Blocked Twitter Users Suing Trump

[Osmeric]

It's a private social media platform, you can't get around that. People keep trying to defend this like Twitter is a public service.

You keep repeating this without understanding it's irrelevant. Yes, twitter is a private platform. No, this does not mean the President can ignore the constitution when he uses it.

He's making a post on social media, not trying to get feedback on official pronouncements.

If he's getting feedback, he cannot arbitrarily restrict who gives it to him without being in violation of the constitution. If he is making official statements, these cannot be restricted.

[Post]

You keep repeating this without understanding it's irrelevant. Yes, twitter is a private platform. No, this does not mean the President can ignore the constitution when he uses it.

You keep ignoring that blocking people on a social media platform does not violate the constitution, no matter how much you hate Trump.

If he's getting feedback, he cannot arbitrarily restrict who gives it to him without being in violation of the constitution. If he is making official statements, these cannot be restricted.

They aren't restricted any more than getting thrown out of an event by security if you're yelling at him about grabbing pussy or some dumb shit.

[Osmeric]

You keep ignoring that blocking people on a social media platform does not violate the constitution, no matter how much you hate Trump.

I'm ignoring that statement of yours because it appears to be wrong, for reason I have already explained.

They aren't restricted any more than getting thrown out of an event by security if you're yelling at him about grabbing pussy or some dumb shit.

If a person posting to Trump is violating some norm of the platform, then Twitter can ban them. The president himself banning them? Almost certainly not. The restrictions on government actions against speech are severe.

[Mistame]

Its like this. If the WH decides to rent out a private venue to host a public forum it must still abide by the Constitution when it comes to rights of people attending the forum.

The government absolutely has to abide by the Constitution. But the First Amendment does not apply to private property. A "public forum" hosted on private property would not be a public forum. At best it would be a closed/limited, private forum. The literal meaning of "public forum" is "public property designated for discussion". That's how the term "public" applies to "public forum". It does not mean "open to the public" in that context.

What needs to happen is for the issue to go to SCOTUS because there are no real precedents for public accounts on private platforms, something that will be a norm in the future unless the fed makes its own "twitter".

What needs to happen is government officials use official websites to post updates rather than social networks designed to let idiots post stupid shit.

No, this would violate the last part of the first amendment.

No, it wouldn't. The First Amendment does not apply to a privately-owned service. Ever.

That's not how the logic of constitutional law works, for reasons that have already been explained in this thread.

The logic of the relevant portion of the First Amendment is that the "public" in "public forum" refers to public property designated for the purpose. Private property (including websites/servers) cannot be a true public forum.

Constitutional rights are inviolable in all circumstances.

The First Amendment applies only to government. You do not have First Amendment rights on a privately-owned website or server.

You keep repeating this without understanding it's irrelevant. Yes, twitter is a private platform. No, this does not mean the President can ignore the constitution when he uses it.

It's actually the most relevant part of the argument. The proprietors of a private website make the rules, not the Constitution. If their policy is to allow users to block other users or delete comments, those policies apply to all users, regardless of who they are.

If he's getting feedback, he cannot arbitrarily restrict who gives it to him without being in violation of the constitution. If he is making official statements, these cannot be restricted.

If the platform is privately owned and their policies allow restriction, he absolutely can. Again, the proprietors reserve the sole right to determine what does or does not apply. Not government, not SCOTUS and not the Constitution.

[Post]

I'm ignoring that statement of yours because it appears to be wrong, for reason I have already explained.

You said "no" and gave a retarded example that didn't work.

If a person posting to Trump is violating some norm of the platform, then Twitter can ban them. The president himself banning them? Almost certainly not. The restrictions on government actions against speech are severe.

Private platform, they allow users to block people, he can block people. There's no getting past that, at this point there isn't even any new information we can relay back and forth.

[Osmeric]

The government absolutely has to abide by the Constitution. But the First Amendment does not apply to private property. A "public forum" hosted on private property would not be a public forum. At best it would be a closed/limited, private forum. The literal meaning of "public forum" is "public property designated for discussion". That's how the term "public" applies to "public forum". It does not mean "open to the public" in that context.

It applies to the President's conduct on private property, if that conduct is part of his public duties. And in this case, it arguably is.

What needs to happen is government officials use official websites to post updates rather than social networks designed to let idiots post stupid shit.

Well, yes. But if they use twitter the hammer of constitutional law is ready to strike.

No, it wouldn't. The First Amendment does not apply to a privately-owned service. Ever.

It applies to the government's conduct on those services.

