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

[HannahT]

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.

lol Hmm yes other politicians have done it too. You seriously think he is the only one that does that? He just gets more attention because of whom he is. I realize that is the impression people get, but it is none the less wrong.

Free speech goes both ways I'm afraid. It's not criminal, and won't be in the future.

 

[Hammster]

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.

How were folks able to respond to these official statements?

 

[SummerMadness]

How were folks able to respond to these official statements?

New technology doesn't mean one can ignore the Constitution. This is like arguing that because one can still send letters, it is okay for the government to block certain people from using a phone to air their grievances. "Before the phone, how were folks able to respond?"

 

[Hammster]

New technology doesn't mean one can ignore the Constitution. This is like arguing that because one can still send letters, it is okay for the government to block certain people from using a phone to air their grievances. "Before the phone, how were folks able to respond?"

The problem with this is that there’s more ways to communicate than ever before. Any time a president says something, you can go to Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, you can call the WH, send a letter, email. Someone can’t respond directly to the president on Twitter? Boo Hoo. Guess what else most of us can’t do that some folks can? Go to the WH and talk directly to the president. Does that mean that our freedom of speech is limited? No.

 

[Kentonio]

lol Hmm yes other politicians have done it too. You seriously think he is the only one that does that? He just gets more attention because of whom he is. I realize that is the impression people get, but it is none the less wrong.

Free speech goes both ways I'm afraid. It's not criminal, and won't be in the future.

Give me an example please. Another first world leader of a democracy who has regularly engaged in announcing domestic or foreign policy through a social media channel in advance of other traditional formats.

For a bonus point, give me a single example of another first world democratic leader in office insulting another leader or country via social media.

 

[trunks2k]

Then I would assume all politicians, etc would have to do the same thing.

Yes, but only if their twitter accounts are being used as official government communications from their office. I don't necessarily agree that is the case with Trump's account, but people in his admin said it was. So....

 

[Belk]

The problem with this is that there’s more ways to communicate than ever before. Any time a president says something, you can go to Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, you can call the WH, send a letter, email. Someone can’t respond directly to the president on Twitter? Boo Hoo. Guess what else most of us can’t do that some folks can? Go to the WH and talk directly to the president. Does that mean that our freedom of speech is limited? No.

Then there are more areas then ever that are protected under the first amendment. That there are multiple communication channels open does not negate that it is blocking free speech to cut one off.

 

[SummerMadness]

The problem with this is that there’s more ways to communicate than ever before. Any time a president says something, you can go to Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, you can call the WH, send a letter, email. Someone can’t respond directly to the president on Twitter? Boo Hoo. Guess what else most of us can’t do that some folks can? Go to the WH and talk directly to the president. Does that mean that our freedom of speech is limited? No.

Having multiple forms of communication available does not make it okay to cut off other forms of communication. If the White House allows people to reach it by telegraph, but bars people it disagrees with from sending cables, that is a violation of the first amendment. It does not matter if they can use a phone, e-mail or Twitter hashtag, their rights are infringed.

Then there are more areas then ever that are protected under the first amendment. That there are multiple communication channels open does not negate that it is blocking free speech to cut one off.

QFT

 

[Hammster]

Then there are more areas then ever that are protected under the first amendment. That there are multiple communication channels open does not negate that it is blocking free speech to cut one off.

I agree. And none have been cut off, as far as I can surmise.

 

[Hammster]

Having multiple forms of communication available does not make it okay to cut off other forms of communication. If the White House allows people to reach it by telegraph, but bars people it disagrees with from sending cables, that is a violation of the first amendment. It does not matter if they can use a phone, e-mail or Twitter hashtag, their rights are infringed.


QFT

Then you’d say that my free speech is violated because I cannot go right to the WH and address the president.

 

[SummerMadness]

Then you’d say that my free speech is violated because I cannot go right to the WH and address the president.

If the public is allowed to go to the White House to address the president and you are not allowed to because he disagrees with your political beliefs, then yes. You can either listen to the argument being made or continue to leave out details for your straw man. You are ignoring the whole public forum thing that is open to all, however it is restricted to people the president does not agree with.

 

[Belk]

I agree. And none have been cut off, as far as I can surmise.

I guess that depends on if you believe the argument that Trumps personal account is used for official communication.

 

[Hammster]

If the public is allowed to go to the White House to address the president and you are not allowed to because he disagrees with your political beliefs, then yes. You can either listen to the argument being made or continue to leave out details for your straw man. You are ignoring the whole public forum thing that is open to all, however it is restricted to people the president does not agree with.

There are some folks allowed to go to the WH and address the president.

 

[Hammster]

I guess that depends on if you believe the argument that Trumps personal account is used for official communication.

People can still post on Twitter their feelings of a president. They can hashtag away.

 

[SummerMadness]

There are some folks allowed to go to the WH and address the president.

Bad argument again, the White House is not a public forum.

 

[Belk]

People can still post on Twitter their feelings of a president. They can hashtag away.

How does that negate that certain people were banned from communication on an official government feed?

 

[Hammster]

How does that negate that certain people were banned from communication on an official government feed?

Twitter isn’t an official government feed.

 

[Hammster]

Bad argument again, the White House is not a public forum.

So now only public forums are in view. It’s hard to keep up with you.

 

[Belk]

Twitter isn’t an official government feed.

You are correct. The entirety of Twitter is not an official government feed. However there are official government feeds on Twitter.

 

[SummerMadness]

So now only public forums are in view. It’s hard to keep up with you.

No, you're simply trying to muddy the waters by claiming the president must be accessible at all times, which is not what this case is about or the reasoning for the ruling. It is a straw man argument that ignores the details of the case. Since the account is an official government account that all citizens can follow and reply to, you cannot bar access to people you do not agree with. The people being blocked are not being vulgar or disruptive, they are blocked because their views are critical of the President. Attempting to make this about everyone not being able to enter the White House by their own free will is a distraction and misrepresentation of the case.