Law Judge rules Trump can't block users on Twitter

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.”

http://archive.is/Rsl4o

I remember going through the plaintiffs Twitter history. They were all the screech at Trump all day everyday type.

Blue checkmarks will celebrate this now, but like always, it'll come back and bite them eventually.

 

[AnOminous]

This is almost certainly going to be appealed.

 

[tehpope]

I hope Trump doesn't appeal this so it opens Pandora's box for these fucks. And then someone who was banned for wrongthink takes twitter to court.

 

[autism420]

I hope Trump doesn't appeal this so it opens Pandora's box for these fucks. And then someone who was banned for wrongthink takes twitter to court.

Apple to oranges.

Twitter is private, and they can limit speech on their platform however they wish. However - since Trump chooses to give official announcements through that platform, him preventing the view of that becomes a whole other issue.

 

[Henry Wyatt]

KiwiFarms Party when? @Null 2024?

we already have a lolcow running for something so we can just have null run against her!

 

[OhGoy]

What's the point of not being able to block when he can just simply mute them instead?

 

[Alec Benson Leary]

This is such a boneheaded thing to gun for.

It's a nonsense argument to say that citizens' speech is curtailed because they get blocked and can't see Trump's tweets while logged in. The office of the President also makes press releases on wh.gov but that has no comments section, is that also unconstitutional? What about if he makes an in-person speech but doesn't stand there forever and listen to absolutely every response anyone wants to make?

I think there are serious debates in the future over whether social media like twitter and facebook are actually public forums, but the proper path to that discussion would first require an investigation of whether they hold a monopoly and if their business practice leaves any option for competitors to challenge them. A judge declaring that twitter is a "public forum" for no better reason than that the president uses it as his stomping grounds is absurd. And I would think it serves the opposite purpose of free expression and redress - this precedent could be interpreted to mean any private venue or business can just be nationalized by an oppressive government just by having some elected officials bunker into it. You don't want to bake a cake for that gay wedding or for an alt-right fundraiser? Well some senator who supports the people who don't like you will just make a big show of ordering a cake from you and then turning it into a giant fuss that all the rags talk about. Boom! Now because a bunch of pearl-clutchers cry the usual cry that we need to think of the children and some politician sees a re-election angle, suddenly your business is a "public forum" and you lose your rights.

 

[RP 520]

Doing a quick google of the Judge, she was appointed by Bill Clinton. She supposedly once made a statement while presiding over a case on an autistic child back in 09' about how Sarah Palin was using her down syndrome kid as a prop. In 2016 a U.S. attorney for Manhattan (Preet Bharara) called her the "worst federal judge" at some dinner party not long after she dealt the attorney his only defeat in a string of victories on insider trading prosecutions.

What's the point of not being able to block when he can just simply mute them instead?

There was a judge that suggested that iirc.

This is such a boneheaded thing to gun for.

It's a nonsense argument to say that citizens' speech is curtailed because they get blocked and can't see Trump's tweets while logged in. The office of the President also makes press releases on wh.gov but that has no comments section, is that also unconstitutional? What about if he makes an in-person speech but doesn't stand there forever and listen to absolutely every response anyone wants to make?

I think there are serious debates in the future over whether social media like twitter and facebook are actually public forums, but the proper path to that discussion would first require an investigation of whether they hold a monopoly and if their business practice leaves any option for competitors to challenge them. A judge declaring that twitter is a "public forum" for no better reason than that the president uses it as his stomping grounds is absurd. And I would think it serves the opposite purpose of free expression and redress - this precedent could be interpreted to mean any private venue or business can just be nationalized by an oppressive government just by having some elected officials bunker into it. You don't want to bake a cake for that gay wedding or for an alt-right fundraiser? Well some senator who supports the people who don't like you will just make a big show of ordering a cake from you and then turning it into a giant fuss that all the rags talk about. Boom! Now because a bunch of pearl-clutchers cry the usual cry that we need to think of the children and some politician sees a re-election angle, suddenly your business is a "public forum" and you lose your rights.

If social media got declared a "public forum" of any kind it would probably either kill it or you would have companies finding loopholes to get around it. In the worst case scenario I could see all of social media going full reddit where you have a bunch of insular, private hugbox subforums that you can't see what's posted in them unless you join that particular sub, and when you join you're auto-blocked from a bunch of other subs because you're part of sub full of wrong think.

 

[autism420]

This is such a boneheaded thing to gun for.

It's a nonsense argument to say that citizens' speech is curtailed because they get blocked and can't see Trump's tweets while logged in. The office of the President also makes press releases on wh.gov but that has no comments section, is that also unconstitutional? What about if he makes an in-person speech but doesn't stand there forever and listen to absolutely every response anyone wants to make?

