So what happens next? Probably nothing.
2
This is a silly decision. No public figure can have a private account? The logic breaks down. Twitter is not a public forum.
1
It's not a private account as Trump uses it to broadcast his official views as the president, and not as a private person, to millions of people.
Of course Trump could have a private account. He chooses not to.
9
Quite aside from purely legal issues: Trump's attempts to bar critical tweets was an act of *cowardice*. He dishes it out, but can't take criticism in return. SAD!
15
If DJT is going to use Twitter as his preferred medium to speak to the world, bypassing the media, than this is a valid decision by the judge. Once he made the decision to block out opposing voices to his policies, he violated the 1st amendment. He can't have it both ways.
14
I can see why Trump would be upset. If you take the time to peruse his Twitter or Facebook posts and then read the comments. At least half the comments are highly critical of Trump. If you really want to understand how people feel about this man, read the comments. The comments are NOT fake news. This man is extraordinarily unpopular out there in the real world.
18
WH Press Sec'y on 6/6/17: "The president is president of the United States,so they are considered official statements by the president of the United States."
13
Donald J. Twitter is learning the Constitution on the job. How marvelous!
12
Some here will recall the mistake a landowner made letting people make a new pathway through their property, only to find later that it couldn't be blocked off or built on because it was considered a legal access.
The President made his account part of the national government's communication process. Once a person can consider that account part of the usual news-gathering process, the blocking cannot be personal even to the owner.
the account owner might not even get people blocked for abusive postings given this new status.
8
Considering his obsession with "crowd size" I'm amazed that Trump has blocked anyone.
And just think. When word gets out that Trump has to open up to everyone, including those who despise him, his number of followers will escalate into the stratosphere. Real followers, not just toadies, zombies, and bots.
Of course, he won't find the comments he encounters quite as satisfying, but he's not much of a reader anyway.
6
Trump's followers will report us instead of him blocking us. Twitter employees are going to be very busy. Finally Trump will be creating work for an American company.
1
I had a sneaking suspicion that AT LEAST 3 million U.S. citizens were getting blocked from Trump's TWITter account.
6
The judges ruling was absurd - if the president’s Twitter feed is a public forum, isn't everyone's? So why didn't the Judge ban anyone from blocking their account?
This was clearly a blatant political act by a Judge, that was disguised as a court ruling.
There is a positive side to Trump's tweets - by using a zero cost medium, he is showing that there is no need for money in politics. Of course, that doesn't stop Trump from collecting tons of campaign money.
As to the content of his tweets, that is something for everyone to evaluate by themselves - I certainly hope everyone is evaluating very, very carefully.
13
Uh, sorry no. You're wrong. The president is an elected official conducting business, like firing if you'll remember, as well as policy discussions. If the president is going to engage in this medium then we have the right as the people who elected and support him or who did not elect him and did not support him to engage in that discussion You, on the other hand, are a private citizen and not elected so you can block whom you like.
26
Yes Peter, it is pretty easy to evaluate. Trump is using twitter as a public platform, as a public elected servant for political reasons.
He is censoring that which does not fit into his political agenda for his own political gain.
Do you really think it is alright to censor your fellow Americans from the discussion? Seems kind of Putin like to me.
23
The president has access to the nuclear football 24/7/365. He is never not working, even during his so called "executive time." After he is voted out of office, he can block anyone he wishes to.
10
He promised to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. It would seem that this ruling means he has failed to fulfill his promise. I guess we have to wait to see if he appeals (which I'm sure he will). I don't imagine Congress will use this to move forward with impeachment, but they should.
10
People are welcome to criticize Trump and post what they want on their own Twitter feed or Facebook page. But President Trump or anyone else should be able to control tweets on their Twitter feed.
2
Many of the anti-Trump tweets are way more vile, vicious and mean than anything I have ever heard Trump say. Still he is the leader and you reap what you sow.
1
So is it unconstitutional to block tweets that use expletives, explicit sexual content, etc?
I block a lot of that myself and I see no reason to allow that or force anyone to accept that.
4
What a quaint story, reminds me of the good old days when POTUS represented all citizens, and not just those who (inexplicably) agree with his anti-democracy bent. This bunch of criminals has no intention of complying with a judge appointed by Clinton.
Just beware that democracy more often disappears slowly when we are not paying attention, while the autocrats of the world consolidate power, abetted by the Devon Nunes-like lackeys.
11
I guarantee he will continue to block users, and nothing will be done about it.
4
I blocked Trump because he was so vile.
2
Dear NYT:
A president's personal twitter account ruled a public forum? OK, that may or may not be the correct view from a constitutional perspective. The use of analogic reasoning to a public square is stretching quite thin, here, and may have snapped.
But what does this mean for the tone of all these political twitter discussions, and the ability of an administrator to create a forum free from profanity, threats and hatred? This ruling, if upheld on appeal, will mean that every foul-mouthed troll on the left and right will be camped under the bridge of every public official's (and candidate's?) twitter account, fouling the dialog.
Armies of trolls -- many of them paid provocateurs or robots -- will soon dominate the twittersquare, shouting down more genteel discussions. The heckler's veto will be empowered; rational discussion diminished.
Trump will be vilified yes, but so will Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters, who will be called awful names.
Our public discourse via the internet is already much too rude and hateful.
Sad.
4
I always feels a certain amount of satisfaction when I reply to Trump on Twitter. I usually suggest to him that he resign, although I have written some far stronger wording.
Good that I can continue doing that ...
9
It's okay for the bully president to tweet, insult and vex other people. Nobody else has the right to do the same thing. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
5
Twitter needs to block his ability to block.
13
DT violating the 1st Amendment. What a surprise.
10
The question is, what is going to be done about this by Trump, the Congress, DOJ, Twitter? Is Twitter, by aiding and abetting, indeed facilitating, the unconstitutional activities of Donald Trump putting itself at risk of legal action for which it will have to defend itself? Will the stockholders like to spend their money in this manner? I guess Trump has raised Twitter's profile so much they are willing to spend a little to encourage his behavior. Sad.
2
As of May 24, 2018 @ 12:20 EST, Trump must be blocking other people's comments as there are no comments (tweets) but Trumps!
3
"... Trump must be blocking other people's comments as there are no comments (tweets) but Trumps!"
If you are referring to *replies*, you need to click on the timestamp for a tweet.
Trump's "I hereby demand" tweet has numerous replies:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/998256454590193665
Someone at the WH maybe reading this Comments section of the NYT.
People are expressing their views, commenting and criticizing where it is due. It is our right to do so. What we say, and how it is expressed, is also screened by NYT, before the comments are published.
Since there has been an attempt to bloc people's views on Twitter, will the Comments here be the next to be challenged? We all respect Mr. Trump. He is the POTUS. At the same time, he is also a private citizen, just like everyone else. The problem is that Mr. Trump is using every single resource he has at his disposal, to express himself, and criticize as well. What Mr. Trump must understand is that people have the right to disagree with him, and criticize him as well. Both Mr. Trump, and the people have that right. And, that is because, we all live in an open and democratic society. Also, what makes the difference is that the POTUS and all members of Congress, are elected by the people.
That is what the federal judge has clarified recently.
7
Trumps tactics like "I demand", trying to discredit the judicial branch and blocking free speech is right out of the fascist playbook. The American people need to wake up and recognize Trump and his cronies are trying to kill democracy.
9
So when Mr. Trump does not unblock people, will Twitter suspend his account?
10
This is very good news. Will take some time to implement, but now Trump will have to "put up with" the same sort of negatives everyone who uses social media must. In time, these negative thoughts will wear on him (his ego being universal in size) and I think it will slow down his relentless diatribes.
When one advertises on Google, speaks on Twitter, Facebook, et all, they are talking to the world, giving their opinions or voicing whatever it is they want to voice (see Bill of Rights). However, with that comes responses and opposite opinions, not to mention the crowd that is off its rocker that threatens, spits and screams back, etc.
So now, Trump cannot just listen to those who praise him on each of his attacks, he must listen to those who think he's an idiot, is dangerous or otherwise a threat to democracy. He will have to at least glance at those nasty headlines once in a while, just like everyone else who puts their thoughts out there to the universe to be dissected, threatened, or otherwise disagreed with.
5
ahhh look at all the wonderful things Trump is learning about America.
