Trump's blocking of critics on Twitter violates Constitution: U.S. judge

[UncleTouchyFingers]

2 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

If anyone goes on twitter spouting racism, hatred, personal attacks, divisiveness etc etc they lose their account. So just why does DJT still have a twitter account?

 

Sorry bud, but the British are the absolute last people anyone should listen to when talking about free speech. What you have in the UK is downright laughable and in no way applies to US based sites or laws. 

 

And you're also really wrong too, and clearly dont use twitter. The nastiest comments you'll see come from rabid liberals, and most of what you posted are not against Twitters community guidelines. 

[pedro01]

4 hours ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

 

Clinton appointee, Manhattan, etc...

 

And she didn't issue an injunction, just a "declaration" (meaningless) so Trump can still do whatever he wants. 

 

Just more feel-good liberal nothing-burgers and politicization of the judicial process. 

 

Although this will surely make the liberal nazis feel great for a half-second until they realize its all just an attention grab. 

 

The greater crime is Twitter itself (and facebook) openly filtering conservative free speech under the guise of "improving the conversation".  

 

Exactly...

 

What the judge is saying is "Trump can't ban people from his feed - but liberal biased Twitter can"

 

I wonder what Melanie makes of all this....

[Jonnapat]

4 hours ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

 

Clinton appointee, Manhattan, etc...

 

And she didn't issue an injunction, just a "declaration" (meaningless) so Trump can still do whatever he wants. 

 

Just more feel-good liberal nothing-burgers and politicization of the judicial process. 

 

Although this will surely make the liberal nazis feel great for a half-second until they realize its all just an attention grab. 

 

The greater crime is Twitter itself (and facebook) openly filtering conservative free speech under the guise of "improving the conversation".  

I'd rather be a "feel good lideral" than a white supremacist neo Nazi.

[pedro01]

2 hours ago, NanLaew said:

Since DJT became POTUS?

 

Before that, social media was all about how many friends one had on FB anbd food porn.

 

DJT has politicized twitter. Agreed it isn't an 'official' .gov media stream but DJT uses it relentlessly to litmus test some of his ideas and opinions and based on the uptake or advice from legal counsel or his staff, it either flies or gets buried.

Twitter politicized Twitter long before DJT ever did...

[Odysseus123]

7 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

Twitter politicized Twitter long before DJT ever did...

Yep-but you gotta admit that the manic lunatic (does he sleep?) has no master..

 

One supposes that he appeals to other manic lunatics who get no sleep as well.

[stevenl]

43 minutes ago, FitnessHealthTravel said:

It's such BS. NYC Judge, how more bias can he get.  This will be overturned for sure. All he has to do is set up another account and make that the Professional, Government Official one (and never post to it) then use his current account as a personal one if worse comes to worse.

You're right, that would do it. Except that of course if he keeps using his private account for official communications it would still be considered a official account which everybody must have access to.

But he has every right to use a personal account for personal business.

[Different]

Isn't Trump amazing.?️‍♂️

[Different]

Don't you just love him day after day.

[Mac98]

Just like a late German leader blocked the voices of protesters outside his arenas, and listened only to the sweet birdsong of his snarling, bloodthirsty supporters. How did that work out?

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

6 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

I'm sure Trump will just ignore this frivolous ruling for if it were upheld it would open the door to allow unblocking of all Twitter users. 

 

It's not a frivolous ruling.  If Trump were just using the Twitter account as a private citizen, that's a different matter.

 

But he's using the Twitter account as an official means of government communication for his presidency. And once it gets into being a government communication channel, the broader public interest and free speech rights come into play.

 

The analogy, would be to ask the question if it would be OK for the Defense Department to block any incoming communications to the department or its officials from anyone with an anti-war position. And any similar example like that.

 

And most common sense people would respond, Americans should all have the right to communicate to and with their government and their president, regardless of their personal/political views, and whether they agree or disagree with various government positions.

 

The U.S. government, including Trump, doesn't have the right to simply hit the "ignore " button on American citizens.

 

No different with Trump and his presidential Twitter account.

 

Edited May 24, 2018 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Srikcir]

4 hours ago, NanLaew said:

DJT has politicized twitter.

