D
Deleted member 391673
Guest
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?
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?
