Trump Can't Block Users On Twitter

[ideologyhunter]

Now, 'bout this Criminal Deep State that I learned about from Dear Leader's tweets. Anyone know how I can join? Are there honorary/associate/paid memberships, for instance? Golden-agers' discounts? A toll-free number? I want to do my part.

 

[Elixir]

Now, 'bout this Criminal Deep State that I learned about from Dear Leader's tweets. Anyone know how I can join? Are there honorary/associate/paid memberships, for instance? Golden-agers' discounts? A toll-free number? I want to do my part.

I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.

 

[Bomb#20]

http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/23/media/judge-rules-trump-cant-block-twitter-users/index.html

A win for the constitution. Trump can't block those that criticize him. I doubt it's going to stop the poop tweets though.

It's not a win for the constitution. It's not a win for anything but theater of the absurd. Perhaps Buchwald will next go on to rule that Trump can't cast magic sew-up-mouth spells against his critics. Sometimes judges seem to have not quite come up to speed with the computer age. Trump didn't block any of those users. Twitter blocked them.

I'm pretty sure Cheeto Jesus will ignore the court order.

Of course--but I suspect Twitter will obey it.

Ignore it?!? Obey it?!? There is no court order!

"Under the ruling, Buchwald did not order Trump to unblock his followers, saying that clarification of the law is sufficient to resolve the dispute. Should Trump ignore the ruling, analysts say, future litigation could force Twitter to unblock Trump's followers unilaterally.
...
Noah Feldman, a Harvard law professor, said he thinks the case was wrongly decided and expects it to be reversed. For a public forum to exist, the government has to own or control it, he said, but in this case, Twitter also controls Trump's account."​

(Source)

What we have here is functionally equivalent to Trump getting a TFT account, and not liking somebody's post, and reporting it, and the TFT moderators removing it. For the First Amendment to save us all from that dire fate, two things would have to happen. Second, a court would have to rule that the Bill of Rights is a restriction on private organizations like TFT, rather than a restriction only on the government. And before that could happen, first, somebody would have to file a lawsuit, not against Trump, but against TFT.

 

[Underseer]

How dare those petty commoners try to communicate with an elected official! [/conservolibertarian]

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I have to echo what Bomb said. This is a mystifying ruling.

So. Twitter is considered a public forum, and people have a right to respond the president on that forum. Which means people have a right to access twitter so that they could respond to the president on that forum. That does make Twitter a public utility. Except it is a privately owned company. Does Twitter have an opinion on this? Does the management of Twitter have an opinion on their private company being turned into a public utility forum?

Now take the case of someone seriously offensive. Suppose someone openly advocated for the right to kill minorities, as I have seen happen on this forum. Twitter decides to block that person on the grounds that it is simply wrong to advocate for the right to kill minorities. Does that person now have grounds for a lawsuit against Twitter for depriving him of the ability to follow Trump on Twitter?

And suppose Trump says "okay then, I'll stop using Twitter and use a different social media service"? Do we have a new lawsuit to cover this new forum? And does Twitter remain a public forum or does it stop being a public forum? And if someone blocked Trump, are they also in trouble for violating Trump's first amendment right to communicate on Twitter?

 

[Patooka]

The ruling is mystifying only if you ignore a few things:

-Trump and by extension the White House has stated numerous times that Twitter is the presidents preferred method of communicating with his constituents
-Twitter is fine with being used in such a way.
-As a result, Trumps Twitter messages are held to a very specific standard motivated by extracts from the US constitution, particularly the First Amendment.
-Twitter can do what they like on Twitter, because surprisingly, they own Twitter. Trump cannot because, and it is still legitimately surprising, he is a significant part of government.

So when Trump eventually switches from Twitter to Gab (you know that's going to happen), his posts in Gab will be subject to the same standards. And Gab will still be allowed to ban users who don't hate blacks and jews.

Hope that's cleared things up.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Sorry, is still mystifying. Even if the President does block a critic on twitter, he's only blocked their right to comment directly in response. The tweet can still be read. His blocking does nothing to his preferred method of communicating with his constituents. It doesn't even block their ability to respond, just their ability to respond directly to him.

A good analogy would be if, in ye olden days before technology, the founding fathers gather together and discuss what to do if someone is standing outside your window yelling criticisms at you. If you close the window so you aren't bothered by that person, did you just limit that person's right to free speech? When Trump blocks someone on twitter, they can still yell their criticisms to anyone who might be near them on the street, but the window is closed. It is also like deciding that you don't like the way someone is talking to you on the phone so you hang up on them.

