Blocked Twitter Users Suing Trump

[Mistame]

Actually, the account of Donald Trump on Twitter is public property as it is a official media outlet of the Government of the United States of america, in special the POTUS. Based on that the twitter account of Donald Trump actually is publically owned, and based on that it is desginated for public discussions.

Wrong. Every account and every bit of data belongs to Twitter. A private platform is not a public forum. Period.

More likely you won't be able to even just casually walk into that restaurant.

Fair point. Nonetheless.

[Deleted]

Wrong. Every account and every bit of data belongs to Twitter. A private platform is not a public forum. Period.

No, sorry. The account is owned by the government, and therefore public property. You want to pretend that a discussion forum isnt public only because the house is privately owned where it is hosted, while the government rented it. The discussion forum in this case isnt twitter, but the account Trump uses as official media outlet.

[Slant]

Blocking people does not prevent you from seeing tweets, only if the profile is set to private.

This whole thing is a joke and just more senseless whining. Then again, 99,999% of Twitter is just that - fucking garbage.

So I understood it correctly and entitled babies are being entitled babies? There's no right to insult the president. Courts will blast this out of the courthouse.

[Mistame]

No, sorry. The account is owned by the government, and therefore public property. You want to pretend that a discussion forum isnt public only because the house is privately owned where it is hosted, while the government rented it. The discussion forum in this case isnt twitter, but the account Trump uses as official media outlet.

First, no, it isn't owned by the government. Twitter owns it. It's in merely use by Donald Trump, who happens to be the POTUS. Secondly, you're confusing "public" (open to the public) with public (owned by the public). The former is not what the First Amendment refers to when it talks about a public forum. The latter is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(legal)

In United States constitutional law, a public forum is a government-owned property that is open to public expression and assembly.

[Deleted]

First, no, it isn't owned by the government. Twitter owns it. It's in merely use by Donald Trump, who happens to be the POTUS. Secondly, you're confusing "public" (open to the public) with public (owned by the public). The former is not what the First Amendment refers to when it talks about a public forum. The latter is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(legal)

Seems you are right. I just think it should change.

Which is unlikely as long Trump uses Twitter being the president.

Probably it needs another precedent as like in Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, which established that a privately owned theater leased by the government may be considered a public forum.

And from my POV, twitter isnt that far from being a theater. With Trump as antagonist in a drama.

[Deleted]

No, you don't.



Yes, they are. But the policies and platform of the service provider take precedence.



They don't have to allow or disallow anything because you don't have a right to free speech on a private platform. Period.



Not relevant.



The difference you're failing to grasp is that the policies of the service provider take precedence. If the company wants to allow anyone to block anyone, they can. No one, regardless of status, can "violate" someone's freedom of speech if that provider does not guarantee it. That's how that actually works.



Irrelevant.



Neither governments nor courts can dictate what is or isn't a "public forum" on private servers. This right is exclusive to the service provider/owner.



Also irrelevant.

As far as those links go, it seems even courts don't understand how the Constitution works. Since we're posting links, though:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/no...rticle/2628332
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...locking-tweets

Twitter is not a "public forum". It's a limited-character "blog". It's his account, not the "people's". He can block, delete, etc, all he wants. He can even disable comments altogether, should he choose. People need to learn how the first amendment and words contained within actually work rather than getting bent out of shape over getting blocked because of something stupid they say on a platform for imbeciles.

Tncs in the USA trump your constitution?

[Mistame]

Seems you are right. I just think it should change.

Which is unlikely as long Trump uses Twitter being the president.

Probably it needs another precedent as like in Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, which established that a privately owned theater leased by the government may be considered a public forum.

And from my POV, twitter isnt that far from being a theater. With Trump as antagonist in a drama.

What needs to happen is either a) a prohibition of public officials using social media for "official" business or b) comments, etc, are required to be disabled on all "official" pages/feeds.

As far as it changing, it really can't. A private platform cannot be forced into acknowledging their platform as a public forum as that would violate their rights. Also, keep in mind that the government is not leasing anything. Trump is using a platform that's free to use by everyone.

Tncs in the USA trump your constitution?

Huh? Not sure what you mean by "TNCs" unless you're referring to trans-national corporations. In any regard, the First Amendment does not apply to a private platform.