6
This is ridiculous, this is not a government account, but a personal account, he can block whomever he wants. And if you despise him so much, why follow him anyway?
As has already been pointed out, if I block a troll or stalker they can now go to court to become unblocked. What a travesty and waste of the court system.
3
"... if I block a troll or stalker they can now go to court to become unblocked."
They can "go to court", but this case won't help them unless you are a government official.
5
As mentioned in the article, he has been using his personal account in his official capacity as POTUS, which makes it a de facto official account.
9
Who would go on Twitter to listen to an idiot? There is a reason the word "twit" is in Twitter.... Grow up!
Honestly, paying endless attention to his ramblings, excoriations, and lies, gets to be just a cheap way for news media to fill in their electronic pages. The whole circus of Trumpville is just a HUGE diversion, keeping real news off the front radar screen. Yes folks, I mean it's Huge! Really Huge! (Repeat HUGE while putting your index finger tip to the tip of your thumb on the same hand, and slightly waving that arm/hand in small movements to emphasize each HUGE).
His posse tries hard to imitate his elementary school-bully boy talk, so that they can write simplistic twits seamlessly. It's that embarrassing. Don't follow the guy. Follow what's happening in the Congress.
3
Let's just call it what it is: The Fake White House.
Why hackers haven't taken over Trump's account is perplexing.
11
Maybe not so perplexing - could they make him sound worse?
5
If a tree falls in the woods and nobody's around to hear it does it make a noise?
If a judge rules against Trump and Fox doesn't report it* did it happen?
*Fox News search engine "Trump judge twitter" 0 results found.
9
Judge Reice Buchwald found that the president’s Twitter feed is a public forum, but more importantly a government site. It would be hilarious though if the judge decided all of Twitter due to being a public forum ordered Twitter to remove the block option.
In the end, this is a hollow victory (another nothing sandwich) since the decision has no teeth and any government site or forum has the right to remove anyone acting in bad faith, being disruptive, or a nuisance. If you don't think so, go to your local town hall and tell everyone who walks in the Mayor is a crook, liar, evil, ugly, deplorable, disgusting, etc. and see how far your right to public access goes.
4
"Trump’s Blocking of Twitter Users Is Unconstitutional" What is the punishment?
2
The judge is waiting to see if they will voluntarily comply before issuing an injunction.
2
Does this crazy judge mean that I can't block president Trump from my twitter account?
2
Does Twitter have a policy regarding the consequences of a user violating the constitution? You can get suspended for a lot less.
3
There have got to be hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of people criticizing Trump on Twitter. If he managed to block them, he either has an army of private employees or an army of government employees engaged in the process. I'd like to know who--exactly--was doing the reading and blocking...
3
At first I thought this meant that Trump blocked some from reading what he tweeted, now as I understand they still can do that, but just not tweet back in defiance. As a child I should have sued my mother for every time she told me to button my lip and not give her any sass. Where was the ACLU when I needed them. Being taught to respect ones elders is akin to child abuse, I'm sure to many nowadays anyway. And never mind the fact that there's a very likely chance that what I just wrote here will never be seen either because some organizations operate by their own set of standards as well. So much for theoretical free speech in America, totally relative.
1
Since they are not allowed to view the posts in the first place, I see it more as they were not invited to the forum. The President does not have to invite anyone to his office who wishes to speak, and he can base that decision on just about anything that he likes. It is his office. It isn't reasonably understood as a public square.
1
False equivalence, Aaron. Trump uses his Twitter feed to make public pronouncements, state US policy positions, issue diktats, and even fire staff. That is wholly different from private conversations held behind closed doors in the Oval Office.
11
You are incorrect. This isn’t his private office, it is a public space.
5
When you find fools looking into your home, you pull down the shades. Sadly, this judge is one.
2
There is a simple cause for Trumps behavior:
Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses.
Any high school or college student majoring in philosophy would know this.
This is Trump's coping strategy. He wants to block out those inconvenient truths that make him feel uncomfortable and throw light on the fact that he is a miserable failure.
7
So now if NRA supporters want to inundate Gabrielle Giffords’ Twitter feed with pro-gun comments, she can’t block them? Why exactly? Even if, like Trump, she uses her Twitter feed to put out official statements from her office, where in the constitution does it guarantee the right to Tweet?
