Unconstitutional for Trump to Block People on Twitter?

[ClydeR]

WASHINGTON — Lawyers for Twitter users blocked by President Trump after they criticized or mocked him are asking him to reverse the moves, arguing that the Constitution bars him from blocking people on the social media service.

The request raises novel legal issues stemming from Mr. Trump’s use of his Twitter account, @realdonaldtrump, to make statements about public policy. In a letter sent to Mr. Trump on Tuesday, lawyers for several users he has blocked argued that his account was a “public forum” from which the government may not constitutionally exclude people because it disagrees with views they have expressed.

More... (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/06/us/politics/trump-twitter-first-amendment.html)

I don't think so. Trump had this Twitter account as his personal account long before he started running for office. It's not a government account and not an account that he set up to use for government purposes.

[time4fun]

I don't think so. Trump had this Twitter account as his personal account long before he started running for office. It's not a government account and not an account that he set up to use for government purposes.

He uses it in an official capacity, so you can't use the personal account line. It's pretty well accepted that his tweets are protected Federal records.

It doesn't mean they have a case, but it means he needs a better line of reasoning than that.

[ClydeR]

Check out this Twitter feed, which transforms Trump tweets into official looking pronouncements..

https://twitter.com/RealPressSecBot/status/872428186692276225



An example..

http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo166/rmi08a/twitterbotexample_zps7kjmvnej.png

[Back]

Obamacare victims? Jesus. Drama much?

[Wrathbringer]

Obamacare victims? Jesus. Drama much?

It's accurate. You lost. Get over it.

[Back]

The only reason Trump won is because of the residual butthurt conservative snowflakes felt over Obama.

[Parkbandit]

The only reason Trump won is because of the residual butthurt conservative snowflakes felt over Obama.

wut?

Dammit! I got SO EXCITED for a second.. then remembered it's Wednesday, not Drunk Backlash Tuesday.

So, this is just a retarded post, not a drunken one.

Sad.

[Neveragain]

The only reason Trump won is because of the residual butthurt conservative snowflakes felt over Obama.

I though it was because of Russia?

[Androidpk]

The only reason Trump won is because of the residual butthurt conservative snowflakes felt over Obama.

Yes, this totally explains why so many Democrats voted for Trump or stayed home and didn't vote. Do you purposely wake up each day and challenge yourself to say something as stupid as humanly possible?

[Back]

I though it was because of Russia?

Yep. The poor crybaby loser conservatives were so desperate to win against Clinton, and so butt hurt that Obama had two terms, they made a deal with the Russian devil to help them win.

[Neveragain]

Yep. The poor crybaby loser conservatives were so desperate to win against Clinton, and so butt hurt that Obama had two terms, they made a deal with the Russian devil to help them win.

You could have ran against Clinton and won. That's how bad of a candidate Hildabeast was/is.

[hello]

All I know is tomorrow it's gonna be...

https://media.giphy.com/media/3aGZA6WLI9Jde/giphy.gif

[Back]

You could have ran against Clinton and won. That's how bad of a candidate Hildabeast was/is.

I disagree. She was a good candidate. 3.5 million people thought she was better than Trump.

[Parkbandit]

I disagree. She was a good candidate. 3.5 million people thought she was better than Trump.

Yet.. she still lost against Donald Trump... the absolute worst Republican candidate nominated.

Yea.. she was a great candidate. Keep telling yourself that.

[Parkbandit]

You could have ran against Clinton and won. That's how bad of a candidate Hildabeast was/is.

Untrue. Backlash couldn't win in a solo race. That's how bad he is.

Also, the DNC propped up Hillary as early as 2008.. promising her the nomination if she got behind Obama.

She did her part. The DNC did their part.

American just couldn't stomach her and said "Fuck no"

[Neveragain]

I disagree. She was a good candidate. 3.5 million people thought she was better than Trump.

This even goes further to prove how bad of a candidate she was, everyone else was playing the electoral college game and Hillary was playing the just win California game.

[Parkbandit]

This even goes further to prove how bad of a candidate she was, everyone else was playing the electoral college game and Hillary was playing the just win California game.

Not sure that's exactly what she was doing.

She just assumed that WI, MI and PA would automatically vote for her and didn't bother doing much in those states until it was too late. I still remember the news shows mocking Trump when he went to those 3 states at the end of the campaign.. basically calling him crazy to waste time there.