When I said this transforms Twitter to a public forum, the words "public forum" were very carefully chosen as they have a specific legal meaning.

This is going to hurt Twitter. And, in about 7 years, those who are cheering this are going to be very upset at the way President Warren is treated on Twitter.

 

[Copernicus]

Sorry, is still mystifying. Even if the President does block a critic on twitter, he's only blocked their right to comment directly in response. The tweet can still be read. His blocking does nothing to his preferred method of communicating with his constituents. It doesn't even block their ability to respond, just their ability to respond directly to him.

There is nothing at all mystifying about this. The judge ruled that Twitter is a designated public forum. Under the law, no public official can deny a citizen the right to petition the government for redress in such a forum. Trump is a big boy. He can endure their criticism. That's part of the job.

A good analogy would be if, in ye olden days before technology, the founding fathers gather together and discuss what to do if someone is standing outside your window yelling criticisms at you. If you close the window so you aren't bothered by that person, did you just limit that person's right to free speech? When Trump blocks someone on twitter, they can still yell their criticisms to anyone who might be near them on the street, but the window is closed. It is also like deciding that you don't like the way someone is talking to you on the phone so you hang up on them.

False analogies. A phone conversation is private, not in a public forum. If the president wants to close a window in his building to shut out noise, that is different from denying the person making the noise his right to be heard within the public forum.

When I said this transforms Twitter to a public forum, the words "public forum" were very carefully chosen as they have a specific legal meaning.

Why do you think that Twitter is not a public forum? The judge ruled correctly that it was. Trump uses it to communicate with the public. That is the whole point of his Twitter account. He does not use it for private communications, unless maybe he his sending coded messages to Russians.

This is going to hurt Twitter. And, in about 7 years, those who are cheering this are going to be very upset at the way President Warren is treated on Twitter.

How is allowing people to post on Twitter going to harm Twitter? If a president chooses to use it as a way to communicate with constituents, that is only going to enhance Twitter's status. Speculation that a future Democratic president would behave as poorly as Donald Trump is a straw man argument. If one did, then he or she would be just as wrong.

 

[RavenSky]

http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/23/media/judge-rules-trump-cant-block-twitter-users/index.html

A win for the constitution. Trump can't block those that criticize him. I doubt it's going to stop the poop tweets though.

Cheato already blocked me, or so said a message I received. Can I start telling him what I think, or did they refrain from lifting the blocks already in place? (I don't even use fucking twitter, and have no idea how/why I got blocked).

I'm pretty sure Cheeto Jesus will ignore the court order.

me, too

 

[Angra Mainyu]

This is going to hurt Twitter. And, in about 7 years, those who are cheering this are going to be very upset at the way President Warren is treated on Twitter.

If it's not reversed, perhaps. But why wouldn't it be reversed?
Moreover, even if the ruling is upheld on appeal and the SCOTUS decides not to hear the case or upholds it 5-4 (which might or might not happen), a different composition of the SCOTUS could rule differently before 2025.
Now if Warren becomes POTUS (improbable), and the SCOTUS' composition hasn't changed yet (in the conservative direction), then she may well get to change it in the leftist direction, and then the leftists in the court will likely side with her.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

There is nothing at all mystifying about this. The judge ruled that Twitter is a designated public forum. Under the law, no public official can deny a citizen the right to petition the government for redress in such a forum. Trump is a big boy. He can endure their criticism. That's part of the job.



False analogies. A phone conversation is private, not in a public forum. If the president wants to close a window in his building to shut out noise, that is different from denying the person making the noise his right to be heard within the public forum.

When I said this transforms Twitter to a public forum, the words "public forum" were very carefully chosen as they have a specific legal meaning.

Why do you think that Twitter is not a public forum? The judge ruled correctly that it was. Trump uses it to communicate with the public. That is the whole point of his Twitter account. He does not use it for private communications, unless maybe he his sending coded messages to Russians.

This is going to hurt Twitter. And, in about 7 years, those who are cheering this are going to be very upset at the way President Warren is treated on Twitter.

How is allowing people to post on Twitter going to harm Twitter? If a president chooses to use it as a way to communicate with constituents, that is only going to enhance Twitter's status. Speculation that a future Democratic president would behave as poorly as Donald Trump is a straw man argument. If one did, then he or she would be just as wrong.

Because this.