Let's consider an example. Suppose, for example, the government refused to accept any phone calls from black people. Would you say this is ok, that the petitioning clause of the first amendment does not apply, because the phone system is privately owned?

The logic of the relevant portion of the First Amendment is that the "public" in "public forum" refers to public property designated for the purpose. Private property (including websites/servers) cannot be a true public forum.

See above.

(the rest of your misconceived bullshit deleted)

[Slicer299]

Some twitter users are saying President Trump violated the First Amendment by blocking them on Twitter. It's interesting, because Sean Spicer said the President's tweets are official statements.

Do you think this law suit has any merit, or just more energy being wasting hating on Trump?

The issue here is the 1st Amendment does not exist on Twitter. It is a private platform that is in no way subject to the protections of the Constitution. Even if it was, and again it's not, one user blocking another, even the President of the United States, in no way violates the free speech protections of the blocked users. Those users are still free to use the platform and post/say what they want. Their speech is not being violated in any way.

The 1st Amendment does not give anyone the right to have direct access to say whatever they want directly to another individual, even if that individual is the President. The 1st Amendment protects public speech. Those people can still go and say whatever they want about Trump via their own Tweets. The Constitution and the law doesn't grant them unrestricted access to Tweet those comments directly to the President's account.

Obama blocked people on Twitter, and liberals never saw it as a 1st Amendment issue. So they can't all of sudden claim it is one when Trump does it.

It applies to the President's conduct on private property, if that conduct is part of his public duties. And in this case, it arguably is.



Well, yes. But if they use twitter the hammer of constitutional law is ready to strike.



It applies to the government's conduct on those services.

Let's consider an example. Suppose, for example, the government refused to accept any phone calls from black people. Would you say this is ok, that the petitioning clause of the first amendment does not apply, because the phone system is privately owned?



See above.

(the rest of your misconceived bullshit deleted)

You have no clue how the law and the Constitution work. The President's comments on Twitter, even if they are official government statements on a private platform, only affect his 1st Amendment speech rights. The 1st Amendment does not cover you or anyone else having direct personal access to statements made by the President or any other government official. The 1st Amendment covers what you say publicly about those people, and gives you a right to say what you want about them. Minus things like threats of course. But it does not cover you having direct access to what THEY say.

What THEY say is shielded by the 1st Amendment, meaning no one else has any claim to it. Saying you have a right to direct access to the things the President says is like saying you have a right to be in the room with him 24x7 every time he speaks as President of the United States. The 1st Amendment, and nothing else under the Constitution, gives you that right. You do not have to follow the President on Twitter to see what he posts. Anyone who views his Twitter profile while not logged into a profile of their own will see his Tweets.

Blocking users just secures his rights to protect himself from having whatever nasty shit those people want to say about him be sent directly to his personal account. Those people are still free to post what they want about the President publicly, but they have no right to ensure it is sent directly to his personal account. They can continue to make their public statements, which is all the 1st Amendment allows them to do.

[Mistame]

It applies to the President's conduct on private property, if that conduct is part of his public duties. And in this case, it arguably is.

The "public forum" aspect of the First Amendment applies only to public forums. Privately-owned social media platforms are not public forums. You don't have the right to just walk up to the POTUS and start asking him questions and then sue him if has has his goons escort you away. That's simply not how that works.

Well, yes. But if they use twitter the hammer of constitutional law is ready to strike.

I mean, it may swing but it'll likely miss.

It applies to the government's conduct on those services.

Your First Amendment rights cannot be violated on a private service because... wait for it... you don't have any. Regardless of what political shit heel is posting.

Let's consider an example. Suppose, for example, the government refused to accept any phone calls from black people. Would you say this is ok, that the petitioning clause of the first amendment does not apply, because the phone system is privately owned?

That's a pretty hyperbolic straw dude you've built yourself. Here's a better one: You're in a restaurant where the POTUS is having lunch. You start asking him questions and you get escorted out by the Secret Service. Guess what: It's not a violation of your First Amendment rights. Why? That restaurant is not a public forum.

[Elim Garak]

Oh lefties just get back to the Russian witch hunt, you have more chances there.

[Deleted]

Oh lefties just get back to the Russian witch hunt, you have more chances there.

What a constructive posting. And no stereotypes at all this time.

[/sarcasm]

While i am sure Putin deserves a larger focus, it doesnt seem this thread is the right place for it.

[Slicer299]

What other people say about his tweets is very different than what his tweets say.