[Deleted]

Sorry I meant terms and conditions

[Mistame]

Sorry I meant terms and conditions

Ah. Well, Twitter is a private platform and there is no freedom of speech on a private platform. So it's not exactly trumping Constitutional rights in that regard because there are none.

[Misuteri]

He's been issuing personal statements through #realDonaldTrump and government information or opinions through #POTUS.

He uses both for different reasons, different statements and delineates the purposes of his personal and government Twitter handles.

[jdbond592]

The First Amendment does not apply to private platforms unless the government tries to restrict you from accessing that platform altogether. Being blocked from a Twitter feeder does not qualify, under any context. The right to petition does not guarantee you a platform in which to do it.
.

I don't think you understand. Twitter is a private property. Twitter can remove Trump. Twitter can muzzle Trump. But in this case, twitter is not doing anything and Trump doesn't twitter. Trump is muzzling people on his twitter. Since no one before has used twitter like Trump (threatening foreign leaders on it), it is one of kind case and intends to set a precedent for future.


Unlike your "average" genius lawyers and billionaires and what not on this forum (every last one of them), I don't know much about law so I am not going to pretend whether this lawsuit has any merit. I am merely telling you what is happening. If a court ascertains Trump's twitter still doesn't count as official POTUS platform, there is no case.

[Mistame]

I don't think you understand. Twitter is a private property. Twitter can remove Trump. Twitter can muzzle Trump. But in this case, twitter is not doing anything and Trump doesn't twitter. Trump is muzzling people on his twitter. Since no one before has used twitter like Trump (threatening foreign leaders on it), it is one of kind case and intends to set a precedent for future.

It might, but if they find in favor of the "plaintiffs", it'll be a miscarriage of justice as the relevant portion of the First Amendment only applies to actual public forums. You don't have a right to address a public official any time, any place. That's kind of the point behind the "public forum" part.

[Astalnar]

Just more energy wasted on hating Trump. The lawsuit has no merit, as every single person who Trump blocked still can tweet all they want for the whole world to see. It is Trump who decided he doesn't want to see what they have to say. And that is within his rights.

[Slant]

First, no, it isn't owned by the government. Twitter owns it. It's in merely use by Donald Trump, who happens to be the POTUS. Secondly, you're confusing "public" (open to the public) with public (owned by the public). The former is not what the First Amendment refers to when it talks about a public forum. The latter is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(legal)

Well written post. Good job at explaining it!

[Deleted]

Seems you are right. I just think it should change.

Which is unlikely as long Trump uses Twitter being the president.

Probably it needs another precedent as like in Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, which established that a privately owned theater leased by the government may be considered a public forum.

And from my POV, twitter isnt that far from being a theater. With Trump as antagonist in a drama.

I dont think you would actually want that. It would also mean the "hate speech" you guys want to silence is allowed everywhere. Now that would be fun

[Deleted]

I dont think you would actually want that. It would also mean the "hate speech" you guys want to silence is allowed everywhere. Now that would be fun

Hate speech actually has nothing to do with the discussion we had. I wonder why you think it has?

[Deleted]

Hat speech actually has nothing to do with the discussion we had. I wonder why you think it has?

Well it doesnt but it works both ways.. if you want to force private forums to follow the first amendment, you can pretty much say bye to safe spaces cause they would be completely gone.

[Deleted]

Well it doesnt but it works both ways.. if you want to force private forums to follow the first amendment, you can pretty much say bye to safe spaces cause they would be completely gone.

I didnt want to force private forums to follow the first amandment. I just had the impression that Trumps twitter account was publically owned property. Which isnt true, as Mistame showed.

Beside that forums arent above the law, even if they arent publically owned.

[Baelic]

IMO, only my personal opinion.

If trump wants to block someone on his personal twitter that is perfectly fine, but the official POTUS one should not block anyone. If Trump is truly using these as way to communicate with Americans and not using the traditional media then blocking Americans from reading what he saying seems to go against the POTUS representing all Americans even those who disagrees with him.

That'd be true if it wasn't declared that his Tweets are "official statements"

That is... if you considered his asinine ramblings to be "statements" even half the time.