President Donald Trump cannot block Twitter users for the political views they have expressed, a federal judge in Manhattan ruled on Wednesday.

Blocking users from viewing his Twitter account — a feature offered by the social media platform — is unconstitutional and a violation of the First Amendment, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald wrote in her ruling.

"While we must recognize, and are sensitive to, the President's personal First Amendment rights, he cannot exercise those rights in a way that infringes the corresponding First Amendment rights of those who have criticized him," Buchwald wrote.

The government had argued that blocked individuals could still access the president's tweets. The judge agreed, but she said the impact of preventing them from interacting directly with Trump's tweets represented a "real, albeit narrow, slice of speech."

The case had been brought by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.

They argued that the @realDonaldTrump Twitter account is a "public forum" under the First Amendment.

The institute represented seven individuals who had been blocked by account.

There was no immediate response from the White House to the ruling.

Update:
President Donald Trump has unblocked the seven plaintiffs who sued him and members of his administration for blocking them on Twitter, but the president plans to appeal last month's ruling by a federal judge who said that Trump is in violation of the Constitution when he blocks Twitter users.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COURTESY OF https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-cant-block-users-on-twitter-federal-judge-rules/ar-AAxHvaP?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=mailsignout

 

Last edited by a moderator: Jun 7, 2018

I'm not sure who to feel sorry for in all this. Maybe the guys that so desperately wanna read what Donald Trump has to say?

 

It's not like the prior President had no access to social media. Anyone wants to post psychobabble like "Covfefe" and then turn it around to say it is a secret code in order to stop looking like a moron, then they get the flak they deserve not matter what their station is. The only difference is no other leader does this on twitter, whereas a sensible human being in a post that governs one of the largest countries in the free world, would issue restraint on social media instead of turning themselves into a global laughing stock.
he made his bed, he needs to learn to lay in it.

 

@Herr Durr and @BaSsDuDe The judge ruled exactly as expected. Last year, a federal judge in Virginia ruled against a Virginia public official, saying she violated the First Amendment rights of a constituent who she blocked on Facebook.
President Trump’s Twitter account, @realDonaldTrump, has become an important source of news and information about the government, and an important public forum for speech by, to, and about the President. His advisors have stated that tweets from @realDonaldTrump are "official statements" and they have been treated as such by politicians, world leaders, and federal courts. In sum, President Trump presents the account to the public as one that he operates in his official capacity rather than his personal one. The President's @realDonaldTrump account, therefore, is a public forum under the First Amendment. Blocking those dissenters violates the First Amendment right of the dissenters and deprives other users of their right to read the speech of the dissenters who have been blocked.

 

For those who want to read it, here is a copy of the judge's order. (it is 75 pages long)

 

You need to understand that he is a public official. The President. As I explained, and as everyone is well aware of, he has been using that account in his official capacity. His own advisors have explicitly stated that his statements on Twitter are "official statements". There was no need for that account to be set up "in any official capacity" as you said. The content , which Trump writes, makes it a a public forum under well settled law here in the United States. Read the opinion and you will understand what led the judge to reach her decision.
I am attaching an interesting law review article on the First Amendment's Public Forum.

Edit: BTW I forgot to mention that the Twitter page associated with the account is registered to Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States of America, Washington, D.C. The judge took note of that in her decision at pg 9.

 

Last edited by a moderator: May 24, 2018

I agree with her decision which was correct as a matter of law and fact.

No one needs to understand anything they do not wish to or do not want to. That is an individual choice. It is your choice. I was simply, replying to what you wrote while quoting me.

Crap? They have a right to disagree with the President. That is exactly what this case was all about. Had they agreed with what he said, there would not have been this case.
A reference to where she ordered Twitter.. ? It is in the opinion at pgs 73-74.

