Slashdot Mirror
Trump Can Block People On Twitter If He Wants, Administration Says (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The administration of President Donald Trump is scoffing at a lawsuit by Twitter users who claim in a federal lawsuit that their constitutional rights are being violated because the president has blocked them from his @realDonaldTrump Twitter handle. "It would send the First Amendment deep into uncharted waters to hold that a president's choices about whom to follow, and whom to block, on Twitter -- a privately run website that, as a central feature of its social-media platform, enables all users to block particular individuals from viewing posts -- violate the Constitution." That's part of what Michael Baer, a Justice Department attorney, wrote to the New York federal judge overseeing the lawsuit Friday. In addition, the Justice Department said the courts are powerless to tell Trump how he can manage his private Twitter handle, which has 35.8 million followers.
"To the extent that the President's management of his Twitter account constitutes state action, it is unquestionably action that lies within his discretion as Chief Executive; it is therefore outside the scope of judicial enforcement," Baer wrote. (PDF) Baer added that an order telling Trump how to manage his Twitter feed "would raise profound separation-of-powers concerns by intruding directly into the president's chosen means of communicating to millions of Americans."
"To the extent that the President's management of his Twitter account constitutes state action, it is unquestionably action that lies within his discretion as Chief Executive; it is therefore outside the scope of judicial enforcement," Baer wrote. (PDF) Baer added that an order telling Trump how to manage his Twitter feed "would raise profound separation-of-powers concerns by intruding directly into the president's chosen means of communicating to millions of Americans."
Sounds about right.
The Justice Department is powerless to tell the courts what they can, can't, or must, do.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Trump has made Constitutional lawyers, fact checkers, and news organizations richer.
Table-ized A.I.
Of course he can. It's his personal account.
Within seconds of a tweet being posted, he'll have hundreds of replies, almost instantaneously, from the same people consistently, who always manage to get out 6 part tweets within a few seconds of each other.
Spam, essentially. And what do we do with spam? We block it.
Admittedly that's how most people deal with @realDonaldTrump anyway.
does not mean he can choose who is allowed to listen. When he talks to the American people, he has to talk to all the American people. A 'private' channel is not allowed. He must use publicly accessible channels.
It hardly matters. People can just open another account and continue their bitching from the first one.
I closed my twitter account because of trump.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
ALl they have to do it SIGN OUT and they can see what he post's. Its not like he banned from the internet or from the site completely. Just another smear campaign against the president they don't like.
Hopefully this will be the final straw before he is arrested.
It's a private company, with an account system. For some stupid reason, the president decided to make official announcements through a private messaging system, on his own private account.
It's the same logic as if he decided to make presidential press conferences pay-per-view events with giant costs associated with exerpts going into his own pocket. It's something not really foreseeable by earlier rule systems, and frankly more than a little corrupt in its exercise of power.
But from one perspective it makes sense - he's the leader of a party that wants to prove, using any method possible, that public governance can't work. He's in a position where the more stupid he acts, the more he shits on the very concept of reasonable leadership, the more he makes the very idea of public interests stink - and the more future versions of himself can rob from the public interest without eyebrows raising.
So, yeah - myspace and taco bell promotions for presidential announcements - why not?
He is the public figure. See subject.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
All this could be made moot though it Twitter chose to change its terms of service. If they said that any serving politician who uses their Twitter account in any public capacity (and Trump as well as many others do), then they aren't permitted to block users. If they block users, they lose their account. Twitter is, as the DOJ lawyers point out, a privately run website.
not the first time, not the last that Trump's administration ignores US law and tradition and decides whatever he does is ok.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
There's a fence around the White House, so it's pretty clear that the government has the right to block people from places it operates. Kicking a lunatic or a heckler out of a press conference or rally is no different than blocking someone on twitter. Free speech does not include the right to be disruptive or post stupid shit without consequences.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
ZOMG -- because -- you know -- tweets
What's next?
I'm not on twitter. It took me exactly 15 seconds to search @realdonaldtrump on a search engine and pull up his Twitter account where I can read his inane babbling all day if I want. It's hard to take Trump's critics seriously when they keep whining about complete nonsense like this.
Considering the Trump administration's record on predicting what is and what is not legal, I'm pretty sure we're about to find out that there's a constitutional amendment from the 1800s that doesn't allow the President to block people on Twitter.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Seriously. Being stupid isn't supposed to be their thing.
The Justice Department is powerless to tell the courts what they can, can't, or must, do.
A big part of presenting a position to a court is telling them what they can or can't do. They (and then the appellate courts) have to decide if you're right. You'd be amazed at what portion of legal matters in court involve decisions made by judges where they might rather do something else that might make more sense in a particular case, but they have limited power. In reality, while there are many judges from both sides of the aisle whom we may disagree with from time to time, this restraint is why the notion of the "activist judge" is basically a myth, especially at the federal level.
