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.

 

[The Nameless One]

I can't wait for the implications of this to play out. This ruling is such a landmine waiting to go off. People left and right are already clamoring for social media to be considered a legal public utility, and now people could start suing any public figure for blocking them. Who's ready for the class action lawsuit against Steve Shives? "The People (of the Known Universe) v. Steve Shives"

 

[Shugo]

Not all of Twitter.

Why not the rest of all government officials with twitter accounts? Those are official places to speak that these public government entities have chosen.

I demand Bernie Sanders unblock me tonight for sending him the Ben Garrison comic where he's depicted as Colonel Sanders, or he'll be trampling on my free speech for not letting me speak on the public forum that is his twitter account.

You also don't seem to understand that there cannot be a "public forum" when the "public forum" is moderated by a private entity, and posts are either disallowed, deleted, or simply not shown to anyone else. Does that sound like a public forum to you?

The only way this ruling could be upheld is if twitter completely handed over moderation controls of the @POTUS twitter page to the US government and it was actually treated like a public forum.

Simply being banned by twitter for any reason now is a violation of your first amendment rights. If I'm not allowed to express myself on the public forum that is the @POTUS twitter page, then my right to free expression is being violated.

There is no such thing as "banning" someone from a public forum, so any public forum with a ban system is not a public forum.

 

[Cosmos]

She suggested in her 75-page opinion that Trump could have ignored his opponents’ reply tweets.

I’m so hung up on this part. This chick wrote 75 pages about why Trump is a meanie for blocking people on Twitter? Please love yourself and never go on Twitter again if it gets you that riled up.

 

[autism420]

Why not the rest of all government officials with twitter accounts?

Why are you asking me? Ask the judge you autist

twitter completely handed over moderation controls of the @POTUS twitter page to the US government

....you realize that the President has that control already, right?

Simply being banned by twitter for any reason now is a violation of your first amendment rights.

No it's not, learn to read.

 

[Ineedahero]

What don't you guys get? I asked my mum, and she said I'm not out. That means whenever we play red rover I'm not ever out. No it doesn't apply to you, no she wasn't saying anyone who reaches the basketball courts is not out, it's just for me, so suck it. Now play red rover, it's my birthday and I want to play red rover.

 

[Angelique24]

I’m so hung up on this part. This chick wrote 75 pages about why Trump is a meanie for blocking people on Twitter? Please love yourself and never go on Twitter again if it gets you that riled up.

Yeah that part definitely made me raise an eyebrow. Btw if anyone actually wants to try to read the ruling, you can find it here by clicking on ruling:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/23/trump-block-twitter-users-ruling-604462

 

[Shugo]

....you realize that the President has that control already, right?

No, he doesn't. Twitter bans people who post "offensive" content on the @POTUS twitter page, or anywhere on their site. It's outside the control of any user.

They also selectively bump up posts and selectively hide posts from being shown to others. It's not a public forum no matter how you look at it.

If Trump blocking me for expression an opinion is a violation of my free speech rights because I'm now unable to access the public forum that is the @POTUS twitter page, how is it not a violation of my free speech rights when I'm banned from twitter for expressing an opinion and unable to access the public forum that is the @POTUS twitter page?

 

[autism420]

If Trump blocking me for expression an opinion is a violation of my free speech rights because I'm now unable to access the public forum that is the @POTUS twitter page, how is it not a violation of my free speech rights when I'm banned from twitter for expressing an opinion and unable to access the public forum that is the @POTUS twitter page?

Because Trump censoring you is the government censoring you. Twitter censoring you is not the government censoring you.

 

[Shugo]

Twitter censoring you

How is it a public forum if a private entity censors you on the forum? How is it a public forum if it's legally owned by a private entity?

The entire concept of a "public forum" cannot exist when it's managed by a private entity that selectively allows some speech and disallows others.

