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.

 

[DragoonSierra]

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.

Are the aides that write the tweets official White House employees? If so then you can argue that if a government employee is dictating for the President then its subject to the first amendment. It would be different if it was a private aid whos being paid by Trump personally.

You can also argue that his word carries so much weight and how he uses it that he must be using it officially.

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?

Trumps personal twitter isnt a private entity if a government aide is using it.

 

[Shugo]

Trumps personal twitter isnt a private entity if a government aide is using it.

I still don't understand the concept of a portion of a private website, being used by a government official, becomes a "public forum" or any kind of public speaking place where every American has free speech rights.

Do we have free speech on twitter? Do we have free speech on only one specific page on twitter? How are my free speech rights not infringed if I'm excluded from posting on the entire site of twitter, and parts of it are "public forums" where speech cannot be limited?

The implications are insane.

I also dunno who wrote tweets for @realDonaldTrump and who writes tweets for @POTUS. I imagine aides would most likely post on @POTUS.

 

[José Mourinho]

This is really gonna backfire to those who really want to be unlocked by Trump while being logged in.

But hey, they wished for it and now it’s time for them to live with that wish.

 

[Dolphin Lundgren]

It's really stupid to take Twitter stuff to court.

 

[Red Hood]

Does sending random politicians hentai count as expressing an opinion?

In the current political climate that's the only opinion that matters.

 

[It's HK-47]

I seriously cannot stop laughing at this, though. They've gone so far-Left to try and justify dunking on Trump that some activist judge literally just laid out a court precedent that has the capability of stretching First Amendment rights into the social media sphere. They have no fucking idea what kind of Pandora's Box they're going to unleash if they do this.

Do it. Please do it. I am begging you, do it.

 

[Alec Benson Leary]

How ass blasted would the left be if twitter enforced this by removing the ability to block.

Because that's the only way this is getting enforced, Trump is going to ignore this so hard.

That's the only way this can happen at all. Because if twitter bans you for anything anywhere on twitter, that just means you're banned from twitter, which means you can't see the president's tweets. Saying one part of twitter is a public forum necessarily means all of twitter is a public forum.

 

[Derp Potato]

At least I'll finally have a use for my Twitter account.

Don't mind me. I'll just be downloading loads of tentacle hentai and go down the DNC roster and mass spam. Can't be blocked, either because muh rights.

 

[AnOminous]

This ruling means nothing because the judge didnt issue any order that the tweets be unblocked or anything.

It means nothing to Trump because Trump doesn't give a shit. I believe he's simply going to ignore this ruling and do whatever the fuck he wants, because that's how that motherfucker rolls.

It's still of constitutional importance, though, because it is declaring something about First Amendment rights, and in this case, while it is posing as a decision in support of free speech, it is actually the opposite. It is telling anyone in government that they no longer personally have any rights. Their personal Twitter accounts and other such shit are somehow public fora, and society at large owns them.

It's actually Communism. The public owns your Twitter account.

As hilarious as it is when idiots like Dobbo constantly block people, he has the right to do that. If he got a job as a dog-catcher or whatever, he'd still have that right. But not if this case ends up precedential.

I think this is a bad ruling by a dumb judge and I hope it is overruled.

 

[Fuck Y'all]

It's really stupid to take Twitter stuff to court.

Mr. Eichenwald says otherwise

 

[Derp Potato]

I saw something that the judge is ~75 years old.

1. Does she even know what Twitter is?
2. Does she know what she's doing or was she desperate for asspats before death?

 

[thismanlies]

I seriously cannot stop laughing at this, though. They've gone so far-Left to try and justify dunking on Trump that some activist judge literally just laid out a court precedent that has the capability of stretching First Amendment rights into the social media sphere. They have no fucking idea what kind of Pandora's Box they're going to unleash if they do this.

Do it. Please do it. I am begging you, do it.

Seems like Cernovich already wants to make this happen.

 

[UnKillFill]

Several years ago, I had a representative (whose name I will not reveal for obvious reasons). And this guy was an absolute lying piece of shit.