The Department of Justice on Monday told a federal district court judge In Washington, D.C. that Donald Trump’s tweets are “official statements of the President of the United States.”
“To be sure, the President’s account identifies his office, and his tweets make official statements about the policies of his administration,”

James Madison Project v. Department of Justice

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/government_says_trumps_tweets_are_official_presidential_statements

 

 

[pedro01]

1 hour ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

It's not a frivolous ruling.  If Trump were just using the Twitter account as a private citizen, that's a different matter.

 

But he's using the Twitter account as an official means of government communication for his presidency. And once it gets into being a government communication channel, the broader public interest and free speech rights come into play.

 

The analogy, would be to ask the question if it would be OK for the Defense Department to block any incoming communications to the department or its officials from anyone with an anti-war position. And any similar example like that.

 

And most common sense people would respond, Americans should all have the right to communicate to and with their government and their president, regardless of their personal/political views, and whether they agree or disagree with various government positions.

 

The U.S. government, including Trump, doesn't have the right to simply hit the "ignore " button on American citizens.

 

No different with Trump and his presidential Twitter account.

 

 

Actually - your analogy is incorrect.

 

There are plenty of forums at which a president communicates that are not 2 way.

 

One of the arguments the lunatic left-fringe uses to ban speakers from Universities is that "no debate is allowed, to counter the hurty speech" - but that has always been the case with speakers. Speakers get up, speak and get down again.

 

Even in 2-way forums, the president (or anyone else in govt) is free to choose who speaks next. Hence Jim Acosta being butthurt about not being able to throw his loaded questions.

 

There is a clear precedent for 1 way, 2 way and limited communications from government. 

[stevenl]

2 hours ago, pedro01 said:

 

Actually - your analogy is incorrect.

 

There are plenty of forums at which a president communicates that are not 2 way.

 

One of the arguments the lunatic left-fringe uses to ban speakers from Universities is that "no debate is allowed, to counter the hurty speech" - but that has always been the case with speakers. Speakers get up, speak and get down again.

 

Even in 2-way forums, the president (or anyone else in govt) is free to choose who speaks next. Hence Jim Acosta being butthurt about not being able to throw his loaded questions.

 

There is a clear precedent for 1 way, 2 way and limited communications from government. 

It really should be easy to understand: if the president announces policy or plans, people should be able to hear about them from the president. With people blocked from this communication by the president they can not hear about this from the president.

 

Anybody agreeing with this I really can not understand, I have not heard one good argument so far.

[55Jay]

He's been banging away on that @Real since the campaign.   The judge kind of outed herself politically on this one though.

 

I prefer to remove all the clutter, and just say President Trump's past and continued conduct on Twitter, is an embarrassment to The Office and the Nation.  And that kind of nonsense from Him, attracts this kind of nonsense in return.  There's just no way to polish this turd, he's stuck with it now.

[55Jay]

53 minutes ago, stevenl said:

It really should be easy to understand: if the president announces policy or plans, people should be able to hear about them from the president. With people blocked from this communication by the president they can not hear about this from the president.

 

Anybody agreeing with this I really can not understand, I have not heard one good argument so far.

I have a feeling those who are blocked from his account are in the "Not My President" resistance group.  They can't stand him, and totally reject him as their legitimate President, so that puts an interesting and ironic perspective on this.

 

It ought to be a badge of honor within the resistance group to have been loud enough to be blocked by him.  I'm quite sure they have more reliable and appealing resources for serious policy "news", not the @Real twitter handle.  LOL.  The latter is merely cannon fodder to mess with him, because they can.

 

Edited May 24, 2018 by 55Jay

[stevenl]

18 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

I have a feeling those who are blocked from his account are in the "Not My President" resistance group.  They can't stand him, and totally reject him as their legitimate President, so that puts an interesting perspective on this.

 

It ought to be a badge of honor within the resistance group to have been loud enough to be blocked by him.  I'm quite sure they have more reliable and appealing resources for serious policy "news", not the @Real twitter handle.  LOL.  The latter is merely cannon fodder to mess with him, because they can.

 

What don't people understand about this? It really doesn't matter if they have multiple information sources, the president can not exclude people from his communications just because they don't agree with him.

[samran]

10 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Just another example of the anti Trump brigade using any stick with which to beat him.

Any stick in a storm as they never say...

 

Perhaps questioning his birth certificate is a better use of everyone’s time. After all, his mum is Scottish. Good for the goose and all that...