The courts defer to the executive or Congress on a wide variety of matters. Still, blocking a person prevents them from viewing your tweet and thus from interacting with it, which certainly limits that person's ability to comment on that tweet in a forum with thirty million plus people. It stretches credulity that you could convince a judge that a forum of thirty million people is anything other than a fully public forum, and free speech protections are at their zenith when talking about political matters in a public forum.
The blocked person may have ample alternative avenues for communication, but preventing them from commenting on the basis of their speech is still a content-based restraint on speech and IIRC is presumptively unconstitutional. Still, First Amendment doctrine is a bit labyrinthine and it would take a full briefing to lay out and evaluate the issue fully.
Real lawyers write in C++
Sounds to me like a business opportunity. Build a website whose sole purpose is to post all of Trump's Twitter posts, including those that are in reply to someone else's Twitter post, throw some ads on the site and wait for the money to start rolling in.
Then I am looking forward to my Congressional Rep not being allowed to block me on a whim.
While I don't call people names, etc. I can only imagine what my US House Rep's FB feed is gonna look like when she is required to leave stuff she doesn't like up there.
Caution: Contents under pressure
Suppose Trump pardons the neo-nazi terrorist?
He's already claimed to have absolute pardoning powers, he's already called for supporters to 'use their second amendment rights' against Clinton. You see in that scenario, his supporters will feel free to go around shooting Trump opponents knowing they'll get pardoned.
A judge rules against you? Tweet: "2nd amendment so called Judge"
It seems as long as the Republicans won't do their job of keeping the executive in check, then everything is possible for el Trumpo. He could even pardon one of Putins polonium assassins and they won't tackle him.
Reality check: You lost deal with it.
So the whitehouse staff is claiming that his 5am shitter tweets are official whitehouse policy.... but that his personal account is not official government documentation and thus subject to freedom of speech concerns?
Sorry guys, you cannot have it both ways, either its the depraved private musings of a senile old man on his own personal account
OR
It is official government documentation and policy announcements, and thus you cannot censor whom has access to reply.
The Courts have one job and only one job, to interpret the law.
That means that the administration has no business saying what the law is. That is entirely the Court's power.
So when they try to say what the court can and can not do, they are ALWAYS wrong. They expressly do not have the power or right to say what the law is.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
People often forget, that for Freedom of Speech to be truely applied, listeners must have the right to decide what they wish to hear.
The lawsuit is basically saying that doesn't apply to the President, which is the opposite of their intent.
Because never will I ever follow this discusting pathetic piece of garbage.
They're making a legal argument. Are you trying to say the executive branch has no right to tell a court how it thinks the law should be interpreted?
and photographers: Trump
AFAIK, Donald Trump is presently in control of *two* distinct twitter accounts.
First, his personal account, and second, the official whitehouse @POTUS account that a history check confirms was previously used by Barack Obama.
He uses both accounts for separate purposes. It's easy to argue that activity on his personal account has no bearing on his official position or actions as president.
Now, if Trump was blocking people from his presidential twitter, that would be a different ballgame.
In what way is this different from the President deciding who he want to talk to in person and who he chooses to never talk to in person? Just because he is the President, it doesn't mean that he has to have a conversation with anyone who demands an audience.
We take the Internet too seriously sometimes. Web sites are games. Blocking people on Twitter is like a move in that game. Telling POTUS he can't block people is like telling he can't get crowned in a game of checkers.
Let's say that it is more serious though. Let's say Trump's account is like an open channel to the White House. Well, we've always been free to write an old fashioned letter to POTUS, and he's always been free to throw them in the trash, or direct staffers to filter them with certain criteria. It's not like POTUS has to carefully read every letter from every 2nd grade kid that writes. Sometimes he does, and that kid knows they won the lottery. There's just no other practical way for that to work.
So yeah, Trump, or any POTUS can block whoever he wants on a web site. That seem fairly cut and dry to me.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
So you think there cannot be such a thing as juridicial abuse?
This is the real meaning of covfefe. "You are all taking this far too srsly."
It all makes sense now.
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
If Gawker, Vox and even those assholes at Conde Nast can argue that anyone can and needs to be booted out of social networks for spouting insane things like "gamers aren't dead" then yes, even that vile person of Donald "Duck Taxes" Trump has the full right to block any special snowflake arguing against the shittitude of her tv majesty.
The only thing that Drumpf can't do is to persecute people for their beliefs but it doesn't mean that you as a citizen have the right to use his twitter feed to hold a platform.