I would comment on videos he released on his official YouTube page- nothing threatening or violent, just calling him out on his bullshit. Long story short, he (or more likely a staff member) blocked me. Maybe I should have sued him.

(Then again this guy was a Democrat, so I'm sure there was probably some reason why it was ok when *he* did it.)

 

[TowinKarz]

It means nothing to Trump because Trump doesn't give a shit. I believe he's simply going to ignore this ruling and do whatever the fuck he wants, because that's how that motherfucker rolls.

It's still of constitutional importance, though, because it is declaring something about First Amendment rights, and in this case, while it is posing as a decision in support of free speech, it is actually the opposite. It is telling anyone in government that they no longer personally have any rights. Their personal Twitter accounts and other such shit are somehow public fora, and society at large owns them.

I think this is a bad ruling by a dumb judge and I hope it is overruled.

That's the part I don't agree with either, that the President has some kind of perverse Midas Touch and anything he lays a finger on becomes a public policy instrument and everyone else is entitled to use it to troll him with because "Muh free speech" By that logic, if Trump discusses NK policy at the dinnertable with aides, that entitles anyone who wants to to show up and yell at him all meal long with impunity because they have a 1st amendment right to unfettered "input" on "public policy forums".

This is destined for the SCOTS and either way it goes, the left loses. Either they "win" and lose the ability to block for political reasons. Or the "lose" and we get salt and our right to exclude unwanted trolls.

 

[DragoonSierra]

I also dunno who wrote tweets for @realDonaldTrump and who writes tweets for @POTUS. I imagine aides would most likely post on @POTUS.

Theres been some articles recently that say he has multiple aides that know how to mimic his style write most of his tweets. Trump is not a person who uses much technology so I can believe it. Now whether those are aides are paid by the governmentor by Trump himself, I dont know.

 

[Marvin]

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?

I would think that the president himself can't give a speech in his official capacity and bar people from viewing it on the basis of their views. His personal safety or if they're being disruptive or something, sure, but not their views.

A more convincing argument to me as to why this ruling is off is because it's restraining his private account too.

I think people are being kind of naive if they don't think that the first amendment should be extended to internet assets as well. Not without some very careful thought, of course, but still. If a representative had a facebook page for the office, and I was criticizing their shit on it (because a lot of political discussion happens online nowadays), it should definitely be unconstitutional for them to block me.

Just like if I was protesting on their front lawn vs if I was protesting outside their office in the capital.

 

[realDonaldTrump]

@realDonaldTrump is so pissed about this decision that he made a Kiwifarm account to shitpost.

Nobody has better respect for intelligence than Donald Trump!

 

[neger psykolog]

There is thus a fundamental trade-off at stake. If, on the one hand, courts treat social media platforms as private actors with the constitutional right to regulate what is said on their platforms and who can say it, then we must accept that only a combination of moral, public and market pressure can help ensure that the platforms take appropriate measures to protect truth and civility. This is a system of private, voluntary regulation.

If, on the other hand, courts take over regulating social media, that essentially guarantees the same free-for-all on social media that exists on the internet as a whole — not to mention in real life. In that scenario, we should be prepared to accept the inevitability of fake news, online harassment, expressions of bigotry and all the rest. This would be a system of total free speech.

This choice is now upon us. Consider the implications of the federal court’s Twitter decision. According to the court, President Trump — and by extension any public official — creates a designated public forum on a social media platform when he creates an account. In such a public forum, the government can’t discriminate on the basis of viewpoint.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/opinion/first-amendment-trump-twitter.html

 

[AnOminous]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/opinion/first-amendment-trump-twitter.html

Then I want a right to dunk on SJWs on Twitter and for them to be forced not to block me. In fact, just outlaw blocking anyone.

 

[neger psykolog]

Then I want a right to dunk on SJWs on Twitter and for them to be forced not to block me. In fact, just outlaw blocking anyone.

The blocking feature itself, which actually *informs* you that you've been blocked by someone is probably the root cause of about 90% of Twitter's problems.

I can't really remember that many services which actually tell you when you've been blocked and instead just give you the "invisible wall" response.