Edited May 24, 2018 by samran

[55Jay]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

What don't people understand about this? It really doesn't matter if they have multiple information sources, the president can not exclude people from his communications just because they don't agree with him.

I re-read the OP, in particular the part where the judge opined on this, and kept away from the legal thicket she was about to stick her foot in. 

 

I don't disagree on the fundamental point the judge relied upon.  But I have to agree with the quoted Duke Uni Law Professor's point, that there is a private/government issue here that needs to be resolved.

 

None of these politico Twitter handles are official government portals or sites.    Trump may be the President but Twitter isn't the government.  

 

Not that I'm rooting for Trump.  I've made my thoughts on his Twitterness clear in an earlier comment.

 

Nor am I rooting for the grievance merchants behind the suit.  I know what they are really about.   Let's not pretend. 

 

I would be pleased if Trump finally got rid of/quit using the @Real account.   Stick with the unofficial official @POTUS account.  And for christ's sake, let the Commo Director manage it, not Trump.  Yeezus mother mary and joseph, enough with the Twitter krap already.  ?

Edited May 24, 2018 by 55Jay

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

3 hours ago, stevenl said:

What don't people understand about this? It really doesn't matter if they have multiple information sources, the president can not exclude people from his communications just because they don't agree with him.

 

And by the way, I and other reasonable, democracy-minded people here would take exactly the same position were it a Democrat/liberal president using/misusing Twitter in the same way and trying to shield him/herself from those who oppose or are critical of his/her policies.

 

Protection from government-imposed restrictions on speech and the right to participate in government are fundamental tenets of the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. representative democracy form of government. People are entitled to those same rights and protections, regardless of which side of the political aisle/spectrum they're on.

 

On the other hand, if Trump wants to resign as president and go back to just being The Donald, then he as a private citizen can do whatever he wants (within the law) with his Twitter account. But that's the thing about Trump --  he still thinks and operates as if he's the dictator of his private company, and has zero sense of his historical/Constitutional/civic duties/obligations as president of the U.S.

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

1 hour ago, 55Jay said:

None of these politico Twitter handles are official government portals or sites.    Trump may be the President but Twitter isn't the government.  

 

Perhaps you missed the part where the Justice Department acknowledged the president was using his Twitter account as a form of official government communication.

 

From earlier in this thread:

 

Quote

 

The Department of Justice on Monday told a federal district court judge In Washington, D.C. that Donald Trump’s tweets are “official statements of the President of the United States.”
“To be sure, the President’s account identifies his office, and his tweets make official statements about the policies of his administration,”

James Madison Project v. Department of Justice

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/government_says_trumps_tweets_are_official_presidential_statements

 

 

Edited May 24, 2018 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[55Jay]

1 hour ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Perhaps you missed the part where the Justice Department acknowledged the president was using his Twitter account as a form of official government communication.

 

From earlier in this thread:

Indeed I did, thanks.

 

I don't think that changes the nature of what I'm interested in though, relative to 1st Amendment protections for users responding on social media venues, such as Twitter, Facebook, etc.  There isn't much case law on this (in the links and others) and I suspect that's why the judge in Manhattan took the cautious approach she did.  But on TVF, it's a slam dunk case. ?

 

Government's intent with social media seems to be a central point in the cases mentioned so far in some of the links within the link you provided. 

 

Along those lines, @RealDonaldTrump, established when he was a candidate (maybe before, I don't know), and to the best of my reading the account in question in this law suit, was not and is not a government portal established for  public policy discourse and debate.  It's social media and a limited one at that.  Not a supplement to or a replacement for the American system of representative government and means and venues of public discourse and debate - although there may have been plenty of it between Twitter users.   

 

It was his social media "blast board" for fans and followers, and as we know, he used it liberally to slag people off and people did the same to him.   It was a real shit show.  He would have the option to block those he found objectionable, probably on a consistent basis, leaning into the Troll category.   And yes, I realize the irony in using that term when it comes to Trump and his own Twitter habits. 

 

I would move in the other direction more easily when it comes to the verified Donald J. Trump @POTUS Twitter account.  I saw the oppressed Vet Twitter handle, blocked from @Real, on the POTUS page earlier tonight, slanging away at Pence for congratulating USCG Academy Grads.  They're Trolling.

 

It'll be interesting to see where the legal reviews of this go. 

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed.  

