Donald Trump cannot block critical Twitter users, court rules

[XenoMorph]

(05-24-2018, 01:51 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It is preventing an avenue of expression to the government. It is a government official restricting their freedom of expression. We may all agree in here that it is not something that we see as a major restriction, but the courts see it as enough to not be trivial.

to be fair a lot of the courts decisions have been very questionable over the years.

This one especially.

Hes not blocking their ability to express themselves in any way.   They can post whatever they want on twitter... He just blocking them from his feed.    Which everyone else is allowed to do.

[*PhilHos*]

(05-24-2018, 01:51 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It is preventing an avenue of expression to the government. It is a government official restricting their freedom of expression. We may all agree in here that it is not something that we see as a major restriction, but the courts see it as enough to not be trivial.

So, in the courts opinion, a government official is REQUIRED to hear any and all expressions made to them? That's ludicrous. So, if someone comes running up to a senator, shouting how much said senator sucks, the senator is required to stand there and listen?

C'mon, Bels. You gotta see that this is a ridiculous ruling.

What Trump should do (and considering how petty he is, he just might) is follow this judge on twitter and lambast them all the time and if the judge tries to block him ... 

(05-24-2018, 02:14 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I know, I was referring to Hogan in MD.

Oh, my bad.

[*PhilHos*]

(05-24-2018, 02:38 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: to be fair a lot of the courts decisions have been very questionable over the years.

This one especially.

Hes not blocking their ability to express themselves in any way.   They can post whatever they want on twitter... He just blocking them from his feed.    Which everyone else is allowed to do.

Is the judge ruling that Trump has to actually READ all the comments posted? 'Cause if not, wouldn't he already be violating the supposed free expression TO the government? Better rule that not only can he NOT block people, he has to read ALL the comments.

[Belsnickel]

(05-24-2018, 03:02 PM)PhilHos Wrote: So, in the courts opinion, a government official is REQUIRED to hear any and all expressions made to them? That's ludicrous. So, if someone comes running up to a senator, shouting how much said senator sucks, the senator is required to stand there and listen?

C'mon, Bels. You gotta see that this is a ridiculous ruling.

(05-24-2018, 03:04 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Is the judge ruling that Trump has to actually READ all the comments posted? 'Cause if not, wouldn't he already be violating the supposed free expression TO the government? Better rule that not only can he NOT block people, he has to read ALL the comments.

So you kind of pointed out the difference from your example in the first post with your second post. Walking away or ignoring someone would be like not reading the tweets. Blocking them is like not making yourself available for your constituents at all. To go in the direction of phone calls: ignoring the tweets would be like tossing out any phone messages from your voicemail or handed to you by staff and not responding; blocking someone on Twitter would be like not having a listed phone number and/or not having someone to answer the phone or a way to take messages.

The sticking point is the access. The public has a right to access to their elected officials (within reason), both to hear and be heard. This is a part of how the First is interpreted. Blocking someone on Twitter cuts off that access in a way that the courts, with this ruling, do not see as reasonable.

Personally, I think it's ridiculous we have to have this go through the courts, but I actually don't disagree with the ruling. From an administration and policy point of view, access through social media is an important tool for the public sector to engage the citizenry. I don't see a reasonable reason to restrict public access to state social media presences and I think that this is going to be the next frontier in free speech adjudication.

[*PhilHos*]

(05-24-2018, 03:16 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So you kind of pointed out the difference from your example in the first post with your second post. Walking away or ignoring someone would be like not reading the tweets. Blocking them is like not making yourself available for your constituents at all. To go in the direction of phone calls: ignoring the tweets would be like tossing out any phone messages from your voicemail or handed to you by staff and not responding; blocking someone on Twitter would be like not having a listed phone number and/or not having someone to answer the phone or a way to take messages.

The sticking point is the access. The public has a right to access to their elected officials (within reason), both to hear and be heard. This is a part of how the First is interpreted. Blocking someone on Twitter cuts off that access in a way that the courts, with this ruling, do not see as reasonable.

Which would be all well and good IF THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T ALREADY HAVE AN OFFICIAL TWITTER ACCOUNT. Like i said in my original response, if this were in regards to the official presidential twitter, I agree with the ruling. But, with Trump's personal account this is an affront to his First Amendment rights. 