[thesupman]

Hillary was absolutely a horrible candidate, plus with how her party screwed the entire idea of government by passing legislature for super pac's, corporations are people legislature and the myriad of issues that presents. It's a continuing trend of handing over government to the corporations (I use that term corporations loosely, because it's really just anonymous influence of the wealthy so they can stay out of the limelight), and screw the people, opinion and ability to make change in the government is now a function of $$ which is absolutely the wrong way to go about it. Who has the money? oh.. that's right the increasing wealth gaps, people will argue the unemployment rate yada yada yada... but turning America into a 3rd world country by underpaying/under utilizing it's workforce is not progres or good.

America needs to wake up, and realize a "Bi-partisan" system was invented by those two political parties to shove out all other competition and was never intended under the constitution... much easier to control 2 political parties than the hundreds... it's sad and is going to continue the country in a downward spiral.

But.. back to the topic at hand is it unconstitutional for Trump to block twitter? ---- who cares, 99% of the crap he says on there is nonsense anyway, like a previous poster said, its' not an official account on the office, nor should the government use it for any official purposes.

[Wrathbringer]

I disagree. She was a good candidate. 3.5 million people thought she was better than Trump.

Back...she had trouble beating an 80 year old self described democratic socialist for the nomination... She was not a good candidate.

[~Rocktar~]

Yep. The poor crybaby loser conservatives were so desperate to win against Clinton, and so butt hurt that Obama had two terms, they made a deal with the Russian devil to help them win.

QFP

[Latrinsorm]

Hillary was absolutely a horrible candidate, plus with how her party screwed the entire idea of government by passing legislature for super pac's, corporations are people legislature and the myriad of issues that presents. It's a continuing trend of handing over government to the corporations (I use that term corporations loosely, because it's really just anonymous influence of the wealthy so they can stay out of the limelight), and screw the people, opinion and ability to make change in the government is now a function of $$ which is absolutely the wrong way to go about it. Who has the money? oh.. that's right the increasing wealth gaps, people will argue the unemployment rate yada yada yada... but turning America into a 3rd world country by underpaying/under utilizing it's workforce is not progres or good.

America needs to wake up, and realize a "Bi-partisan" system was invented by those two political parties to shove out all other competition and was never intended under the constitution... much easier to control 2 political parties than the hundreds... it's sad and is going to continue the country in a downward spiral.

But.. back to the topic at hand is it unconstitutional for Trump to block twitter? ---- who cares, 99% of the crap he says on there is nonsense anyway, like a previous poster said, its' not an official account on the office, nor should the government use it for any official purposes.If no candidate receives 270 electoral votes in the Presidential election, the House of Representatives decides the Presidency. Are you sure you want more than two parties?

The parties have completely realigned their interests many times in the past. If you don't like the way a party is going, try to change it. If you can convince enough people you're right, it will happen. If you can't, maybe the problem isn't that the wealthy are tricking everyone into doing something you don't like, maybe the problem is that what you like just isn't popular in and of itself.

[ClydeR]

Trump should totally appeal..


A federal district court judge on Wednesday ruled that President Trump can't block people from viewing his Twitter feed over their political views.

Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, said President Trump’s Twitter account is a public forum and blocking people who reply to his tweets with differing opinions constitutes viewpoint discrimination, which violates the First Amendment.

More... (http://thehill.com/regulation/389021-judge-rules-trump-cant-block-users-on-twitter)

[Wrathbringer]

Trump should totally appeal..

You're retarded and they're retarded.

[Parkbandit]

I disagree. She was a good candidate. 3.5 million people thought she was better than Trump.

Still my favorite post in quite a while.

[ZombiesDontRun]

I don't think so. Trump had this Twitter account as his personal account long before he started running for office. It's not a government account and not an account that he set up to use for government purposes.

Actually the decision is very well reasoned and consistent with other court decisions (See Davison v. Loudoun County Board of Supervisors).

First off, the fact that the twitter account predates his presidency and is used for personal use does not matter so long as he conducts official business using the account. For example, he announced the firing of Rex Tillerson on twitter before it was announced via official release from the White House. Most recently he announced that that he was directing DOJ to investigate the FBI's investigation of his campaign via twitter, again before sending an official request the next day. This most certainly qualifies as conducting official business by announcing his administration's policy. That co-mingling of use is problematic as it not taints his account and makes it subject to the First Amendment. The First Amendment prohibits the government (or a government actor from taking any action which abridges an individual's right to freedom of speech without a compelling government interest. Here we have Trump (as president, a government actor) blocking individuals on a twitter account that he uses for government business for expressing contrary political views. FYI an compelling government interest (via strict scrutiny) is the highest standard of constitutional review and gave us ruling like Brown v. the Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia, and Griswold v. CT. Simply stated, Trumps dislike of the blocked users comments would not be a sufficiently compelling government interest to justify violating a person's First Amendment rights. Since it is not possible for Twitter or a Twitter using politician to selective tweet some tweets (personal tweets) to followers and other tweets (policy/official government tweets) to everyone, the entire account has to be used in a means which comports with the First Amendment. The First Amendment is a fundamental right.

I get that it might it seem unfair since it is Trump's personal account, he ultimately is responsible for how he decides to use it. For example, Florida has the nation's toughest public records laws (a constitutional right in the Florida constitution). I, as a state employee, know that any records I create as part of my job are subject to the this law. This includes any use of my personal cell phone for official work. Say, for example, that I text my boss to discuss an issue related to a case I am handling at work, that text is subject to arching and disclosure under public records law. It does not matter that I used my personal account, that I owned the account before I became a State employee, or that I use my account for primarily personal use. As such I rarely chose to use my cell phone for work related business and when I do, I make sure to create an official record.

Bottom line, if you want to keep personal accounts personal, don't use them for government business.

[Gelston]

Hmm, good points. Are you a lawyer? You sound like one.

go away macgyver

[Fortybox]

Untrue. Backlash couldn't win in a solo race. That's how bad he is.

Also, the DNC propped up Hillary as early as 2008.. promising her the nomination if she got behind Obama.

She did her part. The DNC did their part.

American just couldn't stomach her and said "Fuck no"

But...

HILLARY WON THE POPULAR VOTE!!!!!!!1111oneone1infinity

[Androidpk]

Will Trump be the first POTUS to be held in contempt of court over Twitter? :lol:

[Gelston]

Will Trump be the first POTUS to be held in contempt of court over Twitter? :lol:

No, because he can't actually block anyone on twitter. They can log out and then go look at the tweets.

[~Rocktar~]

So if Twitter is an "open forum" then we can expect that all public figures now have to document, keep records and can't block people? How about general people, I can't go into the street, an "open forum" and censor people or keep them from yelling at me. So when does this spread to other forms of electronic media such as Google, Facebook and others? If you can't block someone because it's an "open forum" then how can anyone block anything? And before someone goes off on "it's a private company" just remember, so is Twitter and the POTUS can't block people on it. Does being the POTUS mean you no longer have your civil rights? You agree to some terms in taking the job but you still don't have to let people in your home and so on. I can sooooooo see this judgment going very badly, very quickly.

[time4fun]

So if Twitter is an "open forum" then we can expect that all public figures now have to document, keep records and can't block people? How about general people, I can't go into the street, an "open forum" and censor people or keep them from yelling at me. So when does this spread to other forms of electronic media such as Google, Facebook and others? If you can't block someone because it's an "open forum" then how can anyone block anything? And before someone goes off on "it's a private company" just remember, so is Twitter and the POTUS can't block people on it. Does being the POTUS mean you no longer have your civil rights? You agree to some terms in taking the job but you still don't have to let people in your home and so on. I can sooooooo see this judgment going very badly, very quickly.

You didn't actually read the decision, did you?

[~Rocktar~]

You didn't actually read the decision, did you?

And it reappears. . .

You really have no fucking clue just how bad this decision is in the over all picture of sliding to Gomorrah.

[time4fun]

And it reappears. . .

You really have no fucking clue just how bad this decision is in the over all picture of sliding to Gomorrah.

LOL So no, you didn't read the decision.

But you feel really well-informed anyway. Yet, if you had read the decision, you'd realize how hilarious your little diatribe is.

[cwolff]

They're defending trumps civil rights to block people on Twitter? You got to be shitting me.

All trump has to do is not read the stuff that hurts his feelings. He can also mute people. Problem solved.

[Wrathbringer]

They're defending trumps civil rights to block people on Twitter? You got to be shitting me.

All trump has to do is not read the stuff that hurts his feelings. He can also mute people. Problem solved.

you're retarded.

