This ought to be good. And Twitter better take a stand.

Sensitive Donnie blocks people on twitter! What a snowflake!

#45 won't pay attention to a letter.

Edit to add... There may be some credence here but it's not directly about free speech. Petitioning the government regarding a grievance... the present so-called President is clearly blocking people from petitioning the government with their grievances. It's part of the first amendment... that citizens can petition the government. DJT is part of said government, ergo he is violating 1st Amendment by prohibiting people to petition him regarding grievances against him and his government.

As I say, needs a lawsuit.

If I write them in braille on a wood strip sixteen feet long, is the government obligated to read it?

No.

Trump turned his Twitter account into a public forum. It is his means of communication as President with the American people. He said so. As a public forum, Trump's Twitter account can't block someone just because they disagree with him. Read up on public forum cases, counsel, and cite the case law that says I'm wrong. 

And no, stopping him from blocking people does NOT help Trump. It's just the opposite. If you are blocked, people you cannot see your replies to his tweets. Trump blocking Twitter users makers it appear to other Twitter users looking at the replies to Trump's tweets as if those blocked users are not voicing any objection. By blocking people, Trump makes it falsely appear that a smaller percentage of people oppose him than actually do. THAT IS WHY HE IS BLOCKING THEM. That subverts our democracy and is one of the reasons we have a First Amendment. That is why it protects speech for the speaker AND the potential listeners. 

Trump's Twitter account is like a presidential town hall. That is how he uses it. He tweets on taxpayer's time, announcing what he is doing as President. He is tweeting in his capacity as President, not a private person. Since he voluntarily chose to use that platform for this governmental purpose, then he must conduct himself in accordance with the US Constitution. If he is going to let people reply to his tweets, all people replying must have the same opportunity. People should be able to have equal access to his town hall microphone, i.e. replying to his tweets. I think everyone agrees that constituent speakers at a politician's town hall can not be treated differently simply based on the content of their speech. Why should people replying to Trump's Tweets not have those same protections?  

I am not confusing the right to speak with the right to be heard. I know you can't make anyone listen to you, least of all Shitler. But you do have First Amendment protections against your speech being restricted by a governmental entity, i.e. the President, based solely on the content of your speech. I understand he is not blocking you from speaking elsewhere, but he is blocking you from his Twitter town hall, while others he agrees with are allowed to directly reply to his tweets. That violates the First Amenment. 

His decision to listen or not, to any one particular person in one private medium is not an infringement of your right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Nor does it impede you from speaking.

You absolutely are conflating listening with speaking. You can speak on twitter (a private platform mind you- under no obligation to your first amendment rights any more than DU is) as much as you like. I (or any single government employee) is under no obligation to listen to your twitter content.

If Alan Grayson uses DU, does that make DU responsible for not blocking people who want to speak to him? Can't ban folks, then they can't petition Alan Grayson!

You clearly do not understand the legal concept of a publuc forum, and appear to refuse to understand it. Once a forum has become a public forum, you cannot bar people from speaking at them just because there are other forums out there in the world.

Alan Grayson is responsible for his own actions, just like Trump is. DU and Twitter are just private companies who are not bound by the 1st Amendment like Grayson and Trump are as public officials. If a public official uses a platform as a public forum, he or she must comply with the 1st Amendment.

Odd how angry and rude you are getting over this.

Dear, you haven't seen me angry, and if you think this rude, I can't imagine you actually deal with real people very often.

But that's okay. In addition to your appeal to authority in another post, you've now added ad hominem to the cavalcade of logical fallacies.

Me shouting into my shoe calling it a 'public forum' does not make it so, and if it did, it wouldn't grant you access to my sock.

Question for you though-- is Herr Twitler allowed to stick his fingers in his ears when walking down a public street so as to not hear you? It is a public space, after all. Or is that an "infringement" of your right to free speech, too?

There is no evidence of Grayson doing that. But regardless, putting someone on ignore on DU does not block them from posting on a thread and others seeing what they post. As the OP notes,Twitter users are unable to see or respond to tweets from accounts that block them. 

Public forum jurisprudence is well established before the Supreme Court. Here, read up on it: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/forums

No one is arguing Trump must listen to the speech, only that he can't block it.


I'm not your "Dear."

Free clue: Go read the text of Perry.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/460/37/case.html

The first predicate of the decision is dependent on 'public property'. Which has an actual legal meaning, not this 'make it a public forum' nonsense that you've been parroting.