[Belsnickel]

(05-24-2018, 03:24 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Which would be all well and good IF THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T ALREADY HAVE AN OFFICIAL TWITTER ACCOUNT. Like i said in my original response, if this were in regards to the official presidential twitter, I agree with the ruling. But, with Trump's personal account this is an affront to his First Amendment rights. 

And, as I said in a previous response:

(05-24-2018, 01:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think the reality is that there is a degree of difficulty that would make it improbable to truly separate a personal social media account from almost any public figure, but especially elected officials, and absolutely the POTUS. This is most true on Twitter or Instagram where official accounts aren't going to be "Pages" like on Facebook. I would like to agree with the idea that the accounts could remain separated out, but the practicality of this solution isn't high.

Trump tweets as POTUS from his personal account on a regular basis. You can't divorce the personal from the official unless that NEVER happens. The only way for it to never happen would be to make the personal inactive at this point.

[*PhilHos*]

(05-24-2018, 03:31 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: And, as I said in a previous response:

Trump tweets as POTUS from his personal account on a regular basis. You can't divorce the personal from the official unless that NEVER happens. The only way for it to never happen would be to make the personal inactive at this point.

Than the ruling should be that he's not allowed to block anyone on an official tweet from his personal account.

I still think this is an infringement of Trump's First Amendment rights and could set a dangerous precedent, but I know you disagree. So I think we should just leave it at a agree-to-disagree 

[Belsnickel]

(05-24-2018, 03:50 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Than the ruling should be that he's not allowed to block anyone on an official tweet from his personal account.

I still think this is an infringement of Trump's First Amendment rights and could set a dangerous precedent, but I know you disagree. So I think we should just leave it at a agree-to-disagree 

You can't block people from individual tweets, though. It's not like Facebook where you can alter privacy settings for individual posts.

But yeah, this is going to be one of those where we just disagree on principle, I think.

[Millhouse]

I dont know yet how I feel about this ruling. It is a completely different thing if the government or businesses is trying to shut down twitter or social media posts on other peoples' accounts. That is 100% infringing on the 1st Amendment.

But I dont know about this ruling and what precedence it can set for numerous things down the social media internet road, things like forums and what not outside of twitter.

[fredtoast]

(05-24-2018, 03:24 PM)PhilHos Wrote:  But, with Trump's personal account this is an affront to his First Amendment rights. 

They are not stopping Trump from saying anything he wants.  There are no limits on his speech.

[fredtoast]

Trump has already stopped giving any press conferences so he can avoid questions from the media. Instead he has relied on twitter to get his message out. Now he is trying off cut off any dissent there also.

[JustWinBaby]

(05-25-2018, 10:32 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Trump has already stopped giving any press conferences so he can avoid questions from the media.  Instead he has relied on twitter to get his message out.  Now he is trying off cut off any dissent there also.

I mean, he reminds you more and more of Obama every day......ammmirite?!?

[JustWinBaby]

(05-24-2018, 03:31 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Trump tweets as POTUS from his personal account on a regular basis. You can't divorce the personal from the official unless that NEVER happens. The only way for it to never happen would be to make the personal inactive at this point.

This makes a lot of sense.

Crazy as it is.  The obvious solution is to be able to block people from responding (which maybe should be everyone, so as not to discriminate).  But there is that element where people shouldn't be able to troll the POTUS.

Maybe I'm a bit lost....but it seems obvious that official tweets would have no responses or retweets, and "personal" tweets would be like any other account.

[Belsnickel]

(05-31-2018, 05:53 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: This makes a lot of sense.

Crazy as it is.  The obvious solution is to be able to block people from responding (which maybe should be everyone, so as not to discriminate).  But there is that element where people shouldn't be able to troll the POTUS.

Maybe I'm a bit lost....but it seems obvious that official tweets would have no responses or retweets, and "personal" tweets would be like any other account.

I could sincerely make legal arguments in either direction. I think another component to it is that blocking someone on Twitter means they are unable to see your tweets. So it isn't just being able to speak to the position, but it also removes access.