(ianal) As he uses it to communicate with the public, aka the american people, it's not being used for private purposes, it's being used for the office of the president of the united states. As such, that puts it in a whole different category. Everything he posts to it needs to be archived, and nobody that's an american citizen can be banned from it. Otherwise he's seriously screwing up and violating other rules and laws regarding POTUS.
The only reason for trump to ban comments is if he doesn't like the comment. However he's the fucking president and this is the president's communication channel he chose himself to use as the president.
And the president has to represent EVERYONE, even people he doesn't like and even people who don't like him.
And he must NEVER block ideas he doesn't like because he's supposed to be the fucking president. Ignorance of other ideas is a disaster for a politician. Why the fuck do you think there's supposed to be politicians listening to their voters? Because they're supposed to hear their voters,whether they agree with them or not, or there's no fucking point to the politician at all and the money could be spent somewhere useful instead, like schools and hospitals.
The president cannot block people he doesn't like
Donald Trump can.
But this is not Donald Trump's tweet profile, it's the president of the USA's tweet profile.
If the stupid little retard wants to block people he should only use twitter for stuff AS DT, NOT POTUS. He refuses to do so because his tiny brain and incapacitated self control can't manage two accounts for separate purposes.
So he doesn't get to block.
Twitter should work to remove any blocks that DT puts in on a regular basis. If he doesn't like it he can try to sue Twitter for it, but he'd fail because his use is official communication and is not a private channel.
So he should not get Twitter to block. It's his stupid time and he chose both the job and using twitter. Suck it up, cupcake.
The problem here is that Trump is arbitrarily picking and choosing who has the capability to voice their grievances. I really don't see the courts approving of that. This could be resolved the same way corporations resolve these issues: establish a WH policy regarding access and enforce it, preferably independently, meaning Trump doesn't hit the block button himself. Simple example: If your messages approach the threshold of harassment as given for a public figure, then your account can be blocked. This would venture into unprotected speech, and blocking an account committing it would be reasonable. Although this could likely still get lawsuits in order to get a ruling on whether or not a block was reasonable in any given situation. Alternatively, he could resign, and block whoever he wants, that'd work too. Or delete his Twitter; another valid solution. Or hey, both would be great too.
...on Twitter. He blocks accounts on Twitter. It's an important distinction.
It's hard to take Trump seriously when he compulsively lies all the time. He lies even more the "Lyin' Hillary Clinton".
Besides, it's more fun to give him hell by standing in the way of E V E R Y T H I N G he tries to do.
So, no, it's an official communication channel and we don't want him to be able to block anyone from it. We'll even take him to court over it - just for kicks.
#RESIST
"would raise profound separation-of-powers concerns by intruding directly into the president's chosen means of communicating to millions of Americans." Except for those American's that are banned, because screw those Americans. Honestly I don't know what the big deal is. We see his greatest hits on news websites anyway. Everything else is just filler.
He can block me any time he wants!
HPD Ordered to Pay $31K over Censored Facebook Comments
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com...
Court Rules Against Politician Who Banned Access to Her Facebook Page
http://www.foxbusiness.com/fea...
"Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
Only the Lefttarded would complain about not being able to read something that CAN BE READ BY EVERYONE THAT DOES NOT LOG IN!
Stupid snowflakes...
My rifles await your eradication from Earth!
This is a VERY dangerous thing!
Twitter is NOT an official communications channel to our leaders.
Consider that Trump has morphed his Twitter account as the means to (preach) to the constituency.
Reciprocity dictates that this is also where he would get feedback from that constituency.
VALUABLE feedback from the people he is serving is being ignored via this channel.
And, this valuable feedback is likely mostly lost as most would then not resort to the unblockable proper office channels.
To effectively deafen those he is supposed to be serving, he is effectively breaching his duties as a holder of an office "By the People, For the People"!
and effectively creating a DICTATORSHIP! Yet, presently, only on Twitter.
Trump is a CORPORATE business person.
It is obvious that Trump has NO clue how to be an ELECTED official to SERVE the people.
As a CEO, he has dictatorial powers. As a PUBLIC OFFICIAL, he has OBLIGATIONS to those he (is supposed to be) governing.
Get real, fellow citizens. His is ALLOWED to block anyone on Twitter.
Now that you have (mis-)spoken with your vote for him, if you want to be heard, then fucking say it thru the official office channels.
And next time, fucking vote for a truly COMPETENT candidate!
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
Being blocked by President Trump on Twitter should be a badge of honor. Millions of people should aspire to achieve this. I suspect it would have a chilling effect on his use of Twitter if he exceeded the number of people he could block should there actually be an upper limit. I suspect the limit may be 65535 but we (Friends and countrymen) should aspire to find out!