Only trolls should be celebrating this decision, because that’s who it empowers.
6
"... she [Giffords] uses her Twitter feed to put out official statements ..."
Giffords resigned from Congress in 2012, so she is not a government official. Therefore the case does not apply to Giffords.
3
Gabrielle Giffords is no longer in office.
2
This is a spurious issue. Trump’s followers report all criticism and then Twitter locks your account with a threat of suspension. A lock means you cannot interact or post on Twitter. This is worse then being blocked by Trump. As usual Trump uses his minions to do his dirty work. Twitter needs to address this. I finally deleted my well established account because I felt this was both harassment and repression. Twitter never responds even though they invite dialogue. There responses are always form letters and never direct responses. Most progressives have experienced this and we all know that Trumpsters whether part of managed accounts, Russians, or worse actively work to suppress all criticism.
3
Dictators prefer one-way communication, and lord knows Trump would like to shut down every voice in the country that isn't his own or in lock-step with whatever his latest whim may be. If Trump is going to continue to use "Twitter" as an instrument of government policy, the American people should be able to respond in real time using the same medium. Maybe it's time for ALL of us to subscribe to @realDonaldTrump, so we can give him a reality check of what the majority of Americans think about his administration.
13
You know, that is actually a very good idea.
3
Twitter-crazed Donald Trump is probably one of the best things that has happened to America. I think many of us were taking our democracy for granted and now we have come to realize just how precious it is and how lucky we are to be living in America and have heard the rallying cry to stop this monster. This situation has also clearly crystalized who in our families and among our friends and coworkers are so easily deceived and are of low intelligence, which is invaluable knowledge going into the future.
10
Another leftist judge squashing personal freedom.
2
Here's a suggestion, folks. All 300 million of us should flood the judge's Twitter, FB, email, and any other accounts we can locate, and see if he still thinks it's unconstitutional to block. Last I heard, Twitter was a PERSONAL social media account.
2
Not when the POTUS uses it to communicate the business of the nation to its citizen.
12
The Trump administration is nothing short of authoritarian and using their power to bully opinion in their favor by controlling the media and what is said in the media. Twitter and every other interactive public media outlet, if used by elected officials in an official capacity, must allow everyone to express their 1st Amendment rights to not be suppressed by the govt. The same can be said about contacting the White House, and every elected official in all levels of govt. Trump uses his Twitter feed to make official proclamations, like firing a Secty of State, for instance.
4
I cannot name anyone quite as paranoid as that person in the White House. The only thing he does well is distracting us from real issues. If you do not agree with him you are banished from his kingdom. Someone should try to explain the amendments to him....but only use language a third grader would comprehend/understand.
5
If Donald J. Trump would like to have a personal Twitter account from which he can exclude whomever he chooses, he is free to create that account. But as long as he uses this Twitter account to make official pronouncements, demand government agencies take certain actions, and fire federal employees, he has made it an official government channel of communication. As such, he cannot cut off individuals from access to that communication.
Indeed, if the President is using a government agency to argue in court for his purported right to deny access to these communications, he has admitted that it is an official government entity.
He can't have it both ways, though, as we have seen, Mr. Trump often mistakenly believes the US laws are bendable to whatever he wants them to be. His lawyers need to advise him of reality of the rule of law. It's the least they should do.
10
Why doesn’t Twitter simply shut down Trumps account due to it containing deeply offensive material.
6
Just wait. Trump will waste more taxpayer money appealing this ruling until it reaches his pet Supreme Court and he gets his way, following his lifelong pattern of using other people's assets to his personal benefit.
2
Didn't Don take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution 17 months ago? I'm pretty sure that includes the 1st Amendment (duh). He seems to have a problem remembering and staying loyal to oaths he's made in the past. A shining example of that would be his current marriage (in name only).
5
Perhaps tRump will someday tweet something so foul twitter will block him permanently. We can only hope.
1
I am far from being a Trump fan but I have to say that I question this ruling. It would be one thing if he made his account private, effectively denying access to all but approved followers. However, as things stand, you don’t need to be a follower of Trump’s or even logged in to Twitter to read his tweets - so, if they’re not logged in, even blocked users can still see everything - which I think satisfies the access to public policy issue. As well, my understanding of the first amendment is that it protects your ability to say whatever you want but it does not guarantee you direct access to whoever you might want to say your piece to. The Twitter users Trump blocks, can still, I think, say whatever they want on their accounts (pursuant to Twitter’s code of conduct), the block just means Trump won’t see their tweets in his feed. Is that not the case?
