Judge rules Trump can't block users on Twitter
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A federal district court judge on Wednesday ruled that President Trump can't block people from viewing his Twitter feed over their political views.
Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, said President Trump’s Twitter account is a public forum and blocking people who reply to his tweets with differing opinions constitutes viewpoint discrimination, which violates the First Amendment.
The court’s ruling is a major win for the Knight Foundation, which brought the lawsuit on behalf of seven people who were blocked from the @realDonaldTrump account because of opinions they expressed in reply tweets.
Buchwald, who was appointed by President Clinton, rejected Trump’s argument that the First Amendment does not apply in this case and that president’s personal First Amendment interests supersede those of plaintiffs.
She suggested in her 75-page opinion that Trump could have ignored his opponents’ reply tweets.
“No First Amendment harm arises when a government’s 'challenged conduct' is simply to ignore the [speaker],” as the Supreme Court has affirmed ‘that it is free to do,’ ” she wrote.
“Stated otherwise, 'a person’s right to speak is not infringed when government simply ignores that person while listening to others,' or when the government ‘amplifies’ the voice of one speaker over those of others.”
DEVELOPING
Tags
Who is online
138 visitors
Opens up a can of worms.
IMO if the President is using a platform for his views or actions he should not be able to block constituents.
So I agree with this ruling.
I agree.
Cannot say I disagree, yet is this not somewhat of a slippery slope? I can see that the Presidents 'social media account on twitter' could be considered a 'public forum' .... yet where does this end ... Where is the line to be drawn between a public forum and a private social media account? Does this only extend to the President's account?
I do believe you are correct in stating: "Opens up a can of worms."
Nikki Haley has been under fire for her use of twitter.
Making statements that some think should only be said on the UN handle.
I am usually all over the news/current events, sadly it appears I am behind at this time ... I had NO clue that twitter was becoming such a focal point of legal debate.
I do not use social media and I tend to think that our elected officials should not be using 'twitter' as a political platform to start with ... I will be paying closer attention to the use of said mediums.
Thanks Ender
Yeah, I don't belong to Twitter or Facebook. I am of the opinion that one should have to use an official handle for said department.
Yet they could never stop campaigning on those platforms. So it is hard to figure out how it should work. Can they campaign and say whatever they want and block any dissent until they are elected?
It is a new frontier, thus I think you understand about my can of worms comment.
Agreed .. the whole thing is a scary proposition .. it may be just me, but the first amendment is getting more and more difficult to define .. it is a bit confusing where it starts, and where it ends, everything about it has become subject to interpretation.
I do understand the can of worms you present Ender ....... I have since gone and done some reading on the matter, and I am not satisfied that I have a full understanding of the ramifications as of yet ...
It would appear that the first amendment is being defined as a separation between political individuals and private citizens - is the first amendment intended to be selective on who is restricted by it? Since when is freedom of speech restrictive of some Americans and not others?
I do not really see why not ... a TV ad, or a radio spot really gives no one an opportunity of dissention unless they rebut the ad, by buying their own air space and then it becomes a vicious cycle of rebuttals ... why should twitter be any different - open ones own account and offer their dissent .. seems simple enough. Or would that not allow for enough recognition of said rebuttal?
Just do not think the First Amendment is designed to be a split proposition between politicians and citizens on a social media platform - is the government going to be taking over said platforms next? (extreme, I know, just tossing it out there regarding where this court decision could end)
True. I will admit though that I don't know the workings of Twitter. I don't know if someone is blocked if they cannot read the feed or just cannot reply. Two different things imo.
The Founding Fathers were defining a free press with the First Amendment. Thomas Jefferson wrote -
Adams wrote -
This isn't the same as someone trolling Twitter calling for the death of all LGBTQ people. Now if some asshat wants to go out and stand in front of a government building and shout that out, I think he should be free to do so. He also cannot be immune to how the community treats him during and after his rant. Violence and property damage also don't equal free speech as much as some would like it to either.
I think you would normally be right, however this President is using Twitter for official communications. That is probably the only reason the judge ruled in the way he did.
I am right there with you ... in the minority or not, the first amendment should not be doled out in rations
Absolutely agree r.t..b... It is a right to be preserved, not split into separate segments for each different use by an American ..
Agreed. He is often more or less discussing matters that should be discussed in private communication. Of course the Trump minions will refute this, but, when it's right out there for public viewing it's hard to refute. But, they will jump in and try their best to discredit it anyway. There is no common sense when it comes to protecting Trump.
Good point, I do not know either.
My concern lies in that can the First amendment be used as a weapon separating individual rights...
Twitter is not allowed in my house, but my neighbor just texted me and said that a blocked individual just cannot respond - only hearsay at this point...
What does that have to do with anything? My word, there is NO minion in this conversation, just those concerned about the ramifications of this decision on the First Amendment in the future ... unreal some individuals have Trump on the brain and just can never get past it .. some crazy stuff for sure [shakes head]
ONE WORD = "Desensitized"...
We had to actually look for information in books, magazines and libraries. In olden daze a glimpse of thigh was arousing. Boys wore out the lady's underwear sections of the Montgomery Wards Catalog. Someone gaping at you does not necessarily mean just looking at you anymore, if you know what I mean. Kids today have more knowledge than most gynecologists and proctologists used to. Maybe kids experiencing things in their own age appropriate time frame was not such a bad thing after all. Butt then, what do I know? Sure I wish I had all this knowledge and information right at my fingertips way back then like kids do today but I do not regret holding onto some of my innocence till I was in my teens. I am afraid all of the normal things in life will seem passe to future generations and people will all expect way way way too much from themselves and others. Once you have seen everything up close and in high definition then all the mystery is pretty much gone forevermore...
It's both according to the lawsuit and that's the primary basis for the ruling, the fact that Twitter users who have been blocked cannot access Trump's content even though he uses it for "official" pronouncements.
It is not about minions defending Trump's ... [sighs and shakes head]
I might have to join Twitter now. I bet I could get a rise out that Russian puppet POS occupying the white house.
I could drive him so crazy that his teeth would itch.
"teeth itch"
that's funny
Hate to tell you this but when one is not paid attention to here, I am sure one would not be paid attention to on the Presiden't twitter account.
Personal experience speaking?
I expect there might be a significant bump in his "followers" after today's news.
That might discourage him from offering up his divisive rhetoric in the early mornings, while he's working out his Viagra constipation issues.
I know you could.
I'd need 7 layers of anonymity first, before totally cyber-assaulting him on twitter. You know how thin his skin is. I could wind up in the new Gitmo gulag as a political prisoner.
Or maybe you'll start reading his tweets and start agreeing with him.....
devan is way too smart for that
Fat chance. I didn't like the POS when he was a democrat.
This, of course, will apply to every politician and probably twitter in general. If twitter,Facebook etc are such public forums of importance, they can't ban anyone without violating their constitutional rights. So much for stopping "fake news"
So expect the KKK to spend all day spewing racist attacks at Barack Obama's account and nothing can be done.
I think this might.
I don't think it will. Their is no societal interest in people following my twitter feed.
It's not the forum. It's all public forums used by the government. Trump as leader of our government is using Twitter to pass and parse information which makes it a public forum. Trump can't ban people from his feed, but Twitter should still be able to ban anyone that violates it's terms of use.
Barack Obama is private citizen. Racist spewing would violate the Twitter terms of use.
Not if Twitter is a public space subject to the First Amendment ,which is what the Court held. Terms of use don't apply, the First Amendment controls.
Viewpoint discrimination is illegal. According to the Judge, people have a "right" to use a politicians tweets as a platform to get their views heard by others. Twitter can't censor that right anymore than Trump.
Barack Obama is private citizen. Racist spewing would violate the Twitter terms of use.
Fine let's pretend he's not a public figure involved in politics. Insert any politician's name and the point is the same. It would be unconstitutional for Kieth Ellison to block someone sending him pictures of Mohammed. Under this standard twitter or facebook etc can't censor a person's right to tweet speech at politicians. Hell, it might be unconstitutional for a politician to deny a friend request from anyone, if they restrict their facebook page to friends only.
I wouldn't bet either way on this point. The way things have been going you may be be correct, but at this point it would take another court judgment to rule on this. This particular case does not say anything like this.
True. I never indicated they could. I said Twitter has rules that are not subject to this ruling. If someone started posting porn, or hate speech, to Trump's account I'd fully expect Twitter to remove that account.
Pretend? What office does he hold, or is running for today?
As far as I know there is nothing illegal or against the terms of use agreement for sending someone pictures of Mohammed. As the ruling states he can ignore them.
I think there is a difference (and I'm sure this will be debated) between a politician using Facebook to communicate with family and friends (semi-private, non-political use) and an official public figure page. Of course someone will try to skirt the public accountability to say controversial things and not get called out for it.
As long as it's not child porn, Twitter can't censor it under this standard. Hate speech is protected speech and can't be censored in a public forum. This ruling makes Twitter a public forum, at least when tweeting at a public official. Hell, under this ruling, spammers can flood every politicians account with advertisements for their business and Twitter can't do anything about it.
This ruling is a nightmare for social media companies.
As far as I know there is nothing illegal or against the terms of use agreement for sending someone pictures of Mohammed.
They are often censored under that excuse. But, again, the point is that hate or offensive speech like tweeting pictures of Mohammed to a Muslim politician, or of burning crosses to a black politician, are protected by the first amendment and, under this ruling, protected from censorship by twitter.
etween a politician using Facebook to communicate with family and friends (semi-private, non-political use) and an official public figure page
I'd think this applies to any page a politician uses to broadcast anything related to his public life.
I think we are saying much the same thing. I'm only saying that Twitter's Terms of Use was not in this ruling. I'm certain they will eventually ban some troll, get hauled into court and then they may be required to change their policies. I'd expect this to go to SCOTUS at some point.
. I'm certain they will eventually ban some troll, get hauled into court and then they may be required to change their policies
This ruling already required Twitter to change it's policies. Blocking, which was permitted, is now unconstitutional. Assuming that this ruling is upheld and this Court's reasoning is followed, there's really no doubt about what's going to happen.
Unless the Supreme Court rewrites First Amendment law, the reasoning behind the ruling today, that twitter is a public forum, makes it inevitable that twitter can't censor speech directed at public officials. You can't have a public forum (with the legal implications of that distinction) with a private company censoring viewpoints.
I've just been reading the ruling - As long winded as it must be, it says that Trump and Dan Scavino use the Twitter account @realDonaldTrump as a public forum. This is compared to a theater, even though privately owned, when used by the government is a public forum and has to during that time conform to those same laws. They can "mute" someone but they can't "block" an account because blocking restricts an individuals right to speak while muting just allows the user to be ignored.
It DOES NOT say (or imply) anything about what Twitter must, or must not, do. It does say that Dan Scavino has to unblock anyone that he (or Trump) has blocked.
First this ruling only says that @realDonaldTrump is a public forum. Not Twitter itself. Second, I'm pretty sure that all Twitter knows the difference between what is and isn't protected speech -
From the ruling -
Indeed, there is no suggestion that the speech in which the individual plaintiffs engaged and seek to engage fall within the “well-defined and narrowly limited classes
of speech,” such as obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, and speech integral to criminal conduct, “the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem.”
The SCOTUS has also ruled on protected free speech in social media. I'll have to dig that up and read that though before I comment further.
Seems to me that, that this is the opening of 'social media' Pandora's box (?)... remains to be seen I guess.. but once opened, there is NO stuffing it back in the box!
I think the issue is more about an official holding a public office. Not a private citizen.
Some can't tell the difference
He is no longer in office so he can block anyone he wants.
Is that something of which you would approve?
Is that something of which you would approve?
.................................................................
Perhaps no one on here would approve of it, but you can bet some Americans would have.
Look at the meeting some of the congress people had even about the time obama was being sworn in pledging to do all They could to discredit, disgrace and make obama a one term president at all costs, that was as he was taking office, it didn't change for 8 years.
So YEP I'd say some hard core obama haters would have rejoiced at the scenario you offer.
And you are correct, many never see the danger in stuff like this when its in their favor not to. I think its human nature. We naturally all are always looking for that edge. instinctively
I agree with this ruling. I wonder how long it will trump to unblock everyone. He blocked me 6 months ago...I wear it like a badge of honor.
I doubt he will unblock any of those he has already blocked. After all, he is above the law. At least that is what he thinks. /s (grin)
I can understand why he would do that.
We can all understand why a thin skinned narcissist who is too ignorant to even spell his own wife's name correctly would want to block cogent opposition tweets.
"Great to have our incredible First Lady back home in the White House. Melanie is feeling and doing really well." DJT
"Covfefe"...
"promote the possibility of lasting peach"
"she explained it to W.H. Council"
"unpresidented act."
"How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones"
"no challenge is to great"
It's obvious the President blocked both spelling and grammar when he was in school.
He's a dumbass alright. How many times have we heard 'and many other things' or, 'we're gonna do great things'? He uses the word 'things' a lot because he never has a clue what he's talking about!
Me too, he hates the truth rubbed in his face.
<cough> LMFAO!
Wow Frosty, you got blocked by Trump??!!
I did, Mike Pence too.. LOL
Ha. Those were the days. Some seeds would go on for weeks.
Fun seeds do have their own kind of merit, and political discussion is rather pointless these days with half the country supporting an idiotic lunatic president, and the other half saying "What the fuck is wrong with you guys?" There's really nothing political left to talk about.
I had an article about euphemisms for sex that went on for days and days
Poor trumpy... His little feelings got hurt so he blocked people and ran for his safe space. Now he has to deal with people throwing truth at him again... Poor little snowflake..
OMG.....trying to visualize Trump as a 'snowflake.' I hope it does not get stuck in my mind.....
Trump would be one of those big, fat, soggy snowflakes.
EEEWwwwwww
Trump is such a snowflake. He blocked every single Veterans group that opposes his policies. If Trump or Republicans are so confident in their policies why do they run from criticism?