It's as insane as saying my house is a public forum, I'm allowed to kick anyone out of my house I want, but my friend Donald who I invited to my house the public forum can't kick anyone out. It is not a public forum, it's a private forum. Twitter isn't a public forum. A public forum can't be privately owned and privately moderated.

For a Supreme Court ruling, see Hudgens v. National Labor Relations Board. Privately owned malls aren't public forums, how could twitter be?

If Trump gives a speech as a President at a Mall or an Airport or some private venue, does the private property become a public forum where no one can be denied free speech rights, or does the label "public forum" only apply while the President is on the premises? Is anywhere that the President posts in official capacity a public forum?

 

[Crippled_Retard]

All I'm seeing is a legal whirlwind of lolsuits over people blocking each other. This judge just opened a can of worms for all sorts of frivolous bullshit now. At what level does something become a public forum?

 

[AnOminous]

To quote the article:


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.

This is obviously the basis of the decision. However, he's not using the power of the government to run a forum. He could and did block people before he was even President. I think he retains the same rights of freedom of speech and freedom of association he had before assuming office, and I do not believe his personal Twitter feed is a public forum.

I’m so hung up on this part. This chick wrote 75 pages about why Trump is a meanie for blocking people on Twitter? Please love yourself and never go on Twitter again if it gets you that riled up.

I disagree that the length of the opinion is a problem. If you're going to make a ruling with such broad, far-reaching implications, you damn well owe the public an explanation for why this is actually okay.

I haven't examined it and don't actually know if the opinion is obvious nonsense, although my initial impression is it's wrong. Correct or not, though, you don't make a decision this important that involves POTUS and then not sing for your supper.

 

[NSA]

Blocking just prevents direct replies, you can still incognito and then whine at the screen-caps you take.

The irony of the left doing this is fantastic.

 

[gobbogobb]

Blocking just prevents direct replies, you can still incognito and then whine at the screen-caps you take.

The irony of the left doing this is fantastic.

Their argument was literally "I don't want to log out"

 

[AnOminous]

Their argument was literally "I don't want to log out"

This is part of why I'm just not buying this argument or buying the opinion.

It's largely based on the concept that the President, acting on behalf of the government, has created a public forum of some sort. This strongly implies that somehow, the power and force of the government is behind his Twitter account.

However, as a candidate and before that, he did exactly the same thing on this Twitter account, banning and blocking people he didn't like. It's more or less undisputed that as a private citizen, he had the absolute right to do that.

I honestly don't see how assuming public office removed these rights, or how the power of the government enhanced his ability to silence dissent. He's just doing exactly what he did as a private citizen on the same Twitter account he had before he was even in office, using no more power than he had when he was a private citizen.

Where is the government activity here? Just because he's President doesn't mean he no longer has his own First Amendment rights of freedom of association.

 

[gobbogobb]

The only problem was the WH social media dude handling the account. I think they'd have a much harder sell even to this court without that fact.

Either way, slippery slope is a fallacy and all, but I hope every government official in the country is getting their sleds ready.

 

[AnOminous]

The only problem was the WH social media dude handling the account. I think they'd have a much harder sell even to this court without that fact.

Either way, slippery slope is a fallacy and all, but I hope every government official in the country is getting their sleds ready.

Slippery slope is why this worries me.

If courts can do bullshit like this to the goddamn President, they can do it to me or anyone else.

That causes me some agita.

 

[gobbogobb]

Slippery slope is why this worries me.

If courts can do bullshit like this to the goddamn President, they can do it to me or anyone else.

That causes me some agita.

No kidding. Honestly if I were any social media network I'd have filed an amicus brief at the very least explaining why this was a really dumb lawsuit.

 

[Slap47]

I hope he becomes it illegal to block anyone on any social media. Breaking up all these hug boxes would would be a good step towards creating a more reasonable and entertaining world.

 

[gobbogobb]

You can give up your 1st Amendment rights if you want. DPRK is nice this time of year. Don't fuck with mine though.

 

[whatever I feel like]

I'm confused, isn't realDonaldTrump Trump's personal account, rather than a government one?