The tweet can still be read. His blocking does nothing to his preferred method of communicating with his constituents. It doesn't even block their ability to respond, just their ability to respond directly to him.

So therefore by being unable to respond directly on Twitter, that is considered in itself a civil right. Not "read tweets". Not "criticize tweets". Not "post on twitter about how you disagree with Trump." Specifically "respond directly on Twitter."

If you, for instance, are blocked by Trump, you can still read his tweets and you can still post on Twitter your opinion on Trump's tweets. The only thing you lose by him blocking you is your ability to respond directly on that one forum.

You can even write him a letter and say "I read your tweet and I disagree." That's not enough though. This ruling is surprisingly specific on one particular part of the Twitter experience.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Would it also be okay with you if the executive government only read letters from Republicans? Is it part of their rights as individuals or their duties as the government?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Just as good as if they only read letters from Democrats. Freedom of speech doesn't mean anyone has to listen.

To preempt partisan questions like that is why I talked about President Warren being subject to hate tweets seven years from now. Eh, you want to make it just about Trump.

Typical American shortsightedness. Every single time I say "are you sure you want this when it will be used against you later?" the response is "yes I want it for what it does right now." Eventually the conversation becomes "this wasn't supposed to be used against me" and "I told you so" and "no you didn't, nobody could have foreseen this."

 

[Copernicus]

How is allowing people to post on Twitter going to harm Twitter? If a president chooses to use it as a way to communicate with constituents, that is only going to enhance Twitter's status. Speculation that a future Democratic president would behave as poorly as Donald Trump is a straw man argument. If one did, then he or she would be just as wrong.

Because this.

The tweet can still be read. His blocking does nothing to his preferred method of communicating with his constituents. It doesn't even block their ability to respond, just their ability to respond directly to him.

So therefore by being unable to respond directly on Twitter, that is considered in itself a civil right. Not "read tweets". Not "criticize tweets". Not "post on twitter about how you disagree with Trump." Specifically "respond directly on Twitter."

If you, for instance, are blocked by Trump, you can still read his tweets and you can still post on Twitter your opinion on Trump's tweets. The only thing you lose by him blocking you is your ability to respond directly on that one forum.

You can even write him a letter and say "I read your tweet and I disagree." That's not enough though. This ruling is surprisingly specific on one particular part of the Twitter experience.

First of all, that just ignores my question. Whether Trump blocks the tweets of some of his constituents or not, Twitter does not lose anything by the fact that the President has chosen to use Twitter as a public forum. Secondly, the President has, indeed, chosen Twitter as a public forum in which to communicate with his constituents. He reads their comments and responds to some of them. So that is a case where Trump has chosen to use Twitter as a means of communicating with his constituents. He cannot pick and choose which constituents get "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". It is abridging their rights to shut off access to that public forum as a means of communicating with him. He has the right to ignore people, not to suppress their freedom to address him. Since Trump has chosen to designate Twitter as a "public forum", he has to follow the guidelines set out by the Supreme Court for how that forum is treated. That was the legal issue that the judge in this case ruled on.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

How will it harm Twitter? It changes it from a private company to a public forum. It makes access to Twitter a civil rights issue because you need to access Twitter to respond to Trump on Twitter. The unclear implications are that Twitter executives lose control of their company and lose the ability to decide who can and who cannot use their service.

Just because you cannot respond on Twitter doesn't mean you cannot petition the Government for a redress of grievances. You can do it, and you can even do it on Twitter. You can organize a petition on Twitter, saying "sign here." The only thing you cannot do is directly respond to Trump's tweets. This ruling is surprisingly specific in what it rules on, and surprisingly vague on what it means.

Can a person blocked by Twitter for calling for the right to shoot minorities then sue Twitter for barring access to the ability to respond to Trump's tweets directly on Twitter? According to this ruling that is entirely possible. That means the executives of Twitter only manage Twitter they don't run Twitter. They don't set policies, the government does. Is that really want you want next time a Democrat is in office and Trump supporters are tweeting rude things? Do you really want President Warren to be exposed to the sort of stuff you imagine Trump supporters can say to her?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Just as good as if they only read letters from Democrats. Freedom of speech doesn't mean anyone has to listen.

So your libertarian answer is the government doesn't have to read letters from constituents directed to the government because "free speech." The government has no duty to read letters from citizens. How do wrongs ever get redressed and citizen bills suggested if the government never has to communicate with its citizens? The right wing traditionally supports the King over the people, but here is statism, no?