I am sure it could be done, I just wonder how feasible it would be (and how the courts would feel about it) to create a class of "verified" accounts that are government, where the reply capability is turned off. The ability to retweet would need to remain, for information to spread. I'm on the fence with regards to tagging/mentions.

[fredtoast]

(05-31-2018, 08:38 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I could sincerely make legal arguments in either direction. I think another component to it is that blocking someone on Twitter means they are unable to see your tweets. So it isn't just being able to speak to the position, but it also removes access.

I am sure it could be done, I just wonder how feasible it would be (and how the courts would feel about it) to create a class of "verified" accounts that are government, where the reply capability is turned off. The ability to retweet would need to remain, for information to spread. I'm on the fence with regards to tagging/mentions.

Any official statement needs to be made through a press release.  Lots of people don't use twitter.  So there is no purpose for an "official" twitter account.

But since Trump makes policy statements on his twitter account he should not be allowed to block part of the public from seeing them.

[Belsnickel]

(05-31-2018, 08:50 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Any official statement needs to be made through a press release.  Lots of people don't use twitter.  So there is no purpose for an "official" twitter account.

But since Trump makes policy statements on his twitter account he should not be allowed to block part of the public from seeing them.

I don't disagree that there are more traditional avenues for an official statement. How many people don't know how to access press releases? You're thinking of Twitter as a replacement for these traditional communication methods whereas the way the public sector is trying to use social media in general is to expand our reach. These methods aren't replacements, they help make sure the information is received by more people. You still put out press releases, you still hold press conferences, you still give television addresses and hold town halls. But in addition to that, you tweet about this information, you Facebook live a press conference. Access to information is a big part of a democratic society and social media is one way to help that access.

The issue is that the messaging needs to be uniform. When you have an official statement on social media that contradicts a statement in a press pool that contradicts something from a cabinet spokesperson, you show that you don't know what the **** you're doing. That's what we're into now.

But, these official accounts should not be able to block access to them, and that is the view of the courts.

[fredtoast]

(05-31-2018, 09:00 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't disagree that there are more traditional avenues for an official statement. How many people don't know how to access press releases? You're thinking of Twitter as a replacement for these traditional communication methods whereas the way the public sector is trying to use social media in general is to expand our reach. These methods aren't replacements, they help make sure the information is received by more people. You still put out press releases, you still hold press conferences, you still give television addresses and hold town halls. But in addition to that, you tweet about this information, you Facebook live a press conference. Access to information is a big part of a democratic society and social media is one way to help that access.

The issue is that the messaging needs to be uniform. When you have an official statement on social media that contradicts a statement in a press pool that contradicts something from a cabinet spokesperson, you show that you don't know what the **** you're doing. That's what we're into now.

But, these official accounts should not be able to block access to them, and that is the view of the courts.

Right.  No problem with an "official" twitter account if it is just used to spread the same info from a press release.

[Belsnickel]

(05-31-2018, 09:08 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Right.  No problem with an "official" twitter account if it is just used to spread the same info from a press release.

Well, you don't just spread policy statements. You try to give out information about what you're doing, good faith type of things.

Social media in public administration is a whole thing. I've seen courses on it and sat in on a webinar or two covering it.

[mallorian69]

So according to this judge Twitter is a public forum and there for protected under the first amendment correct? If that is the case then couldn't this ruling be used as the basis for a lawsuit against Twitter, FB, or any other social media platform for either blocking or removing a post or user as long as said post or user didn't violate any laws? How about against the moderator of an online forum such as BengalsBoard.com for banning someone?

In the past people have said things like FB and this forum were able to allow or disallow whatever speech the chose to because they are privately owned by either a person or business but this ruling, at least to me, flips that on its head.

[GMDino]

I can't find the thread on whether Trump's tweets are "official" or not so I'm going to add this here:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-dont-take-trumps-tweets-literally-justice-department-argues

Quote:Document: Don't Take Trump's Tweets Literally, Justice Department Argues


The Department of Justice submitted an unusual court filing in litigation over the release of the Carter Page FISA, arguing that the president's statements on Twitter concerning the Page FISA should not be assumed to be accurate or based on the president's personal knowledge of the underlying issue. The document, which was filed on Nov. 30 and first flagged by USA Today reporter Brad Heath, is available here and below.