I think there are serious debates in the future over whether social media like twitter and facebook are actually public forums, but the proper path to that discussion would first require an investigation of whether they hold a monopoly and if their business practice leaves any option for competitors to challenge them. A judge declaring that twitter is a "public forum" for no better reason than that the president uses it as his stomping grounds is absurd. And I would think it serves the opposite purpose of free expression and redress - this precedent could be interpreted to mean any private venue or business can just be nationalized by an oppressive government just by having some elected officials bunker into it. You don't want to bake a cake for that gay wedding or for an alt-right fundraiser? Well some senator who supports the people who don't like you will just make a big show of ordering a cake from you and then turning it into a giant fuss that all the rags talk about. Boom! Now because a bunch of pearl-clutchers cry the usual cry that we need to think of the children and some politician sees a re-election angle, suddenly your business is a "public forum" and you lose your rights.

President Trump's account is a public forum, not Twitter as a whole.

Downvotes on this post show how stupid memebers of this site are - this is literally what the judge ruled.

 

[ICametoLurk]

Does sending random politicians hentai count as expressing an opinion?

 

[IV 445]

President Trump's account is a public forum, not Twitter as a whole.

Twitter isn’t a public forum...?

 

[Alec Benson Leary]

President Trump's account is a public forum, not Twitter as a whole.

I don't see why. What indication has there ever been that it is practical to engage in serious conversation with him on it? He uses it for run-and-gun snide one-liners the same as every other celebrity who uses twitter.

 

[NOT Sword Fighter Super]

This is honestly hilarious that this was even a court case. Of course the President can't block people over their opinion lmfao. The judge is completely correct in this case, he can just ignore the tweets like an adult instead of taking it to court like a child. But then again, is this really surprising considering it's Trump?

It's funny until you realize we footed the bill for this fucking court case.

 

[LulzKiller]

I'm not taking any ruling on this seriously unless the court is SCOTUS, if the court that ruled in this instance was in CA, it'd be easier to understand for some.

 

[IV 445]

It's funny until you realize we footed the bill for this fucking court case.

Yeah this story is four ways of dumb. "wow trump BTFO by the court(s)!"

It just shows eve judges now are not above petty, microscopic "victories" for the resistance. And if that gets worse, it's going to be worrisome.

And since it hasn't been said enough, Twitter is trash.

 

[Slap47]

Doing a quick google of the Judge, she was appointed by Bill Clinton. She supposedly once made a statement while presiding over a case on an autistic child back in 09' about how Sarah Palin was using her down syndrome kid as a prop. In 2016 a U.S. attorney for Manhattan (Preet Bharara) called her the "worst federal judge" at some dinner party not long after she dealt the attorney his only defeat in a string of victories on insider trading prosecutions.



There was a judge that suggested that iirc.



If social media got declared a "public forum" of any kind it would probably either kill it or you would have companies finding loopholes to get around it. In the worst case scenario I could see all of social media going full reddit where you have a bunch of insular, private hugbox subforums that you can't see what's posted in them unless you join that particular sub, and when you join you're auto-blocked from a bunch of other subs because you're part of sub full of wrong think.

Nah, some social media will have to stay as is for the attention whores.

 

[AnOminous]

Doing a quick google of the Judge, she was appointed by Bill Clinton. She supposedly once made a statement while presiding over a case on an autistic child back in 09' about how Sarah Palin was using her down syndrome kid as a prop. In 2016 a U.S. attorney for Manhattan (Preet Bharara) called her the "worst federal judge" at some dinner party not long after she dealt the attorney his only defeat in a string of victories on insider trading prosecutions.

Preet Bharara is a sharp motherfucker and I'd generally give his opinion serious credence.

 

[Shugo]

said President Trump’s Twitter account is a public forum

Oh, so twitter can't ban people for speech protected under the 1st amendment either?

Twitter is a public forum and I'm being discriminated from expressing my viewpoint on a "public forum."

him preventing the view of that becomes a whole other issue.

You can log out and see posts fine, you're not "prevented" from seeing his tweets, you're only prevented from sending him more fucking notifications and replying to his posts and getting bot-farms to analytics your way to the top.

President Trump's account is a public forum, not Twitter as a whole.

Why Donald Trump specifically? What about any other public official with a twitter account? What about government agencies with official twitter accounts?

Is the reply section a "public forum?" Then wouldn't Twitter be in violation of my first amendment rights when they strike down my constitutionally-protected speech on a public forum such as the replies to Donald Trump's tweet?

If I get banned by twitter for suggesting that Trump should nuke Israel, isn't that my free speech being shut down? All I was suggesting was a policy to the POTUS on a public forum.

Why would a private entity have control over speech of a public forum? That is the exact opposite of a public forum.

 

[TowinKarz]

Hooray! Now it's illegal to block someone just because they have different opinions than you! FREEZE PEACH FOREVER!!!!!!!!

Waddaya mean I have to unblock all those people I blocked for not being on the right side of history with me? They aren't people, they're TROLLS, don't you SEE THE DIFFERENCE?!?!?!?!

 

[autism420]

To quote the article:

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

Not all of Twitter. Many of your are just refusing to read or refusing to understand this simple concept. Trump chooses to use Twitter as an official place to speak.

 

[Your Weird Fetish]

This will incite a new golden age of political shitposting. I'm ready.