[Parkbandit]

You didn't actually read the decision, did you?

https://i.gifer.com/ION4.gif

[time4fun]

They're defending trumps civil rights to block people on Twitter? You got to be shitting me.

All trump has to do is not read the stuff that hurts his feelings. He can also mute people. Problem solved.

Or he could stop conducting official business on Twitter. That was a crucial part of the fact pattern for this case. (And it's why it was so abundantly clear that Rockstar hadn't read more than a headline in the story)

[Gelston]

Will Trump be the first POTUS to be held in contempt of court over Twitter? :lol:

Oh, and something else...

But she did not issue an injunction ordering Mr. Trump or Mr. Scavino to unblock the users, a nod to the separation-of-powers sensitivities of a judge’s ordering a president to do something. Rather, her ruling simply declared what the Constitution requires, with the expectation that the White House would comply.

So nope.

The DoJ is expected to appeal.

[Wrathbringer]

Or he could stop conducting official business on Twitter. That was a crucial part of the fact pattern for this case. (And it's why it was so abundantly clear that Rockstar hadn't read more than a headline in the story)

Shut up . Go back to not posting.

[cwolff]

Oh, and something else...

But she did not issue an injunction ordering Mr. Trump or Mr. Scavino to unblock the users, a nod to the separation-of-powers sensitivities of a judge’s ordering a president to do something. Rather, her ruling simply declared what the Constitution requires, with the expectation that the White House would comply.

So nope.

The DoJ is expected to appeal.

Didn't she say that there was no need to issue the order to unblock because its expected that public officials follow the law?

If the DOJ appeals then that's proof that his Twitter is not personal

[Parkbandit]

Shut up . Go back to not posting.

And deprive us of her stupidity?

WHY DON'T YOU SHUT THE FUCK UP ASSHOLE!

[Gelston]

Didn't she say that there was no need to issue the order to unblock because its expected that public officials follow the law?

If the DOJ appeals then that's proof that his Twitter is not personal

Not necessarily. The Court said his twitter is NOT personal. They'd be appealing that it is personal and further, that the courts have no authority to attempt to regulate it.

[time4fun]

Not necessarily. The Court said his twitter is NOT personal. They'd be appealing that it is personal and further, that the courts have no authority to attempt to regulate it.

Right. The Court was VERY clear that this was regulated because he was using it for official Presidential business that could only be carried out by the President.

[cwolff]

Not necessarily. The Court said his twitter is NOT personal. They'd be appealing that it is personal and further, that the courts have no authority to attempt to regulate it.

Ya I don't understand where the line is when a potus would need to pay for a personal atty or gets a government paid one. His Twitter sounds like if he uses government funded lawyer he's got to keep it open to the public without blocking

[Gelston]

Ya I don't understand where the line is when a potus would need to pay for a personal atty or gets a government paid one. His Twitter sounds like if he uses government funded lawyer he's got to keep it open to the public without blocking

The line is non-existent. The President is covered by the DoJ no matter what. He can, on his own, hire outside lawyers, but he doesn't have to.

[Wrathbringer]

Right. The Court was VERY clear that this was regulated because he was using it for official Presidential business that could only be carried out by the President.

Cut some farts.

[cwolff]

The line is non-existent. The President is covered by the DoJ no matter what. He can, on his own, hire outside lawyers, but he doesn't have to.

So if he wants better legal help he'll pay for it. Otherwise potus gets a DOJ lawyer for everything? Makes sense. Like JAG.

[Gelston]

So if he wants better legal help he'll pay for it. Otherwise potus gets a DOJ lawyer for everything? Makes sense. Like JAG.

Pretty much. Not that the guys over at the DoJ aren't good lawyers, but money tends to attract and you can get a lot more of it in the corporate sector.

He does have about 10 or so DoJ lawyers handling his personal assets right now though. It isn't uncommon, but he has a lot more assets than most prior Presidents.

[Androidpk]

The seven plaintiffs who sued Donald Trump for blocking them on Twitter-and essentially won-have revealed that if the president still refuses to unblock them, they will escalate the case to protect their constitutional rights.

Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald in Manhattan stopped short of ordering the president to unblock users, saying instead "We must assume that the President and Scavino will remedy the blocking we have held to be unconstitutional." However, days after the ruling, the president still hasn't unblocked his critics and the plaintiff's aren't happy.


Despite a court ruling on Wednesday that it was unconstitutional for the president to block Twitter users for their political views, Trump still has not unblocked his critics.

.