Twitter Users Blocked by Trump Seek Reprieve, Citing First Amendment

holbritter said:

Well then I guess it comes down to the reason he blocked them. Some of the examples would earn a block from your Senator I'm sure.

Click to expand...

Sure. Obviously I would support people being blocked for good reason (threats, obscenity, personal attacks on other Twitter users, etc.), but a good reason is just NOT that the person or group is critical of the government official, in this case Trump. They don't even have to be polite in their criticism of Trump. We have a 1A right to criticize the POTUS and IMO we especially ought to have that right on a public forum used by POTUS for official business, so we can express our opposition to his official acts as POTUS.

Two edged sword. He probably has the legal right to block people ( since I am not a lawyer, it is only a guess), but should he? He is potus of us all, critics and fans alike. I rather he either quit tweeting altogether or suck it up.

holbritter said:

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.

http://https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/06/us/politics/trump-twitter-first-amendment.html?_r=1 (link originally posted by renoe)


Now I would agree with this argument if he was blocking with the White House twitter or POTUS twitter account. But I think he is within his own rights to block anyone he chooses on his personal account, especially if they are attacking him. It isn't mere "mocking or criticizing" but downright hateful disgusting language being used by some people. And to bring a lawsuit? :roll:

Do you think Trump should have to "unblock" these users?

Click to expand...

No. I think someone should stand next to him with a riding crop and slap his hand when he goes to Twit something.

Crovax said:

Well it certainly seems to be a gray area since Trump is using his personal account to make official statements. Trump either needs to seperate how he tweets or treat them both as a POTUS account.

Click to expand...

It seems there a few gray areas for this president and there needs to be clarification.

JasperL said:

Just because other avenues for speech exist doesn't mean that a government official cutting one or more off arbitrarily is consistent with the 1st Amendment.



Those are red herrings. With Twitter, everyone DOES have the right to read and respond to POTUS unless and until POTUS arbitrarily kicks them out of that public forum by blocking them.

What you're blessing is a system where ONLY those who speak favorably of Dear Leader are welcome on Dear Leader's public forum - dissent is not permitted!! Violators will be punished by banishment from that public forum!!

I just don't see how that's consistent with the spirit of the 1st Amendment.

Click to expand...

They're not red herrings. They're the heart of the issue. They are the tenets of First Amendment jurisprudence, to which courts are obliged to look to consider this case. That's how it works.

There is no First Amendment issue with the President refusing to engage with an individual he doesn't like, for whatever reason. None.

And no, no venue is being removed - anyone, blocked or not, can read his Twitter feed, any time they like. If they can't do so when logged into their accounts, it's not a First Amendment issue. They can easily read it with a less-than-de minimis click of a button.

I use that Latin term for a reason - it's a standard in constitutional jurisprudence, meaning so small as not to present any problem worth bothering with.

Harshaw said:

They're not red herrings. They're the heart of the issue. They are the tenets of First Amendment jurisprudence, to which courts are obliged to look to consider this case. That's how it works.

Click to expand...

But the comparison is apples and dump trucks. Twitter just IS a public forum, and unless Trump makes an affirmative act to block them, we can ALL participate, read his comments and join in the PUBLIC discussion.

There is no First Amendment issue with the President refusing to engage with an individual he doesn't like, for whatever reason. None.

Click to expand...

That's not the question. He doesn't have to "engage" anyone on Twitter but should a government official be allowed to kick citizens out of a public forum for arbitrary reasons, such as that they criticized him.

The act that we're concerned about is if you engage in speech critical of Dear Leader, Dear Leader will/can kick you out of the public forum and prevent you from participating in that public forum going forward. That ought to be a big deal. Comments on his feed have a huge audience - easily 100s of thousands per tweet, perhaps millions. Allowing the POTUS or other government official to purge citizens who engage in protected speech, dissent, criticism of their government official, blocking based on content, is IMO a big f'ing deal and clearly violations of the spirit of the 1A.