That's not to say much - His tweets don't say much of use. But that said, I'd say this has some merit in that he is effectively using the account as the POTUS account instead. If he wants to make official announcements on the POTUS account instead, he'd have every right to do whatever he wants with his personal handle, but so long as his personal handle remains his primary means of communicating with the outside world, blocking people who he disagrees with is directly putting a wedge between the information important to them as citizens of the US and themselves which would be unconstitutional.

The simple solution would be to make important announcements on the POTUS twitter.

- - - Updated - - -



Obama made his personal account his personal account, and made any and all statements related to his employment as President on the POTUS account - Where he was much more active during his time as president. Who he blocks on his personal account has no bearing.

Twitter is a private platform, but a PUBLIC forum. You don't even need an account to view most tweets. (Although it doesn't take much more than a few brain cells to set posts to private.) If official statements are coming from the White House on a public forum (All of the above of which has been confirmed by Spicer) they MUST be accessible to everyone or it is a breach of the constitution. (Freedom of the Press, which is covered in the first amendment - Prevents the government from "interfering with the distribution of information and opinions" which is not so hard a sell in this case.)

This has nothing to do with free speech, and all to do with freedom of the press. But again, the simple solution would be to move official statements to the POTUS twitter handle.

Wrong on both counts, and I'll cover the second count first. Yes, Obama did in fact block people from the official POTUS Twitter account, not just his own personal account. So you're argument is completely destroyed there. Or I should say someone with access to the official POTUS Twitter account banned people when it was under control of the Obama administration. It can't be proven that Obama himself was issuing the blocks, and I'll even go as far as to admit he probably wasn't.

But the fact remains the same, that the official Twitter account of the President, whether it be POTUS or another name, was blocking people under the Obama administration, and never once did liberals cry that it was a 1st Amendment issue. Just the opposite, they defended the blocks when non liberals complained about the blocks. But those non liberals never filed a bogus 1st Amendment lawsuit over the issue because they were smart enough to know the 1st Amendment has no bearing in the case.

@CloydRivers was one such person that was blocked from following the official @Potus Twitter account under Obama. It was the screenshot of his ban that some 13 year old copied when he tried to lie and claim he was banned too. The kid wasn't actually banned, but @CloydRivers was. So if this lawsuit were to succeed, all of a sudden people would have grounds to sue Obama too.

As to your first point, you actually destroy your own argument every time you try to raise the issue that Trump's Twitter account is making official statements. Official statements by the government have nothing to do with the 1st Amendment. And Trump blocking people on his account on a private platform, even if he uses that private platform to make official statements, has no bearing on the 1st Amendment rights of anyone involved. Trump blocking those people does not prevent those people from making their own comments via their own accounts about things Trump says or does in his capacity as President. Those people are still free to say whatever they want, within the law as they can't make threats, and Trump is doing nothing to stop those people from saying those things.

All Trump is doing is cutting off the direct access those people have to say those things directly to him via a private platform, which is NOT covered under the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment only ever covers public statements, and nothing said on Twitter is public as it's made via a private platform. Even if you don't set up any sort of privacy options on your Tweets, you are still making your statements on a closed and private platform where the 1st Amendment never applies.

If this lawsuit were to actually succeed, Twitter would be have to be redefined as a public platform, which would outlaw them from censoring anyone on the platform. Twitter would lose the ability to delete offensive Tweets or ban users who break the rules of the private platform, because it would no longer be private. It would give grounds to people like Milo Yiannopoulos to sue them for violating his 1st Amendment rights since they banned him after he never actually broke the rules they accused him of breaking. There is plenty of shit you can accuse Milo of, but he was never actually guilty of the rule violations Twitter claimed when they banned him.

If the 1st Amendment all of a sudden were to apply to social media, all the rules that liberals love to use to silence opinions they don't like all of sudden get tossed out the window. Twitter, Facebook, and all the rest would go out of business tomorrow because of the mountain of 1st Amendment lawsuits they would face from non liberals that have been punished or silenced on their platforms. Liberals seem to think things like 1st Amendment protections only apply to them and the people they approve of. But then again, they wouldn't be liberals in the first place if they actually knew how the law and reality work.

[Lochton]

Source: http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/11/tech...uit/index.html

Some twitter users are saying President Trump violated the First Amendment by blocking them on Twitter. It's interesting, because Sean Spicer said the President's tweets are official statements.

Do you think this law suit has any merit, or just more energy being wasting hating on Trump?

They are just a bunch of whiners. Sorry but, the function is there for a reason. And their 1st amendment isn't broken by being ignored on Twitter.

[Seranthor]

Seeing as the rest is just useless drivel, let's just keep this part and go with it.