Also go read Greer v. Spock.

As Perry states,

"In places which, by long tradition or by government fiat, have been devoted to assembly and debate, the rights of the State to limit expressive activity are sharply circumscribed."

That is exactly the point I am making. Trump turned his Twitter account into a public forum, and thus must comply with the First Amendment.

The issue in Perry was whether communication systems at a school were public forums. The fact that it was public property was not determinative nor at issue.

Please give me the pinpoint cite you claim is dispositive in Greer v. Spock.

Here's the Knight Institute's letter, complete with legal authorties. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3859469-White-House-Twitter-Letter-FINAL.html
I suggest you give that a read.

The key to those decisions, however, was the presence of a public forum. In a public forum, by definition, all parties have a constitutional right of access, and the State must demonstrate compelling reasons for restricting access to a single class of speakers, a single viewpoint, or a single subject.

What is a public forum, you ask? https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/forums

Derp.

You seem to have not read the Knight Institute letter I offered you, and instead Googled "public forum" (finally) and think you discovered something. Alas, the paragraph you cite does not answer the question at issue, namely whether a social media site can be a public forum. In other words, it does not answer the question of whether "all parties have a constitutional right of access" to a social media account. Derp indeed.

If you had read the Knight Institute letter, you would have come upon relevant case law on the issue. As the Court explained in the recently decided Davison v. Loudoun Cty. 2017 WL 28294 (E.D. Va. Jan. 4, 2017), cited in the Knight Institute's letter:

Plaintiff, however, also maintains that Defendant
Randall’s Facebook page constitutes a limited public forum
separate and apart from the Loudoun County Social Media Comments
Policy. Defendant Randall rejoins that she did not open any
kind of forum, and that she maintains her Facebook page in her
individual, rather than governmental, capacity. The Court finds
that material issues of disputed fact preclude summary judgment
for Defendant Randall on these points. A reasonable finder of
fact could determine from the present record that Defendant
Randall intentionally opened a limited public forum outside of
the Social Media Comments Policy. Moreover, the record is such
that a reasonable finder of fact could determine that Defendant
Randall did so in a governmental, rather than private, capacity.

Case law offers some guidance as to when the
government opens a limited public forum by creating and
maintaining a website. In Page v. Lexington County School
District One, 531 F.3d 275, 284 (4th Cir. 2008), for example,
the Fourth Circuit found that a school district had not opened a
public forum by maintaining a website including links to third party
content. That holding, however, rested on a finding that
the school district maintained strict control over the content
of its own website, and the Court noted “the issue would, of
course, be different” if the website included “a type of ‘chat
room’ or ‘bulletin board’ in which private viewers could express
opinions or post information.” Id. The First Circuit reached a
similar conclusion in Sutliffe v. Epping School District, 584
F.3d 314, 334–35 (1st Cir. 2009), based on similar facts, noting
“there may be cases in which a government entity might open its
website to private speech in such a way that” forum analysis
would be appropriate. Both Courts found that the websites at
issue constituted platforms for governmental speech rather than
forums. In a similar vein, the Sixth Circuit found in Putnam
Pit, Inc. v. City of Cookeville, Tennessee, 221 F.3d 834, 842
(6th Cir. 2000), that a website maintained by the government
constituted a nonpublic forum where it included links submitted
by third parties which were approved by the government.

In contrast to these cases, Defendant Randall’s
Facebook page enables private individuals to comment freely
without any screening process. Defendant Randall has permitted
“third parties to . . . comment on posts that she posted on the
page, allowing her to control the subject matter” under
discussion but not the comments’ precise content. Mem. in Supp.
of Mot. for Summ. J. [Dkt. 97] at 10. Defendant Randall also
maintains that she generally does not remove comments –
apparently even when those comments contradict the message that
she herself is attempting to express through her website.
Drawing “all reasonable inferences” in the non-moving party’s
favor, Henry, 652 F.3d at 531, this is sufficient to create a
triable issue of fact as to whether Defendant Randall
“intentionally open[ed] a nontraditional forum for public
discourse.” Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc.,
473 U.S. 788, 802 (1985).

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/virginia/vaedce/1:2016cv00932/348006/116/

The Knight Institute's case against Trump is even stronger than Davidson's case against Randall. There is no dispute that his Twitter statements are his official statements as POTUS.

Link to tweet

Here's quote for you, from the decision that Knight cites:


The court is not required to determine whether any use of social media by an elected official creates a limited public forum, although the answer to that question is undoubtedly, "no." Rather, the issue before Court is whether a specific government policy, applied to a specific government website, can create a "metaphysical" limited public forum for First Amendment purposes.

What 'specific government website' is twitter, again??

If you read the 1976 case of Spock v. Greer, you would realize it is not on point. It stands for the rather unremarkable proposition that the Army has a right to refuse entry to politicians (in that case, People's Party and Socialist Worker Party candidates) to an Army post to campaign. It is no surprise you ignored my request for a pinpoint cite (i.e. page cite) in Greer v. Spock to the language in the opinion you claim is dispositive. There is nothing in it that is dispositive to the Trump Twitter issue.

I am not sure where you got that paragraph of dicta regarding "specific government website," since you provide no citation, but it is not on point regardless.

We are not talking about a website but a social media account.

The 2017 Davidson case is directly on point and is the only published decision on whether a public official's private social media account can become a public forum. And the Court's answer was decidedly "yes," since it denied Randall's motion for summary judgment on that point. You have not made any attempt to distinguish Davidson or explain why the Court got it wrong.

You only offer pointless argument and insults, continuing with your sexist "dear" references. It is odd for a progressive to spend so much energy bashing someone who makes an argument for applying public forum law to the town squares of the 21st century, namely social media. If you cherished free speech under the First Amendment, you would not be here defending Trump's blocking of his constituents on his Twitter account.

What is clear is you do not understand the law, nor even how to discuss the law. Further discussion with you is pointless.

Good night.

Here, have a read.

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/virginia/vaedce/1:2016cv00932/348006/57/ (p11 internal numbering)

If you can't be bothered to read the cases you're citing, why should I do your research for you?

And if you missed the point of Spock, then you're being intentionally obtuse. Keep putting your head under your wing and claiming it's night.

I quoted the key passage from final 5/10/17 Davidson opinion in my post up the thread, complete with a link to it: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9176549

Here is the link again to that opinion: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/virginia/vaedce/1:2016cv00932/348006/116/

You made no attempt to distinguish it. Instead, you cite a prior ruling, which you misinterpret.

You make no attempt to articulate why Spock is on point, you just insult me.

You have wasted enough of my time. You can obviously keep posting, but I will no longer be responding to you.

Good bye.

.. without reading the rest of the case.

Here's the piece that flies smack in the face of the silly assertions you've been making, repeatedly.

--------------------
The court is not required to determine whether any use of social media by an elected official creates a limited public forum, although the answer to that question is undoubtedly, "no." Rather, the issue before Court is whether a specific government policy, applied to a specific government website, can create a "metaphysical" limited public forum for First Amendment purposes.
---------------------

... for the government to read your message.

There is a constitutional right for you to send a message to the government.

I could send a letter to the WH through the mail. If the USPS say they delivered it... then my grievance to the government has been petitioned and 1A is satisfied. I could call the WH on the phone, if it goes to voicemail and I leave a messagw, 1A is satisfied. I can send email to the WH and if the email server says mail.whitehouse.gov accepted my message then 1A is met.

In this case there has to be two conditions to be met. 1. Is @realDonaldTrump (or any other particular communications channel) a government sanctioned method for communicating with "the government", and 2. Is the blocking of specific users of Twitter stopping users from sending messages to "the government". If it is established that @realDonaldTrump is just a forum for a private individual to mouth off, then the 1A argument fails. If a blocked Twitter user can still send @realDonaldTrump a DM and he still has the ability to read it ... 1A argument fails.

There is merit to the argument that @realDonaldTrump blocking Twitter users is a 1A violation, but it is not a clear violation. Lets leave it to constitutional lawyers... maybe someone knows one who could weigh in here?

Announcements on appointments and policy, and is regarded as such by courts, it's at least a de facto official platform.

Additionally blocking people means they can't see his tweets (while logged in) and they can't reply publicly or direct message Trump.

If @realDonaldTrump is considered a de-facto official platform, we still have the additional problem of proving that this is a means of being able to "petition the government". Obviously if it is a means of "petitioning the government" then a blocked Twitter User can't do this. Thus blocking is unconstitutional.

However his tweets aren't private, one doesn't need a Twitter account to see them. We do have a constitutional right not to see them.

