So does the President have the right to block people from his twitter.

[Belk]

I guess I'm confused. They have two twitter accounts for the man. One setup by the government, and one that was not. Did the government seize his personal one? I would assume that would be part of the argument as well no?

No, the argument is that he is using it in his official capacity as POTUS and it should therefore follow the same communication protections as an official government account.

 

[HannahT]

The argument is that he has commingled his personal and govt accounts by making policy statements on his personal account.

Okay. Yet, I read they are also claiming that blocking them gives them no voice too. Which of course makes no sense. There are other avenues for voice. They are also claiming its NOT his personal account anymore. Which is why I asked about the government seizing it.

They are claiming his statements at times are exclusively only on twitter, but I doubt that alone enforces anything. I mean people can't go to court and say we do can this due to Trump's personal twitter account. I realize they may not like his statements - policy or otherwise - on his personal account. Yet, I guess the question would be are those twitter tweets enforceable just by their mere presence? Does it show exercise of some power within a tweeter account? To me that is the true meat and potatoes.

 

[HannahT]

No, the argument is that he is using it in his official capacity as POTUS and it should therefore follow the same communication protections as an official government account.

Which basically is a big YES to seizing his personal twitter account.

 

[Belk]

Which basically is a big YES to seizing his personal twitter account.

No. Seizing implies the government takes control of his account. If the the lawsuit is successful it simply means Trump must follow the guidelines used for any other account. He still retains control of it. He is restricted in his actions regarding use of it though.

 

[RDKirk]

Okay. Yet, I read they are also claiming that blocking them gives them no voice too. Which of course makes no sense. There are other avenues for voice. They are also claiming its NOT his personal account anymore. Which is why I asked about the government seizing it.

They are claiming his statements at times are exclusively only on twitter, but I doubt that alone enforces anything. I mean people can't go to court and say we do can this due to Trump's personal twitter account. I realize they may not like his statements - policy or otherwise - on his personal account. Yet, I guess the question would be are those twitter tweets enforceable just by their mere presence? Does it show exercise of some power within a tweeter account? To me that is the true meat and potatoes.

Inasmuch as the Executive Branch does not take his Twitter statements for action, the answer to that question is, "No."

 

[NotreDame]

Those two paragraphs are directly conflicting.

If "public forum" is defined as “government-owned properties that the government is constitutionally obligated to make available for speech," then Twitter is most definitely not a "public forum."



This assertion is made without a single sentence of support...and it's not true. That article does not support what you think it does, ending with rebuttals to that point.

Eugene Volokh, law professor and prominent 1st Amendment scholar, believes Trump may block people from the Twitter account and such conduct does not violate the Free Speech Clause of the 1st Amendment. Opinion | Is @RealDonaldTrump violating the First Amendment by blocking some Twitter users?

An attorney from the Knight First Amendment Institute addressed Volokh's position and Volokh gave a rebuttal. Opinion | More on the First Amendment and @RealDonaldTrump

Examining the substance of the arguments, the evidence, and reasoning, it is my opinion Volokh has the stronger argument.

Volokh also addressed why Sean Spicer's statement is not compelling.

 

[TerranceL]

Saw this question on twitter:

Serious question: If Trump's account is a public forum and I cannot legally have my account blocked from interacting with it, then is Twitter not allowed to ban me because they prevent me from interacting with public figures? By this logic, both are constitutional violations

 

[RDKirk]

Saw this question on twitter:

Serious question: If Trump's account is a public forum and I cannot legally have my account blocked from interacting with it, then is Twitter not allowed to ban me because they prevent me from interacting with public figures? By this logic, both are constitutional violations

Not the same situation under the Constitution because Twitter is not a government agent.

 

[Goonie]

They will certainly lose this case. They might have been better making “Ive been blocked on Twitter by Trump” t-shirts.

 

[pgp_protector]

Which account ?
President Trump (@POTUS) | Twitter
or
Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) | Twitter

Government one, I'd say no.
Personal one, I'd say yes.

 

[Belk]

Eugene Volokh, law professor and prominent 1st Amendment scholar, believes Trump may block people from the Twitter account and such conduct does not violate the Free Speech Clause of the 1st Amendment. Opinion | Is @RealDonaldTrump violating the First Amendment by blocking some Twitter users?

An attorney from the Knight First Amendment Institute addressed Volokh's position and Volokh gave a rebuttal. Opinion | More on the First Amendment and @RealDonaldTrump

Examining the substance of the arguments, the evidence, and reasoning, it is my opinion Volokh has the stronger argument.

Volokh also addressed why Sean Spicer's statement is not compelling.

I note that even Mr Volokh points out that this is a border issue that it is a rather close call even though he falls on the "probably not" side. Do you think it likely to go up through the appeals process?

 

[Bio-Luminescent Billy]

I suspect he has the same right to ban Twitter users as Twitter has the right to ban Trump's base of the platform.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I don't see what the problem is. If Trump didn't use Twitter at all no one would see any tweets of his or be able to comment back to the things he says in an official capacity. Personally, I wish that were the case.

 

[Wet Squirrel]

Yes, if someone is blocked they cannot see or reply to the Presidents tweets. They would have to rely on getting the presidential statement second or third hand.

Or make new account like normal human being and repent and stop trolling in tweets by posting hate-speach so they don't get blocked again ?

 

[NotreDame]

I note that even Mr Volokh points out that this is a border issue that it is a rather close call even though he falls on the "probably not" side. Do you think it likely to go up through the appeals process?

Yes. Trump wants to preclude people from posting replies he disagrees with, so he would likely appeal any adverse ruling.

The wider public apparently has people who want the ability to illuminate on this twitter account why they think he’s unwise and incompetent. They’ll likely appeal any adverse ruling.

 

[DaisyDay]

Meh ...

The Oval Office is not an open door. It's not. Never has been. Never intended to be.

The Twitterverse is not the Oval Office - it's more of a public space.

Or make new account like normal human being and repent and stop trolling in tweets by posting hate-speach so they don't get blocked again ?

These are often professionals with a following - journalists and such - rather than private trolls (whom I don't consider "normal human beings").

 

[FredVB]

The argument is that he has commingled his personal and govt accounts by making policy statements on his personal account.

This is enough reason that those who will follow are not to be blocked, and excusing it is endorsing the censorship that is inclusive of some political involvement for some. This is the case even if there are other avenues, when circumstances of followers are not all taken into account, and what is shown in the one media that some are blocked from is given much sooner when there is lag in any of it shown through other avenues, it is conceivable that this may become very significant.