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

[Always in His Presence]

It’s like holding a press conference, and one person shouts insults and vulgarities. They will not stop, so they are removed, then they sue because their freedom of speech was effected

 

[Belk]

Their speech on Twitter is not blocked.

Their rudeness and vulgarity had the effect of one person of the hundreds of millions on twitter to block them from getting to the personally.

Which they can still do to an extent by hash tagging the person.

Again, I do not see how that is relevant to the ruling. The government must have a compelling interest in order to block their speech in that feed. Frankly I think you would be better of focusing your arguments on the idea that the presidents personal account is a government channel. That to me seems the weak part of this case.

 

[SummerMadness]

It’s like holding a press conference, and one person shouts insults and vulgarities. They will not stop, so they are removed, then they sue because their freedom of speech was effected

But they were not blocked due to insults and vulgarity, so that point doesn't hold up.

 

[Belk]

It’s like holding a press conference, and one person shouts insults and vulgarities. They will not stop, so they are removed, then they sue because their freedom of speech was effected

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

 

[Always in His Presence]

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

I can’t split the hair into that many pieces.

Their access to Twitter has not been stopped.

Can you address that?

 

[Always in His Presence]

Free speech is not measured by the scope of the speech being blocked but if the government is blocking speech and if it has a compelling interest in doing so. Dos the government have a compelling reason to block them from posting on that feed? The fact they can use other functionality is not relevant to the ruling.

Where does the judgement address that?

 

[Always in His Presence]

Example: if I want to address you I just have to

@Belk

Right?

If you have me blocked, I can still address you @Belk

This is no different.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Another example. I have two individuals on ignore.

If I were to look, they are most likely still addressing me.

I’m not preventing their free speech, they can be as stupid as they want to be. I just don’t need to be abused by them anymore.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

There was a small clean up to remove some flaming and responses to it. Keep it civil to avoid warnings.​

 

[rjs330]

Obviously not. I'm going to say that that judge decided to favor the government establishment over we the people.

Opposite effect, opposite analysis. See how that works?

I figured.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I figured.

People do not react identically to opposite stimuli. I'd have been concerned if you hadn't figured on that.

 

[rjs330]

I still dont Get how a person's private account has to allow people to post on it. It seems a bit off to me. I'd feel the same way about anyones account. If it's my personal account should be able to block whomever I want.

 

[Belk]

I can’t split the hair into that many pieces.

Their access to Twitter has not been stopped.

Can you address that?

I thought I had? My understanding is that the scope of this is not relevant to the ruling. Being blocked sending a letter to one newspaper is still an infringement even if you can send letters to other newspapers.

 

[Belk]

Where does the judgement address that?

I do not believe they specifically call it out. However given that the judge likely knows they are not being blocked from all of Twitter it would not seem relevant to the ruling.

 

[Always in His Presence]

I do not believe they specifically call it out. However given that the judge likely knows they are not being blocked from all of Twitter it would not seem relevant to the ruling.

I don’t make the same assumptions and there lies our differences.

 

[Belk]

Example: if I want to address you I just have to

@Belk

Right?

If you have me blocked, I can still address you @Belk

This is no different.

I do not see how being able to use other functionality changes the fact that I have blocked you in a specific area.

 

[Belk]

I still dont Get how a person's private account has to allow people to post on it. It seems a bit off to me. I'd feel the same way about anyones account. If it's my personal account should be able to block whomever I want.

This is the issue I see with this ruling. It relies on the idea that Trump is using his personal account for official business. That is the only way they could apply the first amendment. Otherwise it is not Donald Trump (President) blocking the account. It is Donald Trump (Citizen) blocking which does not run afoul the first amendment.

 

[Belk]

I don’t make the same assumptions and there lies our differences.

What leads you to believe that being able to use other functionality sidesteps the issue of them blocking a specific form of communication?

 

[NightHawkeye]

This is the issue I see with this ruling. It relies on the idea that Trump is using his personal account for official business. That is the only way they could apply the first amendment. Otherwise it is not Donald Trump (President) blocking the account. It is Donald Trump (Citizen) blocking which does not run afoul the first amendment.

Alright!

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

 

[Belk]

Another example. I have two individuals on ignore.

If I were to look, they are most likely still addressing me.

I’m not preventing their free speech, they can be as stupid as they want to be. I just don’t need to be abused by them anymore.

If Trump had used the Mute function (as some others had suggested) this likely would not of come up. However he blocked people from responding. This seems substantively different from ignore. If I ignore you you can still respond to the thread for others to see. You are not blocked from posting in any thread I create.