And no, no venue is being removed - anyone, blocked or not, can read his Twitter feed, any time they like. If they can't do so when logged into their accounts, it's not a First Amendment issue. They can easily read it with a less-than-de minimis click of a button.

Click to expand...

But they can't comment and join in the discussion, they can't criticize Dear Leader. It's an attempt to squelch dissent.

I use that Latin term for a reason - it's a standard in constitutional jurisprudence, meaning so small as not to present any problem worth bothering with.

Click to expand...

And the prohibitions against speaking ill of Dear Leader on his public forum? Also 'de minimis'? You keep ignoring that "speech" restriction that comes with getting blocked. :roll:

JasperL said:

But the comparison is apples and dump trucks. Twitter just IS a public forum, and unless Trump makes an affirmative act to block them, we can ALL participate, read his comments and join in the PUBLIC discussion.

Click to expand...

This argument is entirely inoperative. I've already told you why multiple times. You simply aren't following it.

That's not the question.

Click to expand...

Of course it is, when you say people are blocked from personally responding to his tweets.

He doesn't have to "engage" anyone on Twitter but should a government official be allowed to kick citizens out of a public forum for arbitrary reasons, such as that they criticized him.

Click to expand...

See my first comment above.

The act that we're concerned about is if you engage in speech critical of Dear Leader, Dear Leader will/can kick you out of the public forum and prevent you from participating in that public forum going forward. That ought to be a big deal. Comments on his feed have a huge audience - easily 100s of thousands per tweet, perhaps millions. Allowing the POTUS or other government official to purge citizens who engage in protected speech, dissent, criticism of their government official, blocking based on content, is IMO a big f'ing deal and clearly violations of the spirit of the 1A.

Click to expand...

Dude. No, it isn't. I've laid out why as plainly as possible without going into to too many legal terms.

But they can't comment and join in the discussion, they can't criticize Dear Leader. It's an attempt to squelch dissent.

Click to expand...

:doh I tire of repeating myself.

And the prohibitions against speaking ill of Dear Leader on his public forum?

Click to expand...

Who is blocked from speaking ill of "Dear Leader" on Twitter? No one. Repeat after me: No. One.

Also 'de minimis'? You keep ignoring that "speech" restriction that comes with getting blocked. :roll:

Click to expand...

Yeah, "de minimis." It's a well-established Constitutional standard directly appertaining to analysis of the Bill of Rights. So no, I'm not ignoring anything. You just don't know enough about this.

Harshaw said:

This argument is entirely inoperative. I've already told you why multiple times. You simply aren't following it.

Click to expand...

I'm not following it because it's illogical. You said, "No one has a First Amendment right to speak directly to the President. No reporter has an individual right to be granted an interview by the President."

I'm on Twitter and UNLESS TRUMP BLOCKS ME, takes an affirmative step to exclude me, I DO have a right to comment and join others in discussing his public statements about official U.S. business that he announces on Twitter.

Dude. No, it isn't. I've laid out why as plainly as possible without going into to too many legal terms.

Click to expand...

I don't think you understand how Twitter works. I've got maybe 50 followers, so when I comment on POTUS that's my entire audience - the ONLY people who will see my comments. If I respond to @POTUS or @realDonaldTrump, 100s of thousands at least will view my comments, and I can engage with those same 100s of thousands in public discussion. You're asserting without argument that doing so is a "de minimis" inconvenience, but that's objectively FALSE. It's not an inconvenience at all - it's a ban from that public forum. The only way around that ban is to pretend that I'm someone else and post under another name.

Furthermore, that ban significantly affects my ability for others to hear my views, and it's a restriction imposed by government.

The analogy is it's OK for government to censor, block me, from using public forums A, B, C, D and E, so long as I can still access public forum X. Or, alternatively, the government banning me from speaking on the actual public square because I'm critical of that same government but contending my rights aren't violated because I CAN speak in the back of a nearby alley by the dumpster.

:doh I tire of repeating myself.

Click to expand...

