Blocked Twitter Users Suing Trump

[mbg]

My impression is that the 1st amandment in general is no high priority for the current american president.

When it is about Trump and Twitter, i believe twitter should ban him, as he is the guy with the most devastating tweets you could imagine. If trump has a bad day, he could create billion losses at stock exchanges.

LOL Are you kidding? Trump is keeping Twitter afloat.

[rhorle]

That link is just an article about a lawsuit being filed. Again, the First Amendment does not apply to private web sites on private servers. Period. Sure, the actions of the officials in that case is certainly sketchy, but you don't have a right to post on, or even access, a privately owned website, period.

https://www.wired.com/story/free-spe...supreme-court/

In this case it was ruled that a state can not ban a person from Facebook because the right to use it is protect by the first amendment. North carolina used to ban sex offenders from using Facebook because minors 13 and older could be using the service. They are still allowed to restrict their usage (can't contact or interact with minors) but they are not allowed to ban Facebook outright.

Yes it is a different style all together then what is being discussed here. But it shows that the first amendment does apply to private web sites on private servers. Just as I showed earlier a case where a municipality got in trouble for not retaining the records of Facebook posts deleted from their city Facebook page. It is a private web site on a private server but since a Government entity was using it for official business it is bound by the sale laws as other government sites/stuff.

This case isn't even relevant as it's about the exclusion of certain groups. The Facebook post was merely a point of contention.

It was showing that a public forum can be held in digital space. Digital space is most often hosted on private servers and the rule did not discriminate between public or private digital space.

A traditional public forum must be public property as it being private property inherently makes it a private forum. The First Amendment would apply in the former if, for example, authorities tried to disperse an otherwise peaceful protest. It would not apply in the latter, as the owners of said property dictate the rules. "Limited" public forums also typically require public property and/or and pre-designation for the event, in which the First would only apply if it's public property.

Again no. A public event can be held on private property. It is as simple as that. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/10678554.pdf is a case where a sidewalk on private property was deemed to have the same rights as a public sidewalk due to an agreement the casino made with the county. When the casino sued because protesters were not being removed they lost even though they owned that property.

[Chrysia]

The only thing that could come out of this case is a ruling that Trump's Personal Twitter account is not an official source of communicating with the public
The argument against that would be that it was the official HPD account that was deleting comments. It would be a different story if it were one of the officers private facebook account

Except the White House has said that Trump's personal Twitter is an official source of communications with the public.

Same as above. Trump is using his personal Twitter to make official announcements. If he wants to stop doing that, and only use the PotUS account to make official statements, this will go away.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Except the White House has said that Trump's personal Twitter is an official source of communications with the public.

Which is why I said there would be a ruling that his personal account does not count as an official communication channel.

[Chrysia]

Which is why I said there would be a ruling that his personal account does not count as an official communication channel.

I don't see what legal basis that would be made under. What is and is not an official communication channel is determined by the use it is put to, not some mystical classification. If he's using it as an official communications channel, it is one.

[Kaleredar]

Yeah, and if Trump were to be banned from Twitter, it would probably just lead to him issuing statements from another service or from a website etc. Twitter is great and all, but it's not like they can't go the way of MySpace.

I don't think Trump is really propping up twitter as anything more than a sideshow amusement.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I don't see what legal basis that would be made under. What is and is not an official communication channel is determined by the use it is put to, not some mystical classification. If he's using it as an official communications channel, it is one.

No, because there already is an official POTUS twitter. If he starts blocking people from that...then there might be a case....but as an individual he has the same rights to block anyone he pleases that anyone else does.

[Usernameforforums]

Just because you're blocked doesn't mean you can't make a new account thus making this controversy null and void.

Ip blocked? Get a new ip or run a vpn.

[Chrysia]

No, because there already is an official POTUS twitter. If he starts blocking people from that...then there might be a case....but as an individual he has the same rights to block anyone he pleases that anyone else does.

The existence of the POTUS Twitter handle doesn't preclude his formerly personal Twitter from also being an official communications channel, especially since he doesn't duplicate the "official" tweets he makes on his personal Twitter onto the POTUS Twitter. They're both official communications channels.

- - - Updated - - -

Just because you're blocked doesn't mean you can't make a new account thus making this controversy null and void

Using alternate accounts to subvert blocks is, I believe, a violation of Twitter's ToU.

[Mistame]

https://www.wired.com/story/free-spe...supreme-court/

Yes it is a different style all together then what is being discussed here. But it shows that the first amendment does apply to private web sites on private servers.

It isn't just a different "style", it's a completely different and irrelevant context. It's an example of the state explicitly prohibiting someone from exercising their rights, not some official blocking users or deleting posts. You're comparing apples to airplanes.

It was showing that a public forum can be held in digital space. Digital space is most often hosted on private servers and the rule did not discriminate between public or private digital space.

I'll concede that a limited "public forum" can be held on a private server, but again, the owners of that server dictate the rules. If those rules include blocking/deletion features, any person or entity using that service has the right to utilize those features. It is not, however, a violation of the First Amendment because a) you have to agree to the terms of service (which cover the rules and features) when you sign up and b) the ability to exercise one's right to "free speech" is not being explicitly denied by being blocked from a page or post, or having your comments deleted. You're more than welcome to rant on other pages/posts. Now, if the official tries to get you banned from the service altogether, then you have a case. But you do NOT have the right to access or comment on any privately-hosted "official" page or post.

Again no. A public event can be held on private property. It is as simple as that. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/10678554.pdf is a case where a sidewalk on private property was deemed to have the same rights as a public sidewalk due to an agreement the casino made with the county. When the casino sued because protesters were not being removed they lost even though they owned that property.

Not only is that case irrelevant, it's detrimental to your argument. Of course private property that's under contract to serve as public property has an obligation to do just that.

[callipygoustp]

The argument against that would be that it was the official HPD account that was deleting comments. It would be a different story if it were one of the officers private facebook account

You completely missed the point of my response to the person I quoted.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

The existence of the POTUS Twitter handle doesn't preclude his formerly personal Twitter from also being an official communications channel, especially since he doesn't duplicate the "official" tweets he makes on his personal Twitter onto the POTUS Twitter. They're both official communications channels.

I'll bet you real money that, if this case ever actually reaches a courtroom, it will get thrown out by the judge for exactly the reasons I've said.

[Usernameforforums]

The existence of the POTUS Twitter handle doesn't preclude his formerly personal Twitter from also being an official communications channel, especially since he doesn't duplicate the "official" tweets he makes on his personal Twitter onto the POTUS Twitter. They're both official communications channels.

- - - Updated - - -



Using alternate accounts to subvert blocks is, I believe, a violation of Twitter's ToU.

Dont matter though.

[Kaleredar]

The existence of the POTUS Twitter handle doesn't preclude his formerly personal Twitter from also being an official communications channel, especially since he doesn't duplicate the "official" tweets he makes on his personal Twitter onto the POTUS Twitter. They're both official communications channels.

Trump's own staff can't decide whether his tweets count as "official" or not, so that's really a moot point.

[Ghostpanther]

I honestly don't know how the courts are going to come down on this one, it's not like the people can't access the information elsewhere. Trump's tweets are printed everywhere, including all of the major newspapers.

My guess is they'll say Trump can block them.

Legally I think he can. But I do not think he should. He has used Twitter as a way to communicate to the public and thus as the President, he needs to take the criticism along with the rest. I know this may come as a shocker for some who know I am a Trump supporter. But in this case, I think he is wrong for blocking people on Twitter. As Thomas Jefferson once said, " While we may disagree with each other at times, I will defend to my death, you're right to. " Or something along those lines.

[Chrysia]

I'll bet you real money that, if this case ever actually reaches a courtroom, it will get thrown out by the judge for exactly the reasons I've said.

There is precedent for private accounts becoming public record when used for public announcements and official statements related to public officials' business.

Dont matter though.

It actually does, because if the only way to access official statements by the PotUS is to violate Twitter's ToU and risk a permanent ban of all your accounts, then he's limiting your access to his official statements.

- - - Updated - - -

Legally I think he can. But I do not think he should. He has used Twitter as a way to communicate to the public and thus as the President, he needs to take the criticism along with the rest. I know this may come as a shocker for some who know I am a Trump supporter. But in this case, I think he is wrong for blocking people on Twitter. As Thomas Jefferson once said, " While we may disagree with each other at times, I will defend to my death, you're right to. " Or something along those lines.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall, summarizing the beliefs of Voltaire in regards to Free Speech, and it's "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

There is precedent for private accounts becoming public record when used for public announcements and official statements related to public officials' business.


It actually does, because if the only way to access official statements by the PotUS is to violate Twitter's ToU and risk a permanent ban of all your accounts, then he's limiting your access to his official statements.

Except they can still access the POTUS twitter which has the actual official communications.

[Soeroah]

Sounds fine to me. He's using his personal account as an official presidential communication channel, so it ought to be treated like any other presidential channel.

- - - Updated - - -

I thought the first amendment didn't apply because Twitter is a private website

The argument seems to be that since he's using it as his main platform to announce policy and they are official White House statements according to Spicer, the constitution should override the fact Twitter is a private website.

[pathora44]

Seems pretty convenient.

Not really because by Trump and his White House staff's own words his twitter account is an official presidential communication. An official presidential communication to the public can not be blocked to the public. He is an elected official and he can't be blocking his public words to the people.

[Eldar45]

Trump can block whoever he wants on Twitter because its freaking Twitter. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

A violation of the first amendment would be the government forcefully silencing people or to force news agencies to only report what the government wants.

This literally does neither.