How is this a violation?

He refuses to use the official POTUS Twitter account, instead using his personal account. He has repeatedly said that is how he communicates to the American people so as to avoid the "media filter." He is speaking as our President in those tweets. If he is going to use Twitter as his Presidential town hall microphone, then he must comply with all the rules that go with it. In other words, he must comply with the US Constitution.

We need to and can adapt the First Amendment to cover how we speak and petition our government for a redress of grievances in the 21st Century. The US Constitution's Bill of Rights is to be read broadly, as the Supreme Court has said, not in a "crabbed" or narrow way. 

Yes, Twitter is a private entity, but Trump is using Twitter as his presidential town hall microphone.  If Trump rented a private auditorium for a public town hall event, it would not matter that it was a private venue. It was being used for a public purpose. Trump is the government and what Trump says is government edict. If Trump says only Republicans can come to the microphone, would not that be a violation of the First Amendment, even if it were not a violation of Trump's rental agreement for the auditorium? 

He a scumbag for blocking his critics, for sure. But he isn't preventing them from speaking, he isn't using the power of government to prevent speech.

He is just doing the equivalent of putting his fingers in his ear like a spoiled child.

That's just like you can write your representative but if they wish they can toss everything with your name on it in the trash, they have no obligation to read it.

I suggest you review case law on public forums.

...because he AND his press lackeys just said he uses Twatter to speak to us all:

"Deputy White House press secretary Sarah Sanders told reporters Monday that Twitter is President Trump's way to circumvent media bias and speak directly to Americans."

and

"The president is President of the United States," Spicer said, "so they are considered official statements by the President of the United States."

Also this on DU's homepage right now:



So, he can't just pick and choose to "get his message out" of "official statements" only to Americans who like and agree with him.. He's president for ALL of us, no matter how loathsome most of us find that to be.

Finally I think we're onto something here.

As such, he must comply with the rules attendant to any public forum, e.g., the First Amendment.

Maybe push it, and if the courts agree all the way get to the point where he either has to unblock or shut it down, knowing how that ends.

They're a private company with a private communications medium. Just like DU.

What this institute should do is pressure Twitter to prevent public figures from "blocking" anyone, and use the threat of boycotting their advertisers to do so.

"Public forum" is a legal term for purposes of First Amendment jurisprudence; there is an immense amount of case law on it. If a venue is determined to be a public forum, it must comply with the First Amendment. If Trump rented a private auditorium for a public town hall event, it would not matter that it was a private venue. It was being used for a public purpose. Trump is the government and what Trump says is government edict. If Trump says only Republicans can come to the microphone, would not that be a violation of the First Amendment, even if it were not a violation of Trump's rental agreement for the auditorium and even if the auditorium was a private company?

Donald Trump's Twitter account is NOT "just like DU." DU is not a public forum, all of the posters are anonymous, and it is not being used as a means of communication/grievance input by a governmental entity/officer.

...thank goodness. We don't elect dictators who rule by edict. We have the legislature, the courts, and the states, each which hold a piece of power in our government. In fact, our founding fathers set up the system that way specifically because they were worried about men like Trump rising to power.

And you're just flat out incorrect about some strange "public forum" requirement on Twitter being established simply because he uses them - a private media company - to spread his message of hate. No more true than saying MSNBC is required to broadcast the ravings of right wing kooks, after they cover President Obama. Or a newspaper being forced to print random stuff because they covered the words of a politician. It doesn't work that way.

Free Speech means the government can't restrict your speech. It doesn't mean the government (including the courts) have the ability to force you to carry the speech of others unwillingly.

Besides, Twitter isn't even restricting other people from using their own accounts to tell the truth about Trump. And plenty do.

George Takei is one of my favorites.

And of course he can't rule by unfettered edict. His edicts must comply with the Constitution. The First Amendment protects our right to petition our government for a redress of grievances. We need to and can adapt the First Amendment to cover how we speak and petition our government for a redress of grievances in the 21st Century. The US Constitution's Bill of Rights is to be read broadly, as the Supreme Court has said, not in a "crabbed" or narrow way.  

If Trump rented a private auditorium for a public town hall event, it would not matter that it was a private venue. It was being used for a public purpose. Trump is the government and what Trump says is government edict. If Trump says only Republicans can come to the microphone, would not that be a violation of the First Amendment, even if it were not a violation of Trump's rental agreement for the auditorium?

