• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Twitter Users Blocked by Trump Seek Reprieve, Citing First Amendment

holbritter

holbritter

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2017
Messages
21,463
Reaction score
10,387
Location
NY
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
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?
 
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...

These same idiots have the same right to block anyone also
 
Not on his private account; there is no credible argument that he should.

That probably won't stop some judge with an axe to grind against him to twist the law beyond all reason to find for these people, though. Judicial integrity has been taking a beating these last several months.
 
Harshaw said:
Not on his private account; there is no credible argument that he should.

That probably won't stop some judge with an axe to grind against him to twist the law beyond all reason to find for these people, though. Judicial integrity has been taking a beating these last several months.
Click to expand...
Thank GOD our GOP congressmembers had the fore-sight to strongarm and delay as many Obama judicial appointments as possible. I never thought it would be as bad as it is right now. These Obama appointees are doing Olympic level mental gymnastics to justify horrible rulings. We need a wave of conservative justices to wash away their sins.
 
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...

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.
 
holbritter said:
Do you think Trump should have to "unblock" these users?
Click to expand...

This is tough and certainly new ground.

I hate to say it bit I believe he has the right. If he is using Twitter like a speech. When giving a speech not everyone is given access.

As long as we all still have access I believe he has the right.

That said, the hypocrisy, yikes....

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
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...

Sounds like a useless lawsuit. I hope these poor snowflakes get laughed out of court.
 
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...

This is the main question to me. If they successfully argue that Trump's statements are official presidential statements, then I think they actually do have a pretty good public forum doctrine argument. Doesn't help that Spicer's saying that's exactly what they are. But it's not something that's been adjudicated before, as far as I know, so who knows.
 
Roadvirus said:
Sounds like a useless lawsuit. I hope these poor snowflakes get laughed out of court.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say useless. I believe the POTUS acting within his rights but social media is new. Not sure how this new access should be treated.

Did previous POTUS block citizens?

I am curious how the courts will rule.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 
Anagram said:
This is the main question to me. If they successfully argue that Trump's statements are official presidential statements, then I think they actually do have a pretty good public forum doctrine argument. Doesn't help that Spicer's saying that's exactly what they are. But it's not something that's been adjudicated before, as far as I know, so who knows.
Click to expand...

I think, I'm not sure though, that he uses the POTUS or official White House account for his statements. This one is his personal one that he had before he was elected. I think that's where the gray area comes in.
 
holbritter said:
I think, I'm not sure though, that he uses the POTUS or official White House account for his statements. This one is his personal one that he had before he was elected. I think that's where the gray area comes in.
Click to expand...

Well I agree, its certainly not an ironclad case by any means. But Trump does seem to use it at least sometimes to speak in an official capacity. How much is necessary to make it a public forum is something I don't have an answer to. But I don't think this is a frivolous lawsuit.
 
First Amendment?


Twitter is a private entity ,no rights exist on that platform



If they win.... i guess this means you can't block cyber bullies?
 
Last edited:
Whythink said:
I wouldn't say useless. I believe the POTUS acting within his rights but social media is new. Not sure how this new access should be treated.

Did previous POTUS block citizens?

I am curious how the courts will rule.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


I am too. If they rule in favor of the blocked users, that sets an unsettling precedent and opens to the door to all public figures having their ability to "block" people from their accounts being challenged.
 
holbritter said:
I am too. If they rule in favor of the blocked users, that sets an unsettling precedent and opens to the door to all public figures having their ability to "block" people from their accounts being challenged.
Click to expand...

Not all public figures. The farthest this could be applied is elected officials who use their accounts to issue official statements in their representative capacity.
 
volsrock said:
First Amendment?


Twitter is a private entity ,no rights exist on that platform



If First Amendment is in place, than i can say what ever i want on DB
Click to expand...

That's not their argument. Their argument is that if Trump is using Twitter as an official microphone for his presidency which allows communication from ordinary people with him as such, then Trump, as a government official cannot discriminate against people because of their political beliefs by blocking them.
 
Anagram said:
Not all public figures. The farthest this could be applied is elected officials who use their accounts to issue official statements in their representative capacity.
Click to expand...

True. That makes more sense.
 
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...
This is a very tough call.

Since this appears to be his private account, he should otherwise have the same right as other private citizens in maintaining his account.

However, he is in public office speaking of matters before him in official public capacity. When accepting the office, it came with certain encumbrances.

I'm really torn by this, but being a big First Amendment guy I'll probably side with his not being allowed to stifle free political speech. He now has to accept the responsibilities of the office. But dayem, it's a very close call because I'm a strong proponent of personal liberties!
 
Anagram said:
That's not their argument. Their argument is that if Trump is using Twitter as an official microphone for his presidency which allows communication from ordinary people with him as such, then Trump, as a government official cannot discriminate against people because of their political beliefs by blocking them.
Click to expand...



Secret Service has the right to block anyone ...they block people out of speeches he makes as President[as a government official] for screaming their views....they can kick them from Twitter for doing the same
 
volsrock said:
Secret Service has the right to block anyone ...they block people out of speeches he makes as President for screaming their views....they can kick them from Twitter for doing the same
Click to expand...

The Secret Service does not have the right to kick anyone out of a public forum. They can kick people out in viewpoint neutral ways, anyone screaming, acting violent, etc., but they cannot kick people out for having voted for Obama for instance. If his Twitter account turned out to be a public forum it would be tough to argue that blocking those individuals is a time, place, manner restriction since somebody posting something on the internet doesn't affect other people the way screaming at them in real life does. Perhaps if there was so much spamming that other people's tweets had no chance of being read maybe, but that's a stretch considering the volume of tweets already directed at the president.
 
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...
I think what you suggested would make a reasonable ruling.

By using his private account for comment upon his official capacities, he might be bound by official conduct. However if he segregates his personal from official comment, his private account could remain as such.

Trouble is, as usual Trump is playing the laws, regs, and conventions, for his own effect!
 
So a Judge {government official} should not be able to block family members and supporters of a criminal he just sentenced to 50 yrs in prison from spewing crap on his Twitter account over a sentence

Or when an inmate gets out of prison Judge cant block them from posting on his Twitter account
 
volsrock said:
So a Judge {government official} should not be able to block family members and supporters of a criminal he just sentenced to 50 yrs in prison from spewing crap on his Twitter account over a sentence

Or when an inmate gets out of prison Judge cant block them from posting on his Twitter account
Click to expand...

Are they using their Twitter account in their official capacity as a judge, and in a way that would make it a designated public forum? I find it unlikely a judge would do either of those.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom