Blocked Twitter Users Suing Trump

[Mistame]

But you are blocked from voicing your opinion.

And that should be a violation of the first amendment. As it is a form of censoring. And since Trump uses his private account for things related to his job, and with spicer saying Trumps private tweets = official white house statements, Trump blocking you is the government blocking you.

"Public forum" does not mean "accessible to the public", it refers to the public hosting or funding it. If I throw a party and invite the POTUS and some random "citizens" show up, I've every right to have them arrested for trespassing, because it's my property. Twitter is a private company. Their website is hosted on private property. Regardless of its accessibility to the public, it is not a public forum.

[Deleted]

And I think its a laughable idea that the President be forced to accept feedback. Its not a standard in any other form of communication. Why is Twitter so special? Guess what, its not and it shouldn't be.

It is standard in other platforms:
If he chose to speak from Times Square, he shouldn't be silencing the other people that are also speaking in Times Square.

Obviously if he delivered his speech through television, there's no room for response, or exchange.
But he's not delivering through that kind of medium: it's his choice to use Tiwtter's specific platform.
He is choosing a platform that is, by design, a two way street.

[callipygoustp]

That is true, but you have to go through a third party in that case.

Twitter is a third party.

Trump uses his twitter account to speak to the american people, and they should have the right to reply, regardless of their viewpoints. Now if you are being abusive, then you deserve to be blocked. But if you get blocked by disagreeing with them, that is a different thing altogether.

People can reply. Being able to reply on Twitter isn't a protected right.

There are many ways to voice your opinion, but the beauty of social media these days is that direct link, and that is what is being censored.

Again, the president is not required to provide you with 100% access in order to allow an avenue for feedback. Just because it's easy doesn't mean that it is then a constitutionally guaranteed method of direct access to the President. The slippery slope notion of this idea alone speaks against it.

[rhorle]

Tweets as official statements in no way infringe on your right to freedom of speech.

It can. The key question is if Twitter is considered a public forum or not. If it is then the official government communications can not block select people. If it is not considered a public forum then it is not a violation. It is a pretty complex matter that relies on several laws being applied to Social Media. Much of these laws are currently being tested all over the country with several cases.

- - - Updated - - -

Plus i am quite sure he can do whatever he pleases on his private account, as long as his official POTUS account is open for everybody.

The problem is that the White House has said his statements on his private account are official. That changes things completely.

[Volardelis]

"Public forum" does not mean "accessible to the public", it refers to the public hosting or funding it. If I throw a party and invite the POTUS and some random "citizens" show up, I've every right to have them arrested for trespassing, because it's my property. Twitter is a private company. Their website is hosted on private property. Regardless of its accessibility to the public, it is not a public forum.

But it is not twitter that is blocking you. It is a citizen using that service that is. That is the difference.

Using your analogy, it would be like you having an open party, and then someone else prevents people from entering.

[callipygoustp]

If you're banned from viewing a play in a theater, but then discover that with binoculars you can see through a window, you're still banned from viewing the play. A method of circumvention does not nullify that you're being restricted from seeing something.

Also: Your post directly before that one was a reply to me saying the same thing. So, sure, that one wasn't at me. But you still think that that's what I'm saying.

What a ridiculous analogy.

[rhorle]

And that's unconstitutional? LOLHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Next up: people without internet connections file lawsuit against president having any communication over the internet.

Yes. You should go educate yourself on government censorship and the laws protecting citizens against that.

[Deleted]

The problem is that the White House has said his statements on his private account are official. That changes things completely.

Maybe they lied?
Are they allowed to lie?
This defense is not beneath his orangeness.

[Jastall]

While I'm of the mind that Trump can block whoever he wants, it's true that he did turn his Twitter account into a platform that he uses for political announcements. So the case is more complex than it might appear at first glance, perhaps.

EDIT: yeah, on second thought, Twitter is a private company, so I strongly doubt this will go anywhere. Whatever Spicer may say, tweets aren't really what I would call public statements.

[callipygoustp]

It is standard in other platforms:
If he chose to speak from Times Square, he shouldn't be silencing the other people that are also speaking in Times Square.

Obviously if he delivered his speech through television, there's no room for response, or exchange.
But he's not delivering through that kind of medium: it's his choice to use Tiwtter's specific platform.
He is choosing a platform that is, by design, a two way street.

He is choosing to communicate to people via Twitter. There's nothing that requires him to also accept feedback via Twitter. It's his choice.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes. You should go educate yourself on government censorship and the laws protecting citizens against that.

Oh you really convinced me with that hollow response. Well done sir, well done!

[rhorle]

A "public forum" refers to a "forum" that's hosted and/or funded by the public (eg, on public property), not one that's simply "visible" to the public. Twitter is a private company. The Constitution does not apply. /thread

It isn't that simple. Facebook in some cases has been deemed a public forum if the page was set up by the public entity. Or if the Facebook account is the "official" one for that office/entity. The argument is calling Facebook pages, or twitter (though I'm unaware of a specific case using twitter), to a public park. The "White House" Facebook page would be considered a "public park" even though it is set up on a private companies servers.

Facebook posts from government entities are already required to be retained for any record laws.

[Mistame]

But it is not twitter that is blocking you. It is a citizen using that service that is. That is the difference.

Using your analogy, it would be like you having an open party, and then someone else prevents people from entering.

Twitter provides the service and means to "filter" who accesses and responds to your posts. They are the proxy. So, using my analogy, it would be like me letting my party guests kick out people who harass them. My party, my rules. Twitter's servers, Twitter's rules.

It isn't that simple. Facebook in some cases has been deemed a public forum if the page was set up by the public entity. Or if the Facebook account is the "official" one for that office/entity. The argument is calling Facebook pages, or twitter (though I'm unaware of a specific case using twitter), to a public park. The "White House" Facebook page would be considered a "public park" even though it is set up on a private companies servers.

Facebook posts from government entities are already required to be retained for any record laws.

Then they're manipulating the context. "Public forum" literally refers to a "forum" on public property or that's funded by the public. All parks are public property. The park analogy is inherently invalid.

[Dextroden]

So. Is this garbage about blocking people being unconstitutional going to carry over when the next Democrat President gets flamed on Twitter? Just making sure this is an actual stance and not more Trump tears.

[rhorle]

Maybe they lied?
Are they allowed to lie?
This defense is not beneath his orangeness.

It doesn't really matter if they lied. The statement is out there as public record and the law will consider it as if it is a truth. This is why government officials should not lie and why the laws exist to punish them when they do.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh you really convinced me with that hollow response. Well done sir, well done!

It isn't hollow at all. It is the why the law works which you clearly do not understand. The only thing hollow is your knowledge of the subject. Trump isn't even the first he is just the highest profile person running afoul of the law in this matter.

[araine]

I think its a laughable idea that the President is constitutionally required to give full access to anyone that wants full access. What's next: The president will be required to answer every phone call he receives? Ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous.

Not at all, it falls in the same area of you sending a mail to the White house and when the white house sees who it is from they just tosses it into the garbage bin since it was from YOU. this is a 1st amendment violation and same goes for donnys childish behaviors on twitter, He is using it as the prime source of information going out and you can NOT ban folks from this really common sense folks common sense

[Deleted]

He is choosing to communicate to people via Twitter. There's nothing that requires him to also accept feedback via Twitter. It's his choice.

I'm discussing the aspect of him blocking users from being in the chain of responses, not on him receiving feedback.
Again, the public forum: he can choose to stick fingers in his ears to not listen to anything, but not get the rest of people in the public forum to shut up.

[Volardelis]

Twitter provides the service and means to "filter" who accesses and responds to your posts. They are the proxy. So, using my analogy, it would be like me letting my party guests kick out people who harass them. My party, my rules. Twitter's servers, Twitter's rules.

Again, it is not twitter that is doing the blocking. If Trump blocks someone who is being abusive, he as the right to do so. But if he blocks someone just because he doesn't like them or their point of view, that is something else.

Twitter is a private company, but any hillbilly with a shotgun can sign up on twitter (provided they have internet access). So in a way, it can be considered a public forum as anyone from the public has access to it. They can view tweets without even making an account, but they have make one to reply. So my analogy of twitter being an open party is the correct one. Someone blocking you on twitter is like someone else throwing you out for whatever reasons they feel like (abusive nature is not tolerated though), or prevent you from coming into the party in the first place.

While Trumps private account is his private account, the white house made an official statement that said that his private tweets ARE official white house statements. Meaning they are the words of the government and not a private citizen.

[Teleros]

It can. The key question is if Twitter is considered a public forum or not. If it is then the official government communications can not block select people.

Blocking you on Twitter doesn't stop you from seeing the tweets though. You just log out, and voila. Or just use a second (unblocked) account.

It's also not as if there aren't plenty of other ways to petition the government, all of which have, until now, been found perfectly adequate by everyone, stretching right back to George Washington and the good old mail bag.

[callipygoustp]

I'm discussing the aspect of him blocking users from being in the chain of responses, not on him receiving feedback.
Again, the public forum: he can choose to stick fingers in his ears to not listen to anything, but not get the rest of people in the public forum to shut up.

There are plenty of other public forums the President participates in that block people from providing feedback: press conferences in general come to mind. People are free to speak their mind, free to give feedback. Just like in Twitter, if the President doesn't want to provide you with the opportunity to provide feedback he doesn't have to.

- - - Updated - - -

Not at all, it falls in the same area of you sending a mail to the White house and when the white house sees who it is from they just tosses it into the garbage bin since it was from YOU. this is a 1st amendment violation and same goes for donnys childish behaviors on twitter, He is using it as the prime source of information going out and you can NOT ban folks from this really common sense folks common sense

Blocking access via Twitter does not result in people being unable to speak their mind. There are plenty of forums for them to do so.

[Mistame]

Twitter is a private company, but any hillbilly with a shotgun can sign up on twitter (provided they have internet access). So in a way, it can be considered a public forum as anyone from the public has access to it.

This is the point you're missing. A "public forum" is not a "publicly accessible forum", it's a publicly funded/hosted forum. In other words, if it's not public property, it is by definition not a "public forum". The First Amendment does not apply to private property, including servers.