Law Trump can't block Twitter followers, federal judge says

  • Thread starter Deleted member 391673
  • Start date
Honestly, This seems like another 9th circuit style special. You get a super liberal judge that just writes rulings to her own biases, then the higher courts have to clean up the mess later.

Just like the immigration ban. I could see this overturned eventually.
 
Sorry potus thinskin, Twitter is not your safespace.
 
Cirris said:
Honestly, This seems like another 9th circuit style special. You get a super liberal judge that just writes rulings to her own biases, then the higher courts have to clean up the mess later.

Just like the immigration ban. I could see this overturned eventually.
Click to expand...
If it isn't overturned, the implications could be enormous. How far does this notion go after all? Can Senators and Congressmen block folks on Twitter? Can any government employee?

And if the public has a right to hear from the president on twitter, what rights does Twitter have to ban federal or state employees? If Twitter is a public utility, can people bring action against them for being banned or shadow banned?

Frankly, I'm not sure I disagree with the ruling. I just think the results long term might be different than expected.
 
Cirris said:
Honestly, This seems like another 9th circuit style special. You get a super liberal judge that just writes rulings to her own biases, then the higher courts have to clean up the mess later.

Just like the immigration ban. I could see this overturned eventually.
Click to expand...

Did you read the opinion? I linked to it a couple pages ago. What are you basing that statement off?
 
Quipling said:
I think the idea that the first amendment isn't sufficiently specific to "twitter" is silly. It's speech, regardless of the medium, and by blocking someone, the government actor (Trump) is limiting their ability to engage in it.
Click to expand...

The First Amendment forbids Congress and (if we accept incorporation) state legislatures from abridging free speech. Trump is not Congress nor is he a representative of a state legislature. Why pass so quickly from "Congress" to "government actor (Trump)" as you did?

This is the sort of expansive, activist ruling that creates "slippery slope" type situations. Under the same standard, should the White House now be forced to allow any journalist from any outlet to ask questions at White House press briefings? Under the logic you appear to be promoting, refusal to give a press pass to @senri could be interpreted as a restriction of @senri 's free speech rights.

And I haven't even touched upon the myriad issues that arise when attempting to expand old concepts of "free speech" to all private websites with a "posting" feature.
 
If we can't get him on collusion, at least we're going to make his Twitter experience less fun.

-Democrats 2020
 
IngaVovchanchyn said:
If it isn't overturned, the implications could be enormous. How far does this notion go after all? Can Senators and Congressmen block folks on Twitter? Can any government employee?

And if the public has a right to hear from the president on twitter, what rights does Twitter have to ban federal or state employees? If Twitter is a public utility, can people bring action against them for being banned or shadow banned?

Frankly, I'm not sure I disagree with the ruling. I just think the results long term might be different than expected.
Click to expand...
You should probably read it.
 
waiguoren said:
The First Amendment forbids Congress and (if we accept incorporation) state legislatures from abridging free speech. Trump is not Congress nor is he a representative of a state legislature. Why pass so quickly from "Congress" to "government actor (Trump)" as you did?

This is the sort of expansive, activist ruling that creates "slippery slope" type situations. Under the same standard, should the White House now be forced to allow any journalist from any outlet to ask questions at White House press briefings? Under the logic you appear to be promoting, refusal to give a press pass to @senri could be interpreted as a restriction of @senri 's free speech rights.

And I haven't even touched upon the myriad issues that arise when attempting to expand old concepts of "free speech" to all private websites with a "posting" feature.
Click to expand...

The Nexus is natural law that supersedes all. There is no restriction of it, categorization of it, or even some tangible embodiment of it's affinity characteristics to all life. There is only acceptance of it deep inside the self of the individual.
 
MicroBrew said:
It's not his Twitter, it is the official Twitter account of the President.
Click to expand...

Regardless.. he isn't making it where they can't express their views. He hasn't silenced them. They can still say whatever somewhere else, just not on the Trump potus page.
 
Fawlty said:
The ruling explains (in excruciating detail) that it's not just a personal account- it's used as POTUS doing POTUS things all the time.
Click to expand...
That's the interpretation. Are there any precedents though? Me thinks this is largely unprecedented territory.
Sorry if it's in the link. I'm a lazy fuck.
 
LogicalFighting said:
Just saw this on CNBC

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/23/trump-cant-block-twitter-followers-federal-judge-says.html

"President Donald Trump cannot block users on his Twitter feed, a New York federal judge ruled Wednesday.

The judge, Naomi Reice Buchwald, ruled that Trump is violating the U.S. Constitution by preventing Americans from viewing his tweets.

The suit was filed in July 2017 by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.

"This case requires us to consider whether a public official may, consistent with the First Amendment, 'block' a person from his Twitter account in response to the political views that person has expressed, and whether the analysis differs because that public official is the President of the United States," the judge said in her opinion. "The answer to both questions is no." "

---------------

Now this seems rather odd to me, especially the reasoning.

I could see blocking being unconstitutional because it takes away the ability of a twitter user from exercising their right of speech since they cannot directly reply to a public officials statement,

But the quote I posted seems to say that it is unconstitutional because it prevents a user from viewing a twitter post. But this can't be right since even if your account is blocked on twitter, you can still access the account if you're logged out, right?

I can understand if it said a public official cannot make a private account and be exclusive as to who they decide to allow access, and I can understand if the ruling claimed that blocking a user takes away their ability to comment, but that doesn't seem the case.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
My thoughts are congruous with your own.
 
JonesBsample said:
Regardless.. he isn't making it where they can't express their views. He hasn't silenced them. They can still say whatever somewhere else, just not on the Trump potus page.
Click to expand...
The POTUS page is official government resource . If it was his personal account where no government business was conducted then he would have a point.
 
How is this real life? How can anyone feel good that their tax dollars were spent on this idiocy?
 
MicroBrew said:
The POTUS page is official government resource . If it was his personal account where no government business was conducted then he would have a point.
Click to expand...

No it's not. The government doesn't own twitter. It's a private company. Its not official government anything.

You have a right to free speech, not a guarantee to be heard
 
JonesBsample said:
No it's not. The government doesn't own twitter. It's a private company. Its not official government anything.

You have a right to free speech, not a guarantee to be heard
Click to expand...

Twitter is not the one blocking individuals from the POTUS page.
 
LogicalFighting said:
does it have to be elected?
just googled...

A public official is anyone in a position of official authority that is conferred by a state, i.e. someone who holds a legislative, administrative, or judicial position of any kind, whether appointed or elected.

does this make a public school teacher a public official?
Click to expand...
Does a teacher hold a judicial, administrative, or legislative position?

To say so requires a hyuuuge stretch, dontcha think?

Anyway, if that fat POS couldn't block me it might be enough reason to join Twitter. Sadly, I doubt it applies to me but otherwise it might have been worth it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,065
Messages
55,464,805
Members
174,785
Latest member
JoyceOuthw

Share this page

Back
Top