Up until this comment, you've ignored the restrictions on my ability to comment and participate in discussion on Trump's feed. So you've not addressed the issue at all except with hand waving the issue away.

Who is blocked from speaking ill of "Dear Leader" on Twitter? No one. Repeat after me: No. One.

Click to expand...

Again, if you understood how Twitter works, you wouldn't ask that question. @realDonaldTrump has over 30 million followers. If he blocks me from his feed, I cannot reach that audience by commenting on his tweets. It's a significant restriction on my free speech rights.

Yeah, "de minimis." It's a well-established Constitutional standard directly appertaining to analysis of the Bill of Rights. So no, I'm not ignoring anything. You just don't know enough about this.

Click to expand...

Ad hominem. Great....

But if you want to go that route, an appeal to (your own) authority, this guy who has handled hundreds of cases in front of the appeals and Supreme court thinks you're wrong:

https://lawfareblog.com/blocking-twitter-users-presidential-account-0

that hypothetical comment forum might be considered a limited public forum, where content regulations are allowed if they are "reasonable and viewpoint-neutral." As the Supreme Court wrote in Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District,"[C]ontrol over access to a nonpublic forum can be based on subject matter and speaker identity so long as the distinctions drawn are reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum and are viewpoint neutral.”
.....
Bloomberg BusinessWeek estimated that there are some 20,000 replies posted to a typical presidential tweet on the @realDonaldTrump. Thus, there is a thriving public forum for replies and counter responses on the speech platform employed by the President. And as Buzzfeed recently reported, the top replies to a @realDonaldTrump tweet are virtually guaranteed to get in front of hundreds of thousands of eyes. So, denial of the right to reply in this forum can be viewed as a significant impairment of a citizen’s speech rights.

For the President to generally permit tens of thousands of comments on his posts on the @realDonaldTrump forum, but then selectively ban citizens from posting replies to his president’s posts based upon the content, message or viewpoint of the citizen appears to be clearly contrary to established First Amendment principles.

Click to expand...

holbritter said:

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.

http://https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/06/us/politics/trump-twitter-first-amendment.html?_r=1 (link originally posted by renoe)


Now I would agree with this argument if he was blocking with the White House twitter or POTUS twitter account. But I think he is within his own rights to block anyone he chooses on his personal account, especially if they are attacking him. It isn't mere "mocking or criticizing" but downright hateful disgusting language being used by some people. And to bring a lawsuit? :roll:

Do you think Trump should have to "unblock" these users?

Click to expand...

Typical Don move, jr highish twits and their tweets.

holbritter said:

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.

http://https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/06/us/politics/trump-twitter-first-amendment.html?_r=1 (link originally posted by renoe)


Now I would agree with this argument if he was blocking with the White House twitter or POTUS twitter account. But I think he is within his own rights to block anyone he chooses on his personal account, especially if they are attacking him. It isn't mere "mocking or criticizing" but downright hateful disgusting language being used by some people. And to bring a lawsuit? :roll:

Do you think Trump should have to "unblock" these users?

Click to expand...

I'm not exactly familiar with all of how Twitter works but aren't all of his tweets exposed in the media and analyzed for hours upon hours by people who are supposed to be journalists? I mean, if everyone gets to see them no matter who is blocked then how is blocking any violation of free speech?

Are these people claiming that because they can't send a tweet to Trump it violates their 1st Amendment rights? If so it's a ridiculous argument. People have the right to speak their mind but they have no right to third party mechanisms with which to broadcast that speech.

JasperL said:

I'm not following it because it's illogical. You said, "No one has a First Amendment right to speak directly to the President. No reporter has an individual right to be granted an interview by the President."

I'm on Twitter and UNLESS TRUMP BLOCKS ME, takes an affirmative step to exclude me, I DO have a right to comment and join others in discussing his public statements about official U.S. business that he announces on Twitter.