 

[Copernicus]

How will it harm Twitter? It changes it from a private company to a public forum. It makes access to Twitter a civil rights issue because you need to access Twitter to respond to Trump on Twitter. The unclear implications are that Twitter executives lose control of their company and lose the ability to decide who can and who cannot use their service.

Sorry, but I can't see your argument as anything other than utter bullshit. Twitter offers an international service to the public and is therefore subject to regulation by all of the countries it sells its products in. It relies on the Internet, whose infrastructure is supported by some tax dollars. It always was a public forum, not a private club, but now it enjoys the status of being a platform that the President uses to deliver public policy announcements, not to mention his venomous little rants. That isn't losing control of the company. That is cashing in on a windfall bonanza. I'm sure that your poor "Twitter executives" leave a trail of tears behind on their way to the bank.

Just because you cannot respond on Twitter doesn't mean you cannot petition the Government for a redress of grievances. You can do it, and you can even do it on Twitter. You can organize a petition on Twitter, saying "sign here." The only thing you cannot do is directly respond to Trump's tweets. This ruling is surprisingly specific in what it rules on, and surprisingly vague on what it means.

According to the judge, it is surprisingly within the guidelines for public forums that the Supreme Court has ruled on in the past. This decision could still be overturned at a later date, but it strikes me as eminently sensible. Given the existence of Twitter in the modern era, it seems to be well within the intention of the framers of the Constitution, who felt that citizens should have a right to voice their opinions to those running their government. Trump has no right, moral or legal, to deny them their voice.

Can a person blocked by Twitter for calling for the right to shoot minorities then sue Twitter for barring access to the ability to respond to Trump's tweets directly on Twitter? According to this ruling that is entirely possible. That means the executives of Twitter only manage Twitter they don't run Twitter. They don't set policies, the government does. Is that really want you want next time a Democrat is in office and Trump supporters are tweeting rude things? Do you really want President Warren to be exposed to the sort of stuff you imagine Trump supporters can say to her?

I don't want private companies to be unregulated by government. It is one of the functions of government to regulate commerce. Always has been. Twitter depends on government services for its existence and its economic stability, so it should be subject to such regulations. The government may not do the best job that it could, but it exists to protect the interests of ordinary citizens. Private companies do not, and they quite often work at cross purposes with public safety and welfare (e.g. when they dump waste products unsafely). And, yes, I want a hypothetical "President Warren" to be exposed to what Trump supporters say. Indeed, she would be the kind of president who would want that, as well. I just don't understand your attitude towards freedom of speech. Government officials need to be exposed to criticism as well as praise. One of the many problems with our current narcissist-in-chief is that he simply can't take criticism. Too bad for him. That is part of the job that he signed up for.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Just as good as if they only read letters from Democrats. Freedom of speech doesn't mean anyone has to listen.

So your libertarian answer is the government doesn't have to read letters from constituents directed to the government because "free speech." The government has no duty to read letters from citizens. How do wrongs ever get redressed and citizen bills suggested if the government never has to communicate with its citizens? The right wing traditionally supports the King over the people, but here is statism, no?

You have a right to speech. You do not have a right to force people to listen. This is so simple even you can understand it ... probably.

King? This is the United States we are discussing.

 

[Copernicus]

Just as good as if they only read letters from Democrats. Freedom of speech doesn't mean anyone has to listen.

So your libertarian answer is the government doesn't have to read letters from constituents directed to the government because "free speech." The government has no duty to read letters from citizens. How do wrongs ever get redressed and citizen bills suggested if the government never has to communicate with its citizens? The right wing traditionally supports the King over the people, but here is statism, no?

You have a right to speech. You do not have a right to force people to listen. This is so simple even you can understand it ... probably.

King? This is the United States we are discussing.

Jason, you keep missing the point. This is not about an ordinary citizen being forced to read something in his Twitter feed. It is about the President of the United States using a Twitter feed, a designated public forum, to announce policies and entertain feedback from constituents. He can certainly ignore criticism, but he can't suppress it.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You keep missing the point. Even though it is about the president, nobody's free speech rights are violated when Trump refuses to read their tweets. He's not suppressing it, they are still able to express their displeasure on any number of forums, including Twitter.

Here's my challenge to you. Call the White House, ask for a personal phone conversation with Trump. When you are refused, explain to the operator that your free speech rights are violated until you are finally put through. If you are hung up on, file a first amendment court case. Tell me how that works out for you.