[W]e conclude that injunctive relief may be awarded in this case -- at minimum, against Scavino -- we decline to do so at this time because declaratory relief is likely to achieve the same purpose. The Supreme Court has directed that we should “assume it is substantially likely that the President and other executive . . . officials would abide by an authoritative interpretation of [a] . . . constitutional provision,” Franklin, 505 U.S. at 803 (plurality opinion); see Utah v. Evans, 536 U.S. at 464 (citing Franklin, 505 U.S. at 803 (plurality opinion)); see also Allco Fin. Ltd. v. Klee, 861 F.3d 82, 96 (2d Cir. 2017); Made in the USA, 242 F.3d at 1310; Swan, 100 F.3d at 980; L.A. Cty. BarAss’n v. Eu, 979 F.2d 697, 701 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Were this court to issue the requested declaration, we must assume that it is substantially likely that [government officials] . . . would abide by our authoritative determination.”), and there is simply no reason to depart from this assumption at this time. Declaratory judgment is appropriate under the factors that the Second Circuit directs us to consider, see Dow Jones & Co. v. Harrods Ltd., 346 F.3d 357, 359-60 (2d Cir. 2003), and a declaration will therefore issue: the blocking of the individual plaintiffs from the @realDonaldTrump account because of their expressed political views violates the First Amendment. (emphasis added) Id.

Edit after your edit: "Starbucks and druggies and ...? What the ...? " You are all over the place, from Trump to Starbucks. I do not drink coffee and hate business law so I am taking the fifth on this one.

 

Last edited by a moderator: May 24, 2018

And yet Twitter was banning users at one point for not having "correct" political opinions. Aside from that, these activist judges who are appointed for life need to hang.

 

Seems like an impeccable decision in terms of law.

 

as much as i can't stand Trump, IMO the problem with the ruling is he doesn't use the official @POTUS account to tweet (which belongs to the gov't); he's using his personal twitter. lines are very blurry on this one.

 

Last edited: May 24, 2018

As applied to the facts of this case.

 

First of all why this guy keeps on using Twitter as a president is beyond me.

Next, the way he uses it (like a teenager with issues) is a real shame and disgrace.

 

President Trump decided, as he told British press in January 2017, that he intended to keep his named Twitter handle, @theRealDonaldTrump, because it garnered more followers than the @POTUS handle at the time.https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/e621220e-dbc2-11e6- a7b1-3a60b507a068.

And there is nothing blurry here. In analogous contexts, courts have found officials to be conducting governmental business despite their use of personal accounts on private third-party communications services.

 

Regardless of the name of the account, the problem is how he uses it, and in this case the use of Trump (the citizen) account as potus account has been made clear even by Trump own advisors.
Indeed if he wanted this account to be treated like a "private citizen" account and not a public forum one, than as @mrpsanter suggests it he should have been more carefull with the contents and comments on his account. You can't have it both ways, not in his elected position.

 

As @BaSsDuDe said "he made his bed, he needs to learn to lay in it".

 

@Herr Durr for me to continue to answer your questions is an exercise in futility. In your own words, you don't need to understand the logic and reasoning that led to the judge's decisions. All the questions you have been asking have an answer in her 75 page order; from the facts to the law. By the way, her decision is not the first one of its kind under similar sets of facts. Don't take my word for it , use LexisNexis. Do not attempt to use "Lexus Nexus" for any legal research. Those Japanese cars and VST's are not good for it.

 

@Herr Durr I look at he law objectively. I do not let politics sway me one way or the other. I examine the specific facts and apply precedents. Bottom line is this; you can change the law, but not the facts. And since the law arises from the facts( not the other way) there was no other reasonable decision to be made. This is a lesson to all public officials and a hard one to swallow for his advisors. You are correct about Lexus Nexus having a much nicer ring to it. Well, it was not a "bad" night after all: we agreed on one thing.

 

Last edited by a moderator: May 24, 2018

You are taking that statement totally out of context. I posted this case here just like I posted the one about the monkey suing the photographer. Both interesting and trivial decisions. Good for debate. Excellent as a mental break from Deep House productions. As of late, the majority of my threads deal with Spectrasonics and legal issues.

 

Hamlet, Hamlet. This is what I call creativity. BTW, I love your avatar!

 

Last edited: May 24, 2018

Don't even think about stopping those threads! Those are priceless. You should create one on the de minimis doctrine you were discussing the other day on my thread.