2
Will that same ruling apply to Twitter blocking conservatives?
1
When they block conservatives, you can complain about it.
Since that hasn't happened, not much point in complaining.
So if I say something stupid like "Obama is the worst President in my memory" you can block it from this public forum? I see little difference. I hope he just ignores this kind of ankle biting from these trolls.
2
Would-be dictators start by controlling the message. Then they label the opposition the enemy.
15
How can the first amendment possibly apply to a private company's platform where there is no right to freedom of speech in the first place?
Twitter is no more a public forum than the comments section in The NY Times. Our comments are moderated for “civility” because it is a private company’s arena. So does this mean the Times can’t censor my comments if I’m responding to a public official's column? Will they be compelled to print my letters to the editor?
I see lots of commenters cheering this decision because they clearly hate the president, but partisan judicial overreach is never cause for celebration - and this judge is going to need a good Chiropractor and a jar of Tiger Balm.
6
The ruling doesn't apply to "a private company's platform." It applies to President Trump's Twitter feed, which is being operated by the Administration as a public forum.
15
By your logic Twitter should have suspended his account long ago as he repeatedly violates their terms of service.
4
He is on a private company's platform, therefore it is not a public forum. Where is the public part? Nobody has the right to free speech on Twitter, it does not exist, and the president blocking someone does not take away their right to speak in public, only their right to comment on his feed. The government has no purview whatsoever, and according to Twitter's rules, those he has blocked have no protection against it.
1
If that isn't a fabulous reason to join Twitter than I don't know what is...
1
What the liberals don't understand from this ruling is that the twitter/soc media platforms are now considered by the courts to be vital, 1st-amendment-protected forums - no longer can conservatives be shadown-banned, suspended or outright banned for conservative speech.
I so, so look forward to the massive lawsuits twitter and FB will be hit with by conservative orgs over this ruling. I hope the WH does not appeal, this will be a blessing for those of us who have been suspended/banned for making benign conservative comments there.
3
What part of "public figure" do you not quite grasp. This is not a ruling about how Twitter operates, and Twitter was not being sued. This is a ruling about how the POTUS operates. Once you become president, you will (presumably) have to abide by this ruling. I'm pretty sure this has no bearing on any one else.
Separately, I suspect that the numerous nearly-identical comments like the one above, seeking to blur this line, are part of a deliberate and concerted effort. I.e., looks like this one has hit a nerve with the Russians.
8
No, that's not what's happened, try reading and understanding the article.
The ruling applies to use of Twitter for government purposes, by government employees.
1
The judge appears to be under the mistaken impression that the US still operates under the rule of law, and that the basic tenets of the Constitution continue to be enforced.
I mean, seriously, a half-billion loan by the Chines to the President, and vital national security prohibitions against a Chinese telecoms manufacturer instantly evaporate. So we've already seen Trump vs. Emoluments Clause, and the Constitution went down without a fight.
Who, exactly, is going to enforce this? DOJ? Not a chance. The Congress? Dream on.
Nice concept, but please, NY Times, don't let this story drop out of sight. When (not if) the President ignores this ruling, please continue to report on it.
15
The scary thing is that we no longer have justice in this country. Judges appointed by Democrats will approve everything the Dems want and those appointed by Republicans will do the same with Republicans. I disagree with the ruling, I find it a scary coup against my rights as a citizen. What is going to be next, we are going to be force to date and then sleep with everyone who wants us or else we infringe on their freedom of speech, because "desire" and "interest in someone" are speech?
3
Virtue signally by a Clinton appointed judge. She didn't issue an order, BECAUSE she can't tell The President want to do.
He should ignore her nonsense. This is the same woman that cruelly mocked Sara Palin's Trig.
She has no shame.
5
Soon there will be indictments!
PROSECUTE RUSSIAGATE!
