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.
against my state politicians for blocking my tweets
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
...will he go on a twitter rant about this ruling about twitter rants about his twitter rants?
And will it acquire its own twitter rants?
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Now every politician, left, right, up, down, cannot block twitter trolls. Go get 'em, 4chan.
No, but they cannot order the post office not to deliver your messages. Whether or not someone reads or listens to your message, you still have the right to your soap box.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
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.
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.
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.
That's not remotely what the ruling says. Twitter can be considered a public forum and that public officials cannot block the public from a public forum regardless of their citizenship. If a mayor has a public town meeting, they can't block non US citizens from it who might be visiting or residing in the town.
And that digital forums are 'public', despite plenty of homeless and impoverished citizens lacking access to them
Have ever heard of a public library? Mine allows homeless and poor people in them to use the computers.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
If that were true, Trump's twitter account would already be shut down. He has violated the terms of service many times (such as linking to hate groups), but he has an exemption.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
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.
"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."
Donald Trump has maintained that his Twitter account is an official outlet, so to block accounts would violate the right to petition. He can't have it both ways: it's either unofficial, or it's subject to Constitutional requirements.
The "Congress" part was extended to the Executive Branch by the court decision California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited.
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
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.
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
So can Twitter itself suspend accounts? Since that would be blocking them from reaching out to Trump?
Well, if the account follows @readDonaldTrump, and gets banned, they might have a case (assuming this ruling holds up).
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
I wish I could believe that. I'm almost certain he repeats a lie long enough until he actually believes it himself. Maybe because dementia has set in or something, and he loses touch with reality.
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?
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's not remotely what the ruling says. Twitter can be considered a public forum and that public officials cannot block the public from a public forum regardless of their citizenship. If a mayor has a public town meeting, they can't block non US citizens from it who might be visiting or residing in the town.
But you can be ejected from the public forum for bad behavior
> Holy shit slashdot is full of idiots.
Your self awareness is remarkable.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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.
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
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.
Does this mean that politicians can no longer use traditional one-way media? Are they forbidden from using TV or radio broadcasts where listeners aren't given an opportunity to reply on the same platform?
This seems like a ruling that depends on the specific technology being looked at, rather than any universal judicial principles.
...violates their freedom of expression.
Like all other forms of freedom of expression, people also have the right NOT to listen.
Goes also to "freedom of association".
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
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.
Huh, the ruling explicitly says that it doesn't make a distinction between Trump and other government officials. Now, he cannot block people because he's using his account for official business, so anyone who correctly maintains two accounts will be fine.
Your ad here. Ask me how!