Yes, it is covered under the first amendment. Context is important here, so try to stay with me.

Trump has already made official statements live from his personal twitter account. Official statements can only come from official sources, so even if it is a private company that owns the website where the statement is made, that is an official source of information. (Hence why Spicer confirming that he is indeed making the statements as official is important - If he didn't, there'd be no reason to think they're official other than "Some liberal said so." The White House has confirmed Trump's personal twitter account is being used to make official statements, meaning his personal twitter account is an official source of information.)

If official statements are then being withheld from it's citizens, that is in direct violation of the first amendment, which exists to prevent the government from "interfering with the distribution of information and opinions." Withholding information from it's citizens is by and large EXACTLY that - Interfering with the distribution of information.

It's pretty black and white. And before you go calling me a libtard, if Obama blocked people on the official POTUS twitter, they'd have had the exact same right to go after him. If they didn't, that's their own issue - Although the only thing I can find on it is http://calconservatives.com/fact-che...ic-on-twitter/ which clearly seems to say it was completely fake and makes no mention of the original screengrab. If you'd like to provide a source on that, feel free.

So let me ask, as someone that doesn't have a Twitter account, does this mean I cant see the President's statements? Does this mean those statements are being withheld from me?

[Halicia]

It's actually the most relevant part of the argument. The proprietors of a private website make the rules, not the Constitution. If their policy is to allow users to block other users or delete comments, those policies apply to all users, regardless of who they are.

If the platform is privately owned and their policies allow restriction, he absolutely can. Again, the proprietors reserve the sole right to determine what does or does not apply. Not government, not SCOTUS and not the Constitution.

He can't pick and choose his policies though. Let's say a certain town posts its public notices via a local newspaper. That doesn't give the town the right to say "Hey, we like this editorial column, but not that one. Don't print that one in the same paper as us."

The obvious out here would be to simply block comments and discussions entirely, and use his "official twitter account" as a way to relay information, and not as a medium of public discussion. The minute he decided he wanted to have an open and official government forum, it stopped being "personal".

If twitter were to ban certain users, or delete comments, that's another discussion entirely... but that isn't whats happening here... what's happening is the president doesn't like what some people are saying, so he's silencing them.

[Slicer299]

Seeing as the rest is just useless drivel, let's just keep this part and go with it.

Yes, it is covered under the first amendment. Context is important here, so try to stay with me.

Trump has already made official statements live from his personal twitter account. Official statements can only come from official sources, so even if it is a private company that owns the website where the statement is made, that is an official source of information. (Hence why Spicer confirming that he is indeed making the statements as official is important - If he didn't, there'd be no reason to think they're official other than "Some liberal said so." The White House has confirmed Trump's personal twitter account is being used to make official statements, meaning his personal twitter account is an official source of information.)

If official statements are then being withheld from it's citizens, that is in direct violation of the first amendment, which exists to prevent the government from "interfering with the distribution of information and opinions." Withholding information from it's citizens is by and large EXACTLY that - Interfering with the distribution of information.

It's pretty black and white. And before you go calling me a libtard, if Obama blocked people on the official POTUS twitter, they'd have had the exact same right to go after him. If they didn't, that's their own issue - Although the only thing I can find on it is http://calconservatives.com/fact-che...ic-on-twitter/ which clearly seems to say it was completely fake and makes no mention of the original screengrab. If you'd like to provide a source on that, feel free.

Again I repeat my statement from earlier that you do not have any idea how the law or the Constitution work. The 1st Amendment covers government censorship of PUBLIC statements made within the law, as in no direct threats or incitement of violence. That's it. Trump blocking someone on a PRIVATE non public platform from being able to tag him in their posts, which would force him to see said posts, is not a violation of their rights. Those people are still free to say whatever they want about Trump, within the law and within the rules of Twitter, on the PRIVATE Twitter platform.

What type of statements, official or unofficial, Trump makes via Twitter is irrelavent because all of those blocked people can still see every post Trump makes simply by viewing Trump's profile from a device that is not logged into their blocked Twitter account. And even if they didn't have that option, being able to see what Trump says is not protected under the 1st Amendment.

Oh, feel free to address the Obama POTUS account blocking people at any time. I'd like to hear how that didn't violate anyone's rights yet it is when Trump does it. I always enjoy watching some pretzel logic.

[Antipathy1018]

1) Official statements MUST be accessable to all or they are withholding information - That is kind of the definition of withholding information you know, not giving it to people. If anything, it's even MORE of a problem that official statements are being made on a private platform, but so long as they are made public there is no issue.

2) Being able to see what Trump says is directly related to withholding information from citizens.

3) Once again, provide a source for the Obama-run POTUS account blocking people. As when I attempted to research it I found nothing supporting your claim.

- - - Updated - - -



CHOOSING not to provide yourself with information and having information withheld are two very different things. I don't watch the news, but that doesn't mean the news is not provided.

That said, if Fox decided it wasn't going to run it's show at anyone's house who was on the liberal side of the spectrum, that is withholding news unlawfully even if there are other sources to get the news from.

You do realize that no information is being withheld right? As someone that does not have a Twitter account, I can personally verify that you can at anytime see what anyone, including Trump, is tweeting. The only exception to this is if an account goes "Protected" then no one can see it without 1) a twitter account, and 2) getting approval from the account you are trying to view.

So unless Trump sets his account to protected then anyone and everyone can see what he tweets just by logging out of their account and then bringing up the Trump feed. I hate social media for the most part but still like to see updates when an article from ANN or such gets posted, so I have just bookmarked the twitter feeds I would like updates from and check them every so often, all without a Twitter account.

[Seranthor]

That said, if Fox decided it wasn't going to run it's show at anyone's house who was on the liberal side of the spectrum, that is withholding news unlawfully even if there are other sources to get the news from.

Are you certain you meant to say this?

[Teebone]

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.

Oh my god, to be a fly on the wall when that tantrum hits! NUKE EVERYONE!!

Yeah... fun...

[Mistame]

He can't pick and choose his policies though. Let's say a certain town posts its public notices via a local newspaper. That doesn't give the town the right to say "Hey, we like this editorial column, but not that one. Don't print that one in the same paper as us."

This isn't a valid analogy, as he's not preventing anyone from posting on Twitter. He's preventing them from posting on his Twitter feed.

The obvious out here would be to simply block comments and discussions entirely, and use his "official twitter account" as a way to relay information, and not as a medium of public discussion. The minute he decided he wanted to have an open and official government forum, it stopped being "personal".

I agree that comments should be disabled completely. However, at no point has it become a public forum, which is a very specific platform and is required for the relevant portion of the First Amendment.

If twitter were to ban certain users, or delete comments, that's another discussion entirely... but that isn't whats happening here... what's happening is the president doesn't like what some people are saying, so he's silencing them.

Preventing someone from reading/commenting on a single (private) feed/page/post of a private platform is not "silencing" them. They're still able to post elsewhere on the platform. Not to mention that there are hundreds of other ways to provide feedback.

1) Official statements MUST be accessable to all or they are withholding information

Official statements are by definition, public statements. Thus, your point is redundant. Public statements have nothing to do with the First Amendment.

2) Being able to see what Trump says is directly related to withholding information from citizens.

No, it's not. If he makes an official (public) statement, the onus is on individuals to obtain it. Ie, if the statement is made in the newspaper, that doesn't make the newspaper free. You still have to buy it. If it's made on television, it's not your Constitutional right to have access to a television.

That said, if Fox decided it wasn't going to run it's show at anyone's house who was on the liberal side of the spectrum, that is withholding news unlawfully even if there are other sources to get the news from.

Um, you don't have a right to news. The First Amendment is protection from government only. You might get away with a class-action law suit for discrimination, but you've no right to any information they have.

Either Twitter is a public forum which anyone can access at any time (in which case, blocking constituents is still an issue), or Twitter is a private company which withholds it's right to allow the President to withhold information. It can't be both, and one way or another it's a problem.

I'll try to explain this again. A public forum (open to everyone) is, by definition, a designated publicly-owned space in which open discussion is permitted. This covers things like sidewalks, etc, for peaceful protesting, etc and specific public spaces designated as forums. If the space is privately-owned, it is not a public forum. Now, the relevant portion of the First Amendment that says that you have the right to voice your concerns, etc, to government via a public forum only applies to a public forum. You do not have the right to say whatever you want, whenever you want to officials. You do not have the right to go up to the POTUS in a restaurant and ask him questions. That is not a public forum. If government prevents you from posting on Twitter altogether, that is a violation of your First Amendment rights. If they block/delete your comments on a specific feed/page/post, that is not a violation of your First Amendment rights. Everyone, including the POTUS, has the right to moderate their own feeds/posts, if the platform allows it.

[Naxere]

If the argument is that Trump shouldn't block anyone on Twitter because he makes government statements on that account, then I would argue the same could be said of any public official who has a Twitter account.

That said, even blocked they can still view his tweets via Twitter when not signed into their own accounts.