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

[Hammster]

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

How is a feed declared to be official?

 

[Hammster]

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.

Was it an official feed before he was president? If not, how and when did it become so?

 

[Goonie]

How is a feed declared to be official?

When they are used as the mouthpiece of govt. Trump has failed to differentiate between his personal, and public presidential feeds.

 

[SummerMadness]

Was it an official feed before he was president? If not, how and when did it become so?

Now we've jumped to the next sinking ship... He and his staff already said it's an official government feed, so when it became the feed or what was the previous feed is irrelevant.

 

[Hammster]

When they are used as the mouthpiece of govt. Trump has failed to differentiate between his personal, and public presidential feeds.

And where do we find that rule or law?

 

[Hammster]

Now we've jumped to the next sinking ship... He and his staff already said it's an official government feed, so when it became the feed or what was the previous feed is irrelevant.

Ah. So where do we find in any rule of law that a statement by a staffer makes it so?

 

[Belk]

How is a feed declared to be official?

It's not. just like when they issue a press release it is not declared to be an official press release.

 

[Hammster]

It's not. just like when they issue a press release it is not declared to be an official press release.

So the feed itself is not official.

 

[Belk]

So the feed itself is not official.

No, it is official. Just like a press release is official without being declared official. If the government releases it, it is official.

 

[Goonie]

So the feed itself is not official.

But if it is being used to make official announcements from the president. Last time I checked a US President making official policy announcements is covered by the constitution regardless of medium used.

 

[Hammster]

No, it is official. Just like a press release is official without being declared official. If the government releases it, it is official.

But it’s what is said that is official, not the means of announcing it.

 

[Hammster]

But if it is being used to make official announcements from the president. Last time I checked a US President making official policy announcements is covered by the constitution regardless of medium used.

Okay. And people are free to respond, regardless of the medium. They can even Tweet about it.

 

[Goonie]

But it’s what is said that is official, not the means of announcing it.

Indeed, but his twitter account by his failing to separate personal from governmental is subject to the constitution. His account, not twitter as a whole, if you see what I mean.

 

[Belk]

But it’s what is said that is official, not the means of announcing it.

No. It is where it originates from that makes it official, not the method of communication.

 

[Hammster]

Indeed, but his twitter account by his failing to separate personal from governmental is subject to the constitution. His account, not twitter as a whole, if you see what I mean.

Okay, so we cannot limit his free speech. Nor other Twitter users ability to respond. Which has not happened.

 

[Hammster]

No. It is where it originates from that makes it official, not the method of communication.

So where is it written that anyone who wants to respond must be able to do so while having access to a president’s twitter feed?

 

[SummerMadness]

So where is it written that anyone who wants to respond must be able to do so while having access to a president’s twitter feed?

Ninth amendment

 

[Hammster]

Ninth amendment

They can still tweet, call, write, email, etc. So that’s a fail.

 

[Arcangl86]

They can still tweet, call, write, email, etc. So that’s a fail.

It's not that difficult a concept. The President is allowing some people to access and respond to his personal twitter account, and not others. The reason he sisn't several people access is because he does not like what they have to say. Infringement of the first amendment doesn't have to be all or nothing.

 

[SummerMadness]

They can still tweet, call, write, email, etc. So that’s a fail.

You've now jumped back to a sinking ship you previously abandoned. Pointing out alternative forms of communication is moot.