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
Now every politician, left, right, up, down, cannot block twitter trolls. Go get 'em, 4chan.
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.
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.
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 based on user account deletion
>he knew what the job was going in
I'm not so sure.
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...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
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