 

[UncleTouchyFingers]

19 hours ago, Becker said:

I'm sure you can back up this statement with credible links as otherwise it would mean you're pulling things out of a certain body cavity - just like the man-child is fond of doing.

 

There's alot of this going on, and has been since the election. You can choose to act like it doesn't exist, and by default not support free speech, or you can give the benefit of the doubt here. The top 5 media platforms have a monopoly on social media itself, and political bias within that monopoly in the hopes of shaping political thought is wrong.

 

If a sanctimonious Manhattan Judge thinks Trump cant block people, then that should also apply to all the other Dem politicians that block people as well. 

 

 

 

[dcutman]

WOW! Twitter blocking, Really?

Liberal S... F...'s just cannot accept the loss to Trump. It will be the ultimate when the dems get destroyed in the mid-terms. Its gonna be liberal mass suicide.

[tolsti]

Poor snowflakes.

[Becker]

On 5/24/2018 at 7:18 AM, UncleTouchyFingers said:

 

Clinton appointee, Manhattan, etc...

 

And she didn't issue an injunction, just a "declaration" (meaningless) so Trump can still do whatever he wants. 

 

Just more feel-good liberal nothing-burgers and politicization of the judicial process. 

 

Although this will surely make the liberal nazis feel great for a half-second until they realize its all just an attention grab. 

 

The greater crime is Twitter itself (and facebook) openly filtering conservative free speech under the guise of "improving the conversation".  

 

23 hours ago, Becker said:

I'm sure you can back up this statement with credible links as otherwise it would mean you're pulling things out of a certain body cavity - just like the man-child is fond of doing.

 

3 hours ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

 

There's alot of this going on, and has been since the election. You can choose to act like it doesn't exist, and by default not support free speech, or you can give the benefit of the doubt here. The top 5 media platforms have a monopoly on social media itself, and political bias within that monopoly in the hopes of shaping political thought is wrong.

 

If a sanctimonious Manhattan Judge thinks Trump cant block people, then that should also apply to all the other Dem politicians that block people as well. 

 

 

 

 

 

A simple "no" would have sufficed instead of quoting that whiny drivel.

Edited May 25, 2018 by Becker

[UncleTouchyFingers]

10 minutes ago, Becker said:

A simple "no" would have sufficed instead of quoting that whiny drivel.

 

“Whiny drivel” eh?

 

Liberals... Nastiest group known to humanity. 

 

I fully realize you couldn’t give a single wet turd about conservative free speech, and your animosity is glaringly obvious, but you honestly don’t believe there isn’t censorship and manipulation favoring liberalism? 

 

Youve got got all kinds of people being demonetized on YouTube, big twitter users constantly having their followers wiped, Diamond & Silk brought up when congress grilled Zuckerberg, on and on and on and you refuse to acknowledge it because if you do, you also have to admit that it’s wrong. 

 

So instead you disregard it. 

[Becker]

30 minutes ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

 

“Whiny drivel” eh?

 

Liberals... Nastiest group known to humanity. 

 

I fully realize you couldn’t give a single wet turd about conservative free speech, and your animosity is glaringly obvious, but you honestly don’t believe there isn’t censorship and manipulation favoring liberalism? 

 

Youve got got all kinds of people being demonetized on YouTube, big twitter users constantly having their followers wiped, Diamond & Silk brought up when congress grilled Zuckerberg, on and on and on and you refuse to acknowledge it because if you do, you also have to admit that it’s wrong. 

 

So instead you disregard it. 

Again, when asked for facts backing up your statement you again resort to obfuscations and diversions. No surprise.

[NanLaew]

15 hours ago, 55Jay said:

I have a feeling those who are blocked from his account are in the "Not My President" resistance group.  They can't stand him, and totally reject him as their legitimate President, so that puts an interesting and ironic perspective on this.

 

It ought to be a badge of honor within the resistance group to have been loud enough to be blocked by him.  I'm quite sure they have more reliable and appealing resources for serious policy "news", not the @Real twitter handle.  LOL.  The latter is merely cannon fodder to mess with him, because they can.

 

Good idea, a badge of honor in the same way as the red MAGA baseball caps are for the Trump protagonists?

 

Maybe a t-shirt with

 

"I was blocked by @real...!"

[Srikcir]

4 hours ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

then that should also apply to all

... elected public officials regardless of political party (there are more than two) who use government tweet handles. Do you agree?