The executive branch represents one third of the Federal government, which itself represents about half of the total governmental power, as the States collectively have the other half. So it isn't just the Constitution that Trump has to abide by. It's Legislative statute as well.

The Presidency is actually not a very strong position. This is intentional. It means that most of the power of the Presidency is in the form of soft power - if a president makes sense, if he shows leadership, people will naturally listen. If he doesn't they won't. You can see the difference quite starkly in President Obama vs President Trump in this.

But as for private forums, this exact thing happens. Trump does rent private auditoriums for events open to "the public", but really only to his supporters. And he has people thrown out all the time. And yes, this is absolutely 100% legal for him to do. And yes - absolutely - he can restrict people coming to the microphone that he rented. So did President Obama's people.

If you want to speak through a microphone, you need to get your own. And get people to go to your event to listen to you. There is no law or court ruling that says others have to give theirs to you.

We can - and have - pressured advertisers to drop noxious people, like Bill O'Reilly, and others. But that wasn't done by trying to sue them for a nonexistent "right" to their microphone (they sell access to that - that's what advertisements are). It was done by pressuring his advertisers to no longer pay FOX for air time next to his noxious views.

When acting in that capacity, he must comply with the Constitution. His Twitter statements are his official statements as POTUS.

Link to tweet

So is the mailman, school teacher, and your local firefighter.

Please educate yourself about this. No one is compelled to allow others to speak just because they are somehow connected to the government in some way. This is settled law. It has nothing to do with free speech.

This request will be ignored, and they'll just drop it because they have no case.

Jesus. And you have the arrogance to demand I "educate" myself when it is obvious you have no familiarity with First Amendment jurisprudence.

I never said anyone is "compelled to allow others to speak just because they are somehow connected to the government in some way." A teacher is not compelled to conduct a townhall. But as part of carrying out their governmental functions, they must comply with the First Amendment and not put unreasonable restrictions on speech. Obviously schools have more leeway with restrictions since they are in charge of educating minors, but they get successfully sued for violating the First Amendment all the time. For example, if they are going to allow student clubs and they allow a Republican Club, they cannot deny students who wish to have a Democratic Club. The Post Office can't refuse to deliver Democratic brochures to your door. The Fire Department can't refuse to hire people simply because they are registered Democrats.

The First Amendment applies to all parts of government. Educate yourself indeed.

Period.

And freedom of association also means freedom to NOT associate with people.

And yes. Educate yourself. Hell, even comic artists get this. Why can't you?

You are confusing public forums, which is what Trump's Twitter account has become, with your private Twitter account.

Trump voluntarily chose to use his private Twitter account as his official Twitter account in his capacity as POTUS. As such his Twitter account became a public forum and must comply with the First Amendment.

Cartoons are not legal authority, by the way.

Period. This is something that you've made up out of whole cloth.

And this cartoon is simply distilling the court rulings on the topic down to something easily digestible.

Every single person who has been writing on this topic gets this. You're the only one still arguing the wrong position.

Last edited Thu Jun 8, 2017, 02:09 AM - Edit history (1)

All that cartoon shows is you are missing the point.

And take another look at the thread. I am not the only one with this position. But even if I were, I am proud to share the same opinion on this as Alex Abdo, the Harvard Law grad ACLU attorney handling this matter for the Knight Institute.

It will be tossed out of court.
No one is preventing the people he blocks from his twitter feed from saying whatever they want. They just cant say it directly to him on his twitter feed. They can still tweet it, post it, write it, say it, etc. The govt is not stopping these people from speaking. Do you think Pres Obama didnt block anyone from HIS feed? Of course he did. And i doubt it was just the racists.

This type of nonsense will end up HELPING trump. Its obvious as hell.

Trump turned his Twitter account into a public forum. It is his means of communication as President with the American people. He said so. As a public forum, Trump's Twitter account can't block someone just because they disagree with him. Read up on public forum cases, counsel, and cite the case law that says I'm wrong.

And no, stopping him from blocking people does NOT help Trump. It's just the opposite. If you are blocked, people you cannot see your replies to his tweets. Trump blocking Twitter users makers it appear to other Twitter users looking at the replies to Trump's tweets as if those blocked users are not voicing any objection. By blocking people, Trump makes it falsely appear that a smaller percentage of people oppose him than actually do. THAT IS WHY HE IS BLOCKING THEM. That subverts our democracy and is one of the reasons we have a First Amendment. That is why it protects speech for the speaker AND the potential listeners.

