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.

Comments

time to start my own suit

[ganjadude]

against my state politicians for blocking my tweets

Re:time to start my own suit

[Aaden42]

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.

Re:time to start my own suit

[Aaden42]

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.

Re:time to start my own suit

[vux984]

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.

Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Now every politician, left, right, up, down, cannot block twitter trolls. Go get 'em, 4chan.

Re:Good

[quantaman]

Now every politician, left, right, up, down, cannot block twitter trolls. Go get 'em, 4chan.

Except the Judge explicitly said that muting was allowed.

The key differences with blocking is the blocked party can't see the POTUS account or, more importantly, can't @reply to the account. The @reply is the critical bit since it's effectively blocking the person from participating in the conversation, and considering @replies to Trump's Tweets regularly make the news it's actually a pretty significant 1st amendment issue.

Re: The balance of power is shifting uncomfortably

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:The balance of power is shifting uncomfortably.

[UnknowingFool]

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.

Re:Seems like an odd ruling to me.

[UdoKeir]

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)

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Interesting implications

[Sarten-X]

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re: Interesting implications

[ShanghaiBill]

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?

Re:No

[Jason Levine]

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.

Re:"facts"

[fortfive]

>he knew what the job was going in

I'm not so sure.

Re: The balance of power is shifting uncomfortably

[DRJlaw]

Blocking doesn't prevent people from seeing what he posts. Just log out or use a different account.

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.

Re:"facts"

[GameboyRMH]

You shouldn't be. Trump actually didn't intend or expect to win the presidency, he intended his candidacy to be only a publicity stunt to promote a news network he planned to launch:

http://www.newsweek.com/mike-p...

Re:Seems like an odd ruling to me.

[quantaman]

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.