I don't think you understand how Twitter works. I've got maybe 50 followers, so when I comment on POTUS that's my entire audience - the ONLY people who will see my comments. If I respond to @POTUS or @realDonaldTrump, 100s of thousands at least will view my comments, and I can engage with those same 100s of thousands in public discussion. You're asserting without argument that doing so is a "de minimis" inconvenience, but that's objectively FALSE. It's not an inconvenience at all - it's a ban from that public forum. The only way around that ban is to pretend that I'm someone else and post under another name.

Furthermore, that ban significantly affects my ability for others to hear my views, and it's a restriction imposed by government.

The analogy is it's OK for government to censor, block me, from using public forums A, B, C, D and E, so long as I can still access public forum X. Or, alternatively, the government banning me from speaking on the actual public square because I'm critical of that same government but contending my rights aren't violated because I CAN speak in the back of a nearby alley by the dumpster.



Up until this comment, you've ignored the restrictions on my ability to comment and participate in discussion on Trump's feed. So you've not addressed the issue at all except with hand waving the issue away.



Again, if you understood how Twitter works, you wouldn't ask that question. @realDonaldTrump has over 30 million followers. If he blocks me from his feed, I cannot reach that audience by commenting on his tweets. It's a significant restriction on my free speech rights.



Ad hominem. Great....

But if you want to go that route, an appeal to (your own) authority, this guy who has handled hundreds of cases in front of the appeals and Supreme court thinks you're wrong:

https://lawfareblog.com/blocking-twitter-users-presidential-account-0

Click to expand...

:roll: It's not an "ad hominem" to point out that you lack the knowledge to understand an argument. It's an observation, made after making my argument.

So many people don't know the difference between "ad hominem" and "personal insult." Except it wasn't even an insult. It was a statement of fact. You simply don't know enough about this stuff.

You say I don't know how Twitter works. That's the exact same thing. But you obviously don't think you're resorting to "ad hominem" by saying it.

I have tried to explain it as plainly as I can, but you're not following it. I'm not using complicated legal terms; I'm using plain language. You keep making the same mistakes over and over no matter how many times I explain it, mistakes you shouldn't make considering how plainly it's explained.

This isn't the first time you've had serious reading comprehension problems, either.

So another lawyer with a blog is trying hard to make a case. So what? It's just his own opinion, and he's no more qualified to speak on it than I am.

Harshaw said:

:roll: It's not an "ad hominem" to point out that you lack the knowledge to understand an argument. It's an observation, made after making my argument.

So many people don't know the difference between "ad hominem" and "personal insult." Except it wasn't even an insult. It was a statement of fact. You simply don't know enough about this stuff.

Click to expand...

LOL, thanks for the distinction but the point really is all you're doing is merely ASSERTING I don't know enough. That's not a substitute for a coherent, logical argument that supports your position, and it's THAT which is missing.

Your first comments made the point a blocked person can VIEW his tweets by simply logging out. True. But a blocked person is BANNED from commenting and reaching a potential audience of 30 million of Trump's followers. That's different and it's significant and there is no easy fix for being banned.

You have yet to even attempt an argument on that point, preferring to either "insult" me, or assert my error with an arrogant waving of your hands.

You say I don't know how Twitter works. That's the exact same thing. But you obviously don't think you're resorting to "ad hominem" by saying it.

Click to expand...

The difference, of course, is I asserted your apparent ignorance then explained WHY I thought your ignorance was leading to incorrect conclusions. If I'm excluded from a potential audience of a public forum of 30,000,000 people, pointing out that I still have access to my 50 followers is hardly equivalent or evidence that the ban is not a significant restriction. It just IS.

It's as illogical/nonsensical/ludicrous as arguing that although the mayor bans me from speaking from the stage on the public square because she doesn't like me being critical of her, that's not an infringement on my 1A rights because she still allows me to speak from the back of the nearby alley by the dumpster.

So another lawyer with a blog is trying hard to make a case. So what? It's just his own opinion, and he's no more qualified to speak on it than I am.

Click to expand...

Maybe not more qualified, although we don't know your qualifications, but the point was quoting his actually his COHERENT arguments, which you're not making.