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

[TLK Valentine]

Cool story, bro. But that’s not what’s happening. And it doesn’t answer my question.

The government is silencing its critics -- pretty much exactly what's happening.

 

[TLK Valentine]

We also have Christian Only areas.

You're also not the government.

 

[Always in His Presence]

The government is silencing its critics -- pretty much exactly what's happening.

How exactly are they doing that? If you are blocked on one persons tweet, you are silenced? Do they close your account? You can't write letters, editorials, tweets, facebook posts, stand on the corner and scream at the sky?

 

[TLK Valentine]

How exactly are they doing that? If you are blocked on one persons tweet, you are silenced? Do they close your account? You can't write letters, editorials, tweets, facebook posts, stand on the corner and scream at the sky?

Any time the government denies you any (not all at once, but any )form of communication based soley on your political views, you're being censored. You may approve of it, but that doesn't make it any less of a first amendment violation.

 

[Hammster]

The government is silencing its critics -- pretty much exactly what's happening.

How? How are people silenced just because they can’t respond on Twitter? How on earth did people complain to the government before social media?

 

[TLK Valentine]

How? How are people silenced just because they can’t respond on Twitter?

You just answered your own question.

How on earth did people complain to the government before social media?

What would your definition of "censorship" be, then?

 

[SummerMadness]

How? How are people silenced just because they can’t respond on Twitter? How on earth did people complain to the government before social media?

It doesn't matter if there are other means. This Twitter account is open to the public and their ability to respond to the president's tweets is being restricted, thus their rights are infringed.

At one point there were no phones and when that technology came, it allowed people to call the White House and leave messages, complain, etc. If the government excluded certain people from placing phone calls because they dislike their views, that is an infringement of their rights. Claiming they can still send letters does not change the fact that they are infringing on free speech rights by not allowing them to make phone calls.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Any time the government denies you any (not all at once, but any )form of communication based soley on your political views, you're being censored. You may approve of it, but that doesn't make it any less of a first amendment violation.

Cite your sources that they were banned based solely on their political views and not for obscenity and vulgarity.

How? How are people silenced just because they can’t respond on Twitter? How on earth did people complain to the government before social media?

Exactly

 

[cow451]

And then Donny discovers the Mute option and nothing changes.

A little more fiber in his diet would likely decrease his Twitter time.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Cite your sources that they were banned based solely on their political views and not for obscenity and vulgarity.

My source is Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald.

Who's yours?

 

[Tanj]

In 2016 Preet Bharara called her the "worst federal judge" at a dinner party.

Well, maybe she was the only judge at the dinner party.

 

[Tanj]

Do you realize that means if you have someone on ignore here on CF you are violating their constitutional rights!

Oh the number of irate US teenagers that threatened me with that when I banned them from my site. Good times.

I don't use twitter, but I'm assuming this is analogous to blocking certain users from responding to your own threads on Christian Forums.

You assume incorrectly. CF is not a government institute, freedom of speech does not apply.

Freedom of speech simply means the government can't prosecute you for saying things they don't like. It has never applied to social media; they are free to create whatever rules they want.

No, Freedom of speech means the government cannot limit your speech either. This is the official twitter feed of the President of the United States. The federal government (in this case the President) cannot limit people's access and right of reply to the feed.

 

[Always in His Presence]

My source is Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald.

Who's yours?

Really:

But on Wednesday, one of Mr. Trump’s Twitter habits — his practice of blocking critics on the service, preventing them from engaging with his account — was declared unconstitutional by a federal judge in Manhattan.
​

I’ve read the link and the attached article. There is zero mention of the plaintiffs party affiliation

It is widely known that the President has his critics on both sides of the isle.

 

[SummerMadness]

Really:

But on Wednesday, one of Mr. Trump’s Twitter habits — his practice of blocking critics on the service, preventing them from engaging with his account — was declared unconstitutional by a federal judge in Manhattan.
​

I’ve read the link and the attached article. There is zero mention of the plaintiffs party affiliation

It is widely known that the President has his critics on both sides of the isle.

And that is an irrelevant point, he is infringing the free speech rights of his critics.

 

[Always in His Presence]

And that is an irrelevant point, he is infringing the free speech rights of his critics.

When a common sense court overturns it, that will settle the issue

And yes, it is relevant as an answer to the statement.

 

[SummerMadness]

When a common sense court overturns it, that will settle the issue

And yes, it is relevant as an answer to the statement.

It is not, if you infringe on the rights of some citizens to partake in a public forum because they criticize you, a government official, that is an infringement of free speech.

 

[Nithavela]

What some people don't realise is that replying to a twitter post is not like standing in the living room of the poster and shouting (or praising for that matter) the poster.

It's more like standing outside of a speech with a sign with your opinion on it. It's a public display of opinion, either in support or protest of the thing being said/written. When Trump posts something and people reply, their replies can be seen by everyone around the world, not just the original twitter poster.

So blocking someone in twitter is not akin to keeping them from learning about what you said or from shouting at you in your living room, it's more comparable from preventing someone from holding up a sign with his opinion in the vicinity of your speech. And THAT is pretty much the textbook definition of violation of free speech.

 

[Hammster]

You just answered your own question.

Only if you ignore the “just”.

What would your definition of "censorship" be, then?

“the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.”

Which doesn’t define not being able to respond to a president on Twitter. There’s other ways that you can communicate.

 

[Hammster]

thus their rights are infringed.

No. They still have the right to contact the government.

 

[SummerMadness]

No. They still have the right to contact the government.

The government does not have the right to pick how you wish to communicate with the government if they open up different forms of communication to the public. I can't tell one group they can only use e-mails, tell another group they can only use letters, and tell another group they can only protest at night from 3:35 to 3:45, etc. When you bar some people from communicating, but not others, that's an infringement of free speech.