Trump Violates First Amendment by Blocking Twitter Users From Feed, Judge Says

[Belk]

Alright!

Then the White House is open to all 24 hours a day. It's not Trump's private house, ya know.

The White House Tour - President's Park (White House) (U.S. National Park Service)

 

[NightHawkeye]

The White House Tour - President's Park (White House) (U.S. National Park Service)

Great parallel.

Anyone violating the rules, being disruptive for example, will be quickly removed from the tour ... and not be allowed back.

 

[Belk]

Great parallel.

Anyone violating the rules will be quickly removed from the tour ... and not be allowed back.

I fail to see how that is a parallel?

 

[trunks2k]

I don't think press conferences are considered a public forum.

And even then, there are physical limitations to how many people can be present. So there are practical reasons to limit who is there. When it comes to a twitter account, that's not the case. I can see if an account is functioning as an official government communication, you can't allow one set of people to participate in a discussion and disallow a different set. If Trump wishes to not have to see a user's posts, there are functions to do that without blocking a user from reading/posting to the thread.

 

[NightHawkeye]

I fail to see how that is a parallel?

Trump Twitter ruling: What it takes to get blocked by the president

 

[Belk]

Trump Twitter ruling: What it takes to get blocked by the president

Uh huh?

 

[NightHawkeye]

Uh huh?

Try being a jerk on the White House tour and see how long you stay with the tour.

 

[Belk]

Try being a jerk on the White House tour and see how long you stay with the tour.

And you feel this analogous to a public forum protected by the first amendment?

 

[NightHawkeye]

And you feel this analogous to a public forum protected by the first amendment?

Try yelling on the White House lawn.

Let us know how that works out for ya.

 

[Belk]

Try yelling on the White House lawn.

Let us know how that works out for ya.

You feel the White house lawn is a public forum protected under the first amendment?

 

[NightHawkeye]

You feel the White house lawn is a public forum protected under the first amendment?

Definition of FORUM

1 a : the marketplace or public place of an ancient Roman city forming the center of judicial and public business
b : a public meeting place for open discussion The club provides a forum for people interested in local history.
c : a medium (such as a newspaper or online service) of open discussion or expression of ideas
2 : a judicial body or assembly : court
3 a : a public meeting or lecture involving audience discussion The town has scheduled a public forum to discuss the proposal.
b : a program (as on radio or television) involving discussion of a problem usually by several authorities​

How many of the above offer(ed) unlimited free speech access?

 

[Belk]

Definition of FORUM

1 a : the marketplace or public place of an ancient Roman city forming the center of judicial and public business
b : a public meeting place for open discussion The club provides a forum for people interested in local history.
c : a medium (such as a newspaper or online service) of open discussion or expression of ideas
2 : a judicial body or assembly : court
3 a : a public meeting or lecture involving audience discussion The town has scheduled a public forum to discuss the proposal.
b : a program (as on radio or television) involving discussion of a problem usually by several authorities​

How many of the above offer(ed) unlimited free speech access?

None. How is that relevant?

 

[TerranceL]

He’s using that account to conduct official business. It’s no longer just a private account while he continues to use it as his official one.

Of course it's still his private account. He retweets himself on the @potus account for a reason.

 

[TerranceL]

Keep telling yourself that, your only explanation is that there are other forms of communication. But if one group is restricted to communication via phone while others are restricted to communication via snail mail, that is a violation of their constitutional rights.

Nobody is being restricted from communicating. They blocked people are still free to tweet whoever they want.

 

[Kentonio]

Of course it's still his private account. He retweets himself on the @potus account for a reason.

His press secretary said his tweets should be ‘considered official statements by the President of the United States’. Can you confirm that he retweets every tweet from that personal account onto the POTUS account?

 

[Hammster]

His press secretary said his tweets should be ‘considered official statements by the President of the United States’.

Let’s assume that this is true. How have other presidents made official statements?

 

[HannahT]

Does that mean Twitter needs to remove the block button so no one gets their 1st amendment rights violated?

 

[trunks2k]

Does that mean Twitter needs to remove the block button so no one gets their 1st amendment rights violated?

No. This is specifically related to the president's account. If the president is using his personal account for official government communication, then it's government communication and thus can't allow some people to read & respond to it, but not others without a good reason. "I don't like what you are saying" is not a good reason.

I generally agree with that concept. However, that assumes the president's personal account counts as official communication. According to his administration, it is. But whether or not a potentially off-the-cuff comment makes it so, I'm not so sure.

 

[Kentonio]

Let’s assume that this is true.

Why wouldn't we assume this is true. It is true. Sean Spicer said exactly that, which is why I put it in quote marks.

How have other presidents made official statements?

Official statements to the press, press conferences etc etc. All of them pre-preparing their statements carefully to avoid any unintended consequences or mistunderstands, and to ensure their staff are able to provide guidance as to the likely response.

None of them have just spouted their thoughts out into the world, because its an incredible stupid and immature way for a world leader to behave, and when he carries out foreign policy via Twitter it reaches the point of gross negligence as far as I'm concerned. The guy could literally cause wars because he tweeted something stupid at 3am. That is so negligent it should be actually criminal.

 

[HannahT]

No. This is specifically related to the president's account. If the president is using his personal account for official government communication, then it's government communication and thus can't allow some people to read & respond to it, but not others without a good reason. "I don't like what you are saying" is not a good reason.

I generally agree with that concept. However, that assumes the president's personal account counts as official communication. According to his administration, it is. But whether or not a potentially off-the-cuff comment makes it so, I'm not so sure.

Then I would assume all politicians, etc would have to do the same thing. It wouldn't be just the President. From what I have seen they speak of events, and things they are voting for or against, etc. I have noticed some of them don't allow comments at all, or they also limited it to a point. This will be interesting, and I'm sure they will appeal as well.