as a public forum. I find the claims about being barred from reading the Tweets to be unconvincing (it's pretty easy to view the tweets even if blocked), but being unable to reply is another matter. Being unable to reply to @RealDonaldTrump really does affect your ability to participate in the public dialogue.

      There's also a lot of Politicians who have Facebook pages, I don't see why a ruling on Trump's Twitter account wouldn't apply to their Facebook pages as well.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    4. Re:It is not going to work by ScentCone · · Score: 2

      It's about Trump deciding that certain individuals don't qualify to receive his 'tweets'.

      No, you've got it exactly wrong. Certain individuals have demonstrated that they can't be constructive REPLYING in public on his personal account and have been stopped from doing so. They can READ his tweets all day long.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    5. Re:It is not going to work by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Interesting

      if the POTUS offers 'the citizens' in general a back-channel to reach the POTUS (ie, a reply button) - but then denies it selectively based on personal whim, THAT is the problem that we are discussing.

      if he made it broadcast-only, like classic old-school one-way media, then no one has a reply button. that's how things were up until we had this 'series of tubes' appear and, well, change everything.

      small-hands wants to silence his critics and make his 'channel' appear to be nothing but good feelings and support from 'all' the people. and by deleting the ones you don't agree with, you censor the public. no other way to put it, you censor the public's replies based on arbitrary political criteria.

      do you really think that's a good thing? is this the kind of country and society we want?

      if he's allowing any comments, he must allow them all.

      stay classy, donald. (sigh)

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    6. Re:It is not going to work by mrclevesque · · Score: 2

      I don't use twitter. But aren't they no longer able to follow, read, or reply to Trump's tweets within the twitter application?

  4. Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's a private forum when the left uses to censor people. But it's suddenly a public forum when they are the ones being censored.

    1. Re:Funny by DickBreath · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.
  5. presidential government communication actually by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2

    maybe the WH should turn the video back on.

    we need snaps for the #WinterIsHere snap filter

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  6. Re:I don't get it by penandpaper · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think they are also upset by the fact they cannot "reply" to @realDonaldTrump when banned. It's not good enough to see what he says but they want to feel important by replying to his tweets.

    "members of the public use the reply function to respond to the president and his aides and exchange views with one another"

  7. Re:Trump isn't the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    how can we disenfranchise 63 million heavily-armed idiots? Bible-thumping assmonkeys

    And this is why this country is the state it's in. Have some respect for your fellow Americans, even if you don't agree with them. You keep calling them militant rednecks, they keep calling you communist tree huggers, and nothing changes for the better. Try understanding and compromising, instead of demonizing and neutralizing.

  8. What it will come down to by sarbonn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The interesting part of this case is that it most likely will be decided upon whether or not the court system considers Trump's Twitter account to be the official word of the POTUS, or if it's considered a private account. His own staff has already muddied the water by stating that his tweets are official words of the administration. And his POTUS account is practically silent in comparison to his own personal account. I don't personally have a horse in this race, but I am quite interested in the outcome because either way the decision goes, it's going to be a significant decision.

    --
    Sarbonn's blog: http://www.sarbonn.com/blog
  9. Re:Dumb and wrong. by spire3661 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You know what else used to be wholly private? ATT. We decided it was in the best interests of the nation to destroy that privacy and make it fair for all. There is no reason we cant do the same to online discourse. Further, Twitter is only reachable by crossing public right of ways. Being 'private' isnt as set in stone as you think.

    --
    Good-bye
  10. Re: I don't get it by bobbied · · Score: 2

    So now a tweet is the same as a petition? That's crazy! Think of the implications.

    So.. What if he refuses to answer their phone call or read their paper letter, email or FAX? Is he now REQUIRED to not block any means of communicating because it's a petition?

    I think you are misreading the constitution on purpose or are flat crazy myself....

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  11. Re:Trump isn't the problem by Kiuas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Try understanding and compromising, instead of demonizing and neutralizing.

    I'm not an American but having followed and participated in quite a few discussions about Trump and Trump supporters, here's the challenge with this: generally speaking anyone with enough intelligence can understand your point is correct, and that simply launching insults at people is not going to change anyone's mind.

    But that's just it; to understand the value of civility and focusing on factual discussion instead of personal traits requires some education. The trump-base at this point consist of mostly uneducated people many of whom think for example that repealing Obamacare is a good thing when they're relying on it themselves but simply do not realize that the affordable care act and 'Obamacare' are one and the same thing. These are often extremely mis and disinformed people who are very easily manipulated with outright lies as their capability and willingness to do fact-checking is highly limited, which is why they're easy prey for all sorts of conspiracy theorists á la Alex turning the freaking frogs gay' Jones.

    Now then, obviously mocking these people won't make them any smarter or get them to realize their errors, so doing that is a waste of time and resources. However at the same time 'understanding and compromising' is not something they're really all that capable of at this point because trump has effectively put them in this mindset of 'winning' vs 'losing'. In their minds, the 'losers' from the 'fake news' outlets are outraged that Trump won and are trying to sabotage him from every angle, so obviously the news are going to report negative things about him but that's just because they don't want him to "win." Like the conspiracy theorists, it doesn't really mater how much data you present to them to try and show them they're wrong because they' quite naturally ignore evidence that runs contrary to their understanding. Confirmation bias combined with Dunning-Kruger effect (Trump supporters largely overestimating their own knowledge and abilities) and curse of knowledge where the non-Trump side assumes that the Trump supporters have all the skills available to be able to understand why the concept of say climate change is not 'a Chinese conspiracy to make American corporations less competitive' as Trump claimed if someone just hands them the facts. But that's not how it goes, and anyone who's ever debated a conspiracy theorist or been one himself will know this.

    In short: as long as you have a president in charge of the country whose main rhetorical devices are lying, insults and obfuscation, I'm afraid expecting the general level of political discussion to elevate itself to a higher level is probably futile. The only long lasting answer is to educate the poor people more, which the Trump administration certainly is not going to do because it thrives on ignorance.

    --
    "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead