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.
However the court ruled, they do not give a single shit about your privacy..
Now every politician, left, right, up, down, cannot block twitter trolls. Go get 'em, 4chan.
He could just stop using Twitter.
Who am I kidding... Trump could more easily chop off his shriveled up little cock before he stops using social media. But the rest of us sane people should log out of Facebook and Twitter and never go back.
The derp is strong with this one.
Trump could be using the potus twitter for official work, and then he'd be free to block all he wants on his private.
But he's conducting potus business, including announcing policy and government action, on the account.
Blocking prevents users from seeing official policy changes.
Thus 1st amendment - right to petition the government- issue. You can't petition the government if you can't see the announcement.
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.
No, it assumes that the onus of proving that they aren't US citizens is on the President, not the citizen.
By using Twitter, President Trump is effectively creating a forum where US citizens can interact directly with the him as president. He cannot legally choose to selectively block citizens from that.
If he doesn't like that, he is free to not use Twitter. Honestly, that might be better for everyone in this situation.
So if you're the leader of the United States, you're not allowed to use privacy features on a privately-owned social media platform.
Not on your official public account. If Trump has a private account that is allowed; however, the judges specifically discounted the idea that it was Trump's private account.
But that social media platform can block, hellban, censor and terminate the accounts of anyone, including the President, over arbitrarily decided, biased terms of service.
The court can only rule what the President as a public official can do; they were not deciding what private citizens and companies can do which has always been the case.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That's true, but one issue is that Trump has used his personal account as though it were an official forum, and it's the officials who take the action to block someone - not Twitter. The other issue in the judgement is that the downstream responses to Trump's comments are protected political discussion, and denying someone the ability to participate in that is harmful.
Put together, a government official is using his office to stop the free discussion of politics, and the court has determined that's not right. It's a very limited scope to the argument, and I congratulate the lawyers who made it.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Here's some reading comprehension to make everything better.
The judge found that Trump & staff, all agents of the government, cannot censor individuals in the public forum of Twitter by blocking them from Trump's Twitter account.
It said nothing about what Twitter can or can't do. As a private company, they can still kick Trump off if they so choose. The First Amendment limits government's ability to restrict speech. It has nothing to do with what private companies or individuals can restrict.
I'd lay off the cookies if I were you. The beetus might be affecting your eyesight.
Only applies to networks because of limited broadcast bandwidth.
That is not thencase with twitter.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
US citizens cannot be blocked from using it
The 1st Amendment says NOTHING about "citizenship".
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.
Where in the phrase "no law" does it say that laws abridging the freedom of speech of non-citizens are permitted?
Democrats will be allowed to block because hate speech. Which will be defined in any way that favors Democrat or SJW ideology.
And republicans will still be allowed to block offensive hate speech as well. They are saying he can't simply block people who are off message but are within protected free speech. If you get on there just to abuse him or try to propagate some sort of hateful message, he can still block you.
I only wish that this ruling could be used in general, for all people. Emperor Tangerine is maybe an important special case, but there are plenty of people out there with extreme views on things who are able to silence their opposition. Twitter does seem to exercise arbitrary control of its moderation, they either need to be a platform where free (protected) speech is always tolerated, or they need to go quietly into the night.
nope, just playing by the rules I have been presented.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
The ruling was that Trump can't block because he's a government official. Anyone else is free to block without raising First Amendment concerns. Trump could also block if he used his Twitter account for personal updates and the @POTUS account for official updates. When he uses his @realDonaldTrump for government-related updates, though, he (as a member of the government, and a powerful one at that) can't pick and choose who gets to "talk" to him based on political views. When the government stops people from talking to them based on opposing political views, that's the very definition of First Amendment violations.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Blocking selectively prevents people from replying to what he posts, which he permits so long as the replies are sufficiently approving. Blocking selectively prevents people from retweeting his posts, which he permits so long as he approves of those doing the retweeting.
It's not merely a matter of (easily) seeing what he posts. So long as he posts official business as the officeholder and permits public response to those posts, he does not get to block members of the public merely because they criticize or disagree with what was posted.
That isn't close to correct. What it means is that twitter can disable Trump's account any time they want, but so long as a President has an account and uses it the way Chump is, he/she may not block US citizens.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Yes it is.
“Public forum” is a well-defined LEGAL term. That Twitter verifies sources with blue checks reinforces that fact. That @realDonaldTrump is now considered an official government entity Twitter can’t just shut it down.
It also has ramifications for other Twitter policies. Banning individuals for wrong think is now an attack on thei first amendment rights to interact with the President.
The ruling would apply to all government officials, including judges...
And not only to their Twitter-accounts, but to their offices — and courtrooms too.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Under the current court ruling and general meaning of the First Amendment, nothing happens to Twitter. They have a constitutionally protected right to do that.
Twitter can block any follower of Trump or even Trump himself. When Twitter does it, they're exercising their free speech rights which are protected by the First Amendment. When Trump takes the same action, it's government censorship which the First Amendment generally forbids as it's the government denying someone their First Amendment rights.
Twitter is a private company. Trump is an agent of the government. The First Amendment has a different meaning for both of them because of their roles.
I don't think this isn't really about 'personal life' vs 'public life'.
Its not public life vs private life ... its simply that he's designated that twitter account an *official* communications channel, by using it as such, and even referring to it as such... now it IS that.
And now its held to the same rules and regulations that all official communications channels with the government are held to.
Since the White House claims that the President's tweets are his official statements, his twitter feed becomes a government-managed forum. As such, the comments cannot be restricted based on the content of the commenters. Think about this like going to your local town council meeting and being told you can't speak because you disagree with some members of the council.
It is a public forum because it's the president who has decided that Twitter is his official means of communicating with the public. The decision would seem to apply to any politician using Twitter in a similar way, Republican, Democrat, or Other.
The court has ruled Twitter a public forum, and used that basis to protect free speech even though it's owned and operated by a private entity.
This means that, just like businesses, parks, universities, etc. that are generally open to the public, Twitter, Facebook, etc. must not discriminate, must respect free speech rights, etc.
This is a win for the people trying to make that "Internet Bill of Rights" happen.