🐱 Free-speech group sues Trump for blocking Twitter users

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-twitter-idUSKBN19W1UZ


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A free-speech group on Tuesday sued U.S. President Donald Trump for blocking Twitter users from his @realDonaldTrump account, arguing the practice violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The lawsuit, brought by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University in New York and joined by seven individual Twitter users, claims Trump blocked a number of accounts whose owners replied to his tweets with comments that criticized, mocked or disagreed with the president.

Trump's blocking of the accounts amounted to an unconstitutional effort to suppress dissent, according to the lawsuit filed in federal court in the Southern District of New York.

Because Trump frequently turns to Twitter to make policy statements, his account qualifies as a public forum from which the government cannot exclude people on the basis of their views, according to the lawsuit. Twitter users are unable to see or respond to tweets from accounts that block them.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Last month White House spokesman Sean Spicer said Trump's tweets were considered "official statements by the president of the United States."

The suit names Spicer and Dan Scavino, the White House director of social media, as defendants in addition to Trump. It asks for the blocking to be deemed unconstitutional and seeks an injunction to require the president to unblock users.

The complaint follows a letter from the Knight Institute to Trump last month warning it would sue if users were not unblocked.

"Everyone being able to see the president's tweets feels vital to democracy," Joseph Papp, one of the seven Twitter users involved in the suit, said in a statement.

Papp, an author, said he had been a registered Republican for 10 years and did not join the suit for political reasons, but that he "felt a deep sense of unease" when he was blocked.

Trump's Twitter use has drawn intense interest for his unvarnished commentary about his agenda and attacks on critics. His tweets often lead to tens of thousands of retweets and comments and can shape the news.


The Knight Institute's arguments may have merit, independent free speech and internet law scholars say, in part because Trump's tweets are used to announce policy decisions or can influence legislation. Previous cases involving politicians blocking users on Facebook may bolster its case.

The federal suit, case number 1:17-cv-05205, was filed in the Southern District of New York.

 

[OJ 473]

I can't imagine being this entitled.

 

[Null]

@AnOminous

Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University et al v. Trump et al
New York Southern District Court
1:17-cv-05205
440 Civil Rights - Other Civil Rights
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3892179/2017-07-11-Knight-Institute-Trump-Twitter.pdf

Relief Sought:
1. Declare Defendants’ viewpoint-based blocking of the Individual Plaintiffs from the @realDonaldTrump account to be unconstitutional;
2. Enter an injunction requiring Defendants to unblock Individual Plaintiffs from the @realDonaldTrump account, and prohibiting Defendants from blocking the Individual Plaintiffs or others from the account on the basis of viewpoint;
3. Award Plaintiffs their costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412;
and 4. Grant any additional relief as may be just and proper.

They are suing Trump to unblock them and pay their court fees. That's it.

Plaintiff is citing the Right to Petition from the First Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This is going to be thrown out immediately. Minn. Bd. Commun. for Colleges v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271 (1984) was a Supreme Court case which was decided 6-3 with the majority opinion stating that:

"Nothing in the First Amendment or in this Court's case law interpreting it suggests that the rights to speak, associate, and petition require government policymakers to listen or respond to communications of members of the public on public issues."

 

[GethN7]

@AnOminous

Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University et al v. Trump et al
New York Southern District Court
1:17-cv-05205
440 Civil Rights - Other Civil Rights
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3892179/2017-07-11-Knight-Institute-Trump-Twitter.pdf

Relief Sought:
1. Declare Defendants’ viewpoint-based blocking of the Individual Plaintiffs from the @realDonaldTrump account to be unconstitutional;
2. Enter an injunction requiring Defendants to unblock Individual Plaintiffs from the @realDonaldTrump account, and prohibiting Defendants from blocking the Individual Plaintiffs or others from the account on the basis of viewpoint;
3. Award Plaintiffs their costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412;
and 4. Grant any additional relief as may be just and proper.

They are suing Trump to unblock them and pay their court fees. That's it.

Plaintiff is citing the Right to Petition from the First Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This is going to be thrown out immediately. Minn. Bd. Commun. for Colleges v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271 (1984) was a Supreme Court case which was decided 6-3 with the majority opinion stating that:

"Nothing in the First Amendment or in this Court's case law interpreting it suggests that the rights to speak, associate, and petition require government policymakers to listen or respond to communications of members of the public on public issues."

Even more funny, it's TWITTER, a service controlled by them, not Trump, where everyone has the right to block, mute, or respond to anyone regardless who they are.

If these people really wanted to get their damn way, it would be better to force Twitter to make his account unable to use the block functions, which I hope they do, it would only go to show Twitter really does bend over backwards for these REEEEtards even more than they already do, not to mention Trump could just use their asinine bitching against them as a "this is the crap I have to put up with from people who won't support me anyway".

 

[CatParty]

Even more funny, it's TWITTER, a service controlled by them, not Trump, where everyone has the right to block, mute, or respond to anyone regardless who they are.

If these people really wanted to get their damn way, it would be better to force Twitter to make his account unable to use the block functions, which I hope they do, it would only go to show Twitter really does bend over backwards for these REEEEtards even more than they already do, not to mention Trump could just use their asinine bitching against them as a "this is the crap I have to put up with from people who won't support me anyway".

how about not just trump, but no blue verified "public figures" can block users. that would make perfect sense. if you want to live in a public spotlight you must deal with the public

 

[Florence]

@AnOminous

Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University et al v. Trump et al
New York Southern District Court
1:17-cv-05205
440 Civil Rights - Other Civil Rights
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3892179/2017-07-11-Knight-Institute-Trump-Twitter.pdf

Relief Sought:
1. Declare Defendants’ viewpoint-based blocking of the Individual Plaintiffs from the @realDonaldTrump account to be unconstitutional;
2. Enter an injunction requiring Defendants to unblock Individual Plaintiffs from the @realDonaldTrump account, and prohibiting Defendants from blocking the Individual Plaintiffs or others from the account on the basis of viewpoint;
3. Award Plaintiffs their costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412;
and 4. Grant any additional relief as may be just and proper.

They are suing Trump to unblock them and pay their court fees. That's it.

Plaintiff is citing the Right to Petition from the First Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This is going to be thrown out immediately. Minn. Bd. Commun. for Colleges v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271 (1984) was a Supreme Court case which was decided 6-3 with the majority opinion stating that:

"Nothing in the First Amendment or in this Court's case law interpreting it suggests that the rights to speak, associate, and petition require government policymakers to listen or respond to communications of members of the public on public issues."

I didn't know Twitter was run by Congress. Have these people even read a copy of the Constitution before?

 

[Null]

Even more funny, it's TWITTER, a service controlled by them, not Trump, where everyone has the right to block, mute, or respond to anyone regardless who they are.

I didn't know Twitter was run by Congress. Have these people even read a copy of the Constitution before?

Yes, this is important, but one of their arguments is that Sean Spicer has claimed @realDonaldTrump tweets are "official policy statements", so I'm going to yield that to them and assume that tweeting at @realDonaldTrump is somehow a public activity. The precedent set in Colleges should be enough to have the entire thing thrown out and any other argument is just beside the point.

 

[AnOminous]

@AnOminous

Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University et al v. Trump et al
New York Southern District Court
1:17-cv-05205
440 Civil Rights - Other Civil Rights
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3892179/2017-07-11-Knight-Institute-Trump-Twitter.pdf

Honestly, all I can say about this is that this may be the single dumbest lawsuit I've ever seen.

Not only should this be thrown out immediately as patently frivolous, but the plaintiffs should be ordered to pay the defendant's legal fees, and disciplinary proceedings against the idiot lawyer(s) should be considered.

 

[The Great Chandler]

I didn't know Twitter was run by Congress. Have these people even read a copy of the Constitution before?

It's written by old white men who are off touched with our modern issues like transgender bathrooms. They should've checked their privileges.

 

[AnOminous]

OTOH if this shit works, how about we all sue Dobbo for the right to troll the fuck out of him?

I didn't know Twitter was run by Congress. Have these people even read a copy of the Constitution before?

Generally, the First Amendment is seen as prohibiting executive branch action as well, particularly after the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, which also incorporated the Bill of Rights against the states. So long as there is government action, the Bill of Rights applies to all forms of government, as well as (in rare cases) private entities which are effectively acting as the government.

However, there is no right to be listened to by anyone, even the President. The right to "petition" merely means that you can't be punished for trying to do so. It doesn't entitle your ideas to be given any consideration or even noticed. If this case succeeded, it would mean that it would literally be violating your rights if Trump turned off his computer and got up to do something else rather than sit on Twitter all day long reading every spamming troll and idiot babbling at him 24/7.

Trump has no obligation to sit and read a bunch of REEEEEEEeing from angry morons all day.

 

[Ruin]

I didn't know Twitter was run by Congress. Have these people even read a copy of the Constitution before?

I'm trying to find it but there's a clip of certifiably insane democratic congresswomen Maxine Waters on MSNBC complaining that she can't understand the constitution because it uses "too many big white people words."

This is why voting is important people.

 

[Null]

OTOH if this shit works, how about we all sue Dobbo for the right to troll the fuck out of him?

Class action Lolcow v. Dobson? Can I get my name on a Wikipedia page??

 

[AnOminous]

@AnOminous

Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University et al v. Trump et al
New York Southern District Court
1:17-cv-05205
440 Civil Rights - Other Civil Rights
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3892179/2017-07-11-Knight-Institute-Trump-Twitter.pdf

Relief Sought:
1. Declare Defendants’ viewpoint-based blocking of the Individual Plaintiffs from the @realDonaldTrump account to be unconstitutional;
2. Enter an injunction requiring Defendants to unblock Individual Plaintiffs from the @realDonaldTrump account, and prohibiting Defendants from blocking the Individual Plaintiffs or others from the account on the basis of viewpoint;

Incidentally, granting this relief would violate the Constitution itself, because it would clearly violate TRUMP'S Constitutional rights under the First Amendment. It would enable trolls and spammers to flood his feed with garbage just to shout him down. Arguably, that makes it a SLAPP, too.

While law clinics like this often do file suits against the government that make novel arguments or arguments contrary to existing law, in an attempt to change it, I just see this as incredibly ill advised and it makes a joke of any other work this institute does.

For instance, it's pretty common for suits to be filed over going to war when Congress hasn't formally declared war. None of these suits has succeeded, although I think the general argument that behavior like this is flagrantly unconstitutional on its face is correct.

This suit is just REEEEEEtarded, though. I see no basis for it whatsoever. I suspect it's motivated purely by hatred of Trump and desperation to sue him for literally anything.

And just since I'm in prognostication mode, it will be dismissed under FRCP 12(b)(6) for failure to state a cause of action. I would bet the motion to dismiss is the first response.

 

[Null]

Incidentally, granting this relief would violate the Constitution itself, because it would clearly violate TRUMP'S Constitutional rights under the First Amendment

I was going to mention this. It feels like a decision keeping public officials from being able to tune out the public would violate their right of association by prohibiting their right not to associate with loud, belligerent dipshits on the Internet.

 

[Alec Benson Leary]

I understand the implication that Trump shouldn't block or ban people from participating in what he's apparently decided is an official means of public address. Even though you guys are right this suit is silly and can't go anywhere, I appreciate that simple message.

But I have to assume these same people would be defending the president banning people if it were Hillary using her twitter. As @AnOminous says it's just one more bamn-style attempt to punish Trump for being Trunp.

 

[AnOminous]

I was going to mention this. It feels like a decision keeping public officials from being able to tune out the public would violate their right of association by prohibiting their right not to associate with loud, belligerent dipshits on the Internet.

About the only thing here I think has any chance is the idea that he shouldn't be able to block people from seeing "official" tweets. But a block doesn't even really do that and is so trivially evaded that I don't even think that has any merit. Anyone who really wants a verified official record could file a FOIA request or something of the sort anyway.

Otherwise, in theory, Trump couldn't even delete something like the "covfefe" tweet to spell whatever it was he was trying to spell correctly.

I understand the implication that Trump shouldn't block or ban people from participating in what he's apparently decided is an official means of public address. Even though you guys are right this suit is silly and can't go anywhere, I appreciate that simple message.

But I have to assume these same people would be defending the president banning people if it were Hillary using her twitter. As @AnOminous says it's just one more bamn-style attempt to punish Trump for being Trunp.

I think he has a certain obligation to keep the feed somewhat coherent and kick off belligerent asshats who are disrupting it. He doesn't have to just sit there while dumbasses like Tony Goldmark post "I gotta idear why don't I eat turds all day" 50 times an hour.

 

[BadaBadaBoom]

Pretty sure you're still allowed to say what you want, you just can't digitally scream it at his face right in his living room.

 

[HG 400]

I hope they win and twitter has to undelete all my twitters and apologise for violating my freedom of speech.

 

[vertexwindi]

I hope they win and twitter has to undelete all my twitters and apologise for violating my freedom of speech.

I too wish to see more pics of your dick sent to unsuspecting people.

(Please don't PM me)

 

[Trans Fat 41g]

Jesus Christ if someone made it their day to day job to bitch at me for being of a position they will never be in due to X-Reasons I'd eventually start blocking out the sludge flow.