Trump's Twitter account is like a presidential town hall. That is how he uses it. He tweets on taxpayer's time, announcing what he is doing as President. He is tweeting in his capacity as President, not a private person. Since he voluntarily chose to use that platform for this governmental purpose, then he must conduct himself in accordance with the US Constitution. If he is going to let people reply to his tweets, all people replying must have the same opportunity. People should be able to have equal access to his town hall microphone, i.e. replying to his tweets. I think everyone agrees that constituent speakers at a politician's town hall can not be treated differently simply based on the content of their speech. Why should people replying to Trump's Tweets not have those same protections? 

I am not confusing the right to speak with the right to be heard. I know you can't make anyone listen to you, least of all Shitler. But you do have First Amendment protections against your speech being restricted by a governmental entity, i.e. the President, based solely on the content of your speech. I understand he is not blocking you from speaking elsewhere, but he is blocking you from his Twitter town hall, while others he agrees with are allowed to directly reply to his tweets. That violates the First Amenment.

Would there be a "First Amendment" right to have a letter to the editor published?

This lawsuit doesn't pass the laugh test.

He must give each person an equal opportunity to be heard, and cannot discriminate based on political opinion.

Townhalls? People are prevented from going speaking at those all the time.
His Tweets? We're really going to go to court over Twitter? Everyone knows how it works; blocking people who disagree with you is common throughout ALL govt officials. Are we going to sue ALL of them? State, local, federal? No. Because its silly.

You MAY be correct, who knows. But i give it a 5% chance of ever going anywhere, if that. Waste of time.

You are missing the point. Of course if the Town Hall lasts only 2 hours and you are still in line when it ends you will not get to speak. But you were not denied the right to speak based on the content of your speech. Therefore that does not violate the First Amendment. You still had the same opportunity to speak as everyone else there. That is the whole point of the First Amendment right to free speech. You must be given the same opportunity as everyone else.

It is not a "waste of time" to enforce the First Amendment and protect our democracy.

are posting all kinds of nasty comments about him and his family.
you want to bang your daughter, your wife is a ho, ect....
Even if that stuff is true, I don't think a lawsuit would go anywhere. I block right wingers and various idiots all the time, granted i'm not the president, or even a public person, but to call this a first amendment crisis is a stretch.

If you are being blocked simply for challenging Trump's factual assertions or disagreeing with him on policy, which I understand appears to be the main reason for blocking, then that is a violation of the First Amendment.

Your Twitter account is not a public forum like the President's is, and you are not the President/government entity/officer and thus you are not required to comply with First Amendment rules with regard to your Twitter account, frankieallen.

So, if Tweets are official Whitehouse statement, it'd seem to me that there is no presumption of private property or any right to privacy.

TRUMP’S TWEETS ARE ‘OFFICIAL STATEMENTS,’ SEAN SPICER SAYS, COMPLETELY CONTRADICTING WHITE HOUSE AIDES

Forget attempting to defend President Donald Trump’s tweets; the White House can’t even seem to decide what his tweets are. On Monday, national security aide Sebastian Gorka insisted they are “not policy,” while adviser Kellyanne Conway blasted the media’s “obsession” with them. A day later and the message from Press Secretary Sean Spicer was radically different.


Asked whether Trump’s tweets constituted official statements, Spicer said, “The president is the president of the United States so they’re considered official statements by the president of the United States.”


Earlier, Spicer also defended the content of Trump’s messages on Twitter, pointing out their effectiveness during the 2016 campaign.

“The president is the most effective messenger on his agenda, and I think his use of social media—he now has a collective total of close to 110 million people across different platforms—give him an opportunity to speak directly to the American people, which has proved to be a very effective tool,” he said. “The same people who are critiquing his use of it now critiqued it during the election, and it turned out pretty well for him then.”

Trump is an elected official using his private Twitter to convey his thoughts to the world. There's actually a case to be made that as an elected official he can't block people from his words which have now been said to be his official statements on things.

If the former, then that's a problem. If the latter, then I can't see how it's a big deal. They can simply open another account and keep on viewing his unhinged idiocy in its purest form.

