Slashdot Mirror
President Trump Can't Block People On Twitter, Court Rules (knightcolumbia.org)
Reader drunken_boxer777 writes: US District Judge Buchwald issued a 75-page ruling today clearly articulating why Donald Trump cannot block Twitter users, as it violates their First Amendment rights.
"Turning to the merits of plaintiffs' First Amendment claim, we hold that the speech in which they seek to engage is protected by the First Amendment and that the President and Scavino exert governmental control over certain aspects of the @realDonaldTrump account, including the interactive space of the tweets sent from the account. That interactive space is susceptible to analysis under the Supreme Court's forum doctrines, and is properly characterized as a designated public forum. The viewpoint-based exclusion of the individual plaintiffs from that designated public forum is proscribed by the First Amendment and cannot be justified by the President's personal First Amendment interests." Further reading: Bloomberg.
"Turning to the merits of plaintiffs' First Amendment claim, we hold that the speech in which they seek to engage is protected by the First Amendment and that the President and Scavino exert governmental control over certain aspects of the @realDonaldTrump account, including the interactive space of the tweets sent from the account. That interactive space is susceptible to analysis under the Supreme Court's forum doctrines, and is properly characterized as a designated public forum. The viewpoint-based exclusion of the individual plaintiffs from that designated public forum is proscribed by the First Amendment and cannot be justified by the President's personal First Amendment interests." Further reading: Bloomberg.
Seems to assume all Twitter users are U.S. citizens.
That not allowing someone to talk to you is a violation of their right to free speech.
And that digital forums are 'public', despite plenty of homeless and impoverished citizens lacking access to them.
AC here,
The right to free speech does not guarantee your ability to project your voice into any forum you want unimpeded. It only guarantees that the Government will not do the impeding. Uncle Sam can't shut you down very easily, but Twitter, or your local news channel, or YouTube, is not required to give you a microphone to say whatever you want.
Freedom of speech has nothing to do with citizenship, government sponsored things (e.g. DT's twitter) not allowing you to talk is one of the basic examples of violating free speech, the four seasons is a place of public accommodation despite requiring a certain income level, and you can access Twitter from a library.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Critical part:
It's not about viewing his posts - it's the ability to reply, and join in the cesspool that follows each of his tweets, that's emphasized in the judgement.
It seems like you need to read the actual first amendment, not your limited interpretation of it: https://www.law.cornell.edu/co... (hint: petition the government)
is a public forum and cannot ban Trump.
Applies to TV networks when they broadcast Presidential speeches as well. Really, do you not get that the variable here is that he's an elected official and that it has nothing to do with Twitter as a company?
Sorry my 1st amendment rights are an inconvenience to the President. But he knew what the job was going in so I don't feel bad about it.
If Twitter does it unilaterally, and Trump has nothing to do with the selection, then nothing. The ruling is against Trump, not Twitter, and Twitter isn't mandated to do anything.
Think of it this way: if I have a garden party, and Trump walks in, and then orders his security detail to eject all the people who disagree with him (which would be, like, 99% of anyone at a garden party I organize, but that's neither here nor there), then a judge might rule that's illegal. If I, on the other hand, decide to kick people out for being drunk, or making death threats, or harassing people, then I don't see why a judge would get involved. Do you?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
To me the first amendment gives individuals the right to say things in public. This ruling seems to require that the recipient listen/read (deal with) what is being said.
Exactly the opposite. Muting (not listening to) IS allowed, blocking (preventing replies) is banned.
I stole this Sig
No, because that phone is not a public forum, by any of the 3 (last I checked) case law definitions for that term in the context of first amendment law.