Trump's impediment to Twitter users he disagrees with, by forcing them to take extra steps to post or making it harder for others to see their posts, if they find them at all, is a violation of the First Amendment 

Trump's Twitter account is like a presidential town hall. That is how he uses it. He tweets on taxpayer's time, announcing what he is doing as President. He is tweeting in his capacity as President, not a private person. Since he voluntarily chose to use that platform for this governmental purpose, then he must conduct himself in accordance with the US Constitution. If he is going to let people reply to his tweets, all people replying must have the same opportunity. People should be able to have equal access to his town hall microphone, i.e. replying to his tweets. I think everyone agrees that constituent speakers at a politician's town hall can not be treated differently simply based on the content of their speech. Why should people replying to Trump's Tweets not have those same protections? 

Why should someone be forced to create a second, fake account and/or resort to subterfuge like some sort of troll just to say that which others whose speech Trump agrees with can readily say? 

Trump blocking Twitter users makes it appear to other Twitter users looking at the replies to Trump's tweets as if those blocked users are not voicing any objection. By blocking people, Trump makes it falsely appear that a smaller percentage of people oppose him than actually do. That subverts our democracy and is one of the reasons we have a First Amendment. 

The person is still free to access the speech through other means, so there's no Constitutional violation.

If the person engages in disruptive behavior on twitter, then that person can be blocked. The person is still free to access those tweets through other means. So how is that a Constitutional violation?

One might argue that "disruptive behavior" is subjective, but it seems likely that the president & his handlers would be allowed considerable discretion in deciding what qualifies as "disruptive."


If the president declines my Friend request on Facebook, is that a violation of the constitution?

That is not a violation of the First Amendment; they are not being ejected for the content of their speech but their unruly conduct that is impeding the meeting. There is case law on what is "disruptive" and it is a very fact specific determination. Politicians like to push the envelope of course. That is why we have courts to check them.

And yes, a politician's official Facebook account must comply with the First Amendment. He or she cannot refuse ro friend people just because they are, say, Democrats or based on the content of their speech. But he can require that they live in his district--that is not a content-based restriction.

As stated in the OP article:

"Alex Abdo, the institute's senior staff attorney, likened Twitter to a modern form of town hall meeting or public comment periods for government agency proposals, both venues where U.S. law requires even-handed treatment of speech."

Perhaps in specific instances where a particular person was blocked, but it seems far-fetched to suppose that courts will simply declare across the board that the president is barred from blocking twitter users.

There would not be an "across the board" bar from blocking twitter users. A court would certainly allow public officials like Trump to continue to block people who post obscenities, hate speech, etc.

When considering government restrictions of speech in traditional public forums, courts use “strict scrutiny.” Under strict scrutiny, restrictions are allowed only if they serve a compelling state interest and are narrowly tailored to meet the needs of that interest. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/forums

Or is it a service provided by a private entity?

(Or, for that matter, does it make a difference?)

Last edited Thu Jun 8, 2017, 10:26 AM - Edit history (1)

Yours, no.

Twitter is a private service, like a private rented auditorium. It becomes a public forum when a governmental officer or entity uses it as such.

And that makes sense.

As noted in the OP article:

"Eric Goldman, a Santa Clara University law professor who focuses on internet law, said that previous cases involving politicians blocking users on Facebook (FB.O) supported the Knight Institute's position."

I have a hard time believing that others don't block users on their feeds.

But most people don't have the resources to sue over such a thing. They are too busy putting food on the table and/or don't know their rights.

Hopefully cases like this will change that cowardly, unconstitutional blocking by politicians.

This theory may have some merit

Why would anyone think politicians should be exempt from the First Amendment on their official social media accounts?

The first amendment doesn't mean that people are forced to listen to your speech.

Just like no politician can be forced to listen to the constituent at the microphone at a town hall, he just can't bar the constituent from the microphone. Trump has turned his Twitter account in a public forum, like a town hall, as the article at the OP link explains.

Is there a law on this or any court cases?

Twitter is still a private forum by the way.

For example, he can insist only his constituents speak (the whole country is Trump's constituent).

When considering government restrictions of speech in traditional public forums, courts use “strict scrutiny.” Under strict scrutiny, restrictions are allowed only if they serve a compelling state interest and are narrowly tailored to meet the needs of that interest. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/forums

When Trump blocks, it doesn't prevent them from speaking, it only prevents them from seeing each others tweets. Was this taken into account?

I really look forward to where this goes. This is veeeeery, veeeery inteeeresting.