4
Consider an analogy: I have the right to send a (snail mail, say) letter to the president; the First Amendment guarantees that I cannot be punished for, or prevented from doing this. However, I cannot force the president--or anybody else--to read it. If he wants to toss it in the garbage unopened, so be it. This is often expressed this way: though I have the freedom to speak or write, I cannot FORCE others to provide me with a megaphone, or printing press; I cannot force them to listen to me AT ALL.
How is this case any different than, say, requiring a president to read the New York Times becomes the Times has the right to freedom of the press? (And, yes, the Times is also a public forum as these comments make it so.)
5
That's the wrong analogy, of course. The President has already chosen to establish his Twitter feed as a public forum. He didn't have to, but he did, and now that he's done it he can't shut down individual speakers in that forum based on the content of their speech. If he doesn't want to read someone's messages, he should mute him.
6
This is what's known as a flawed analogy.
2
You are implying that Trump HAS to read responses to his tweets. Just like the Times, even if he has a subscription he doesn't have to read anything at all. Should he be able to block the Times from writing unfavorable articles? Putin can do this - why not Trump?
3
Maybe Trump can't block twitter users, judge says, but who will stop him? Trump and company enjoy poking judges in the eye, and his trolls keep laughing.
4
The ruling is nonsense.
All Twitter users get to use the features of the service. For a judge to state otherwise is absurd.
9-0 USSC ruling overturning this really dumb decision.
5
And I own a sledgehammer made for destroying printing presses. If I give it to Trump, does it that mean that the Administration can go around using it? Obviously not.
1
The President has repeatedly violated Twitter's terms of service. Just like any other user who did this, he should be banned.
2
That is up to Twitter, not a U.S. District Court judge.
Now if Twitter will only allow non-twitter accounts free access to public forums like @realDonaldTrump , then we may have true freedom of information. Right now, non-twitters must rely upon archive services to read the latest obscene and profane comments from our dearest world leader. PPPFFFFTT
3
Ridiculous. I don't like Trump as much as the next, but his Twitter account is not a "public forum". It's his personal account and should be allowed to be handled in any way he chooses. If the courts are going to regulate public officials usage of social media, these officials should have official accounts which can be regulated. But to say this about his personal account is insane. If anything it violates his own freedom of speech, not the other way around. This judge is a moron.
5
Trump is a public figure. He's also an employee of We the People. The judge was correct.
19
If your claim is correct why does the White House need a social media director? I assume it’s a paid position on government payroll, therefore it must be government official business.
I wonder if he’s using a government phone or personal phone?
I might agree if he limited his tweets to personal photos of his kids playing soccer or photos of himself volunteering at a soup kitchen.
6
Keep twittering Mr. President. We the people want to make sure that your idiocy is not a temporary condition.
11
It seems to me that we are breaking new legal grounds with respect to defining Twitter accounts that are used by governments officials. The article does not cite any precedents so it seems to be new legal grounds. The classification of the President Twitter account needed to be done before the judge can issue a ruling as the justification for the ruling. We are all readily accepting the judge construct without questioning or knowing the counter arguments for her construct. Is Twitter really a public forum ? How is it different from a physical public forum where people have been taken out at the discretion of the organizers ? Does the first amendment guarantees that you must voice your opinion in the venue of your choice or that you have the right to voice your opinion but not guaranteed the venue ? If I am not allowed to speak to congress in the House chamber, is my first amendment being infringed ? If the Twitter account is setup so no one can post comments, is that a violation of people’s first amendment ? The judge is setting precedent so just because it works for us now does not mean that it is good as it may not work for us in the future.
2
Too bad there isn't a law enabling us to have his account shut down entirely. He uses it like a Russian propaganda artist.
7
Twitter's own terms of service as written should require them to shut this account down for it's repeated violations. A mass boycott by other users should be mobilized to this end.
Trump is an abomination as a human being and incompetent and dangerous as president. The attempts lately to normalize his presidency by suggesting that other presidents were just as bad or that somehow he’s negotiating our way forward with North Korea are insane and laughable. What he’s done to the Justice Department alone will disgrace his name for eternity. I do not believe a word he says and do not follow him. “Everything Trump touches dies.” Rick Wilson
5
How about trolls that overwhelm his site, can he block them?
3
Its just like a bully to not want to be bullied! What a complete coward!
Glad he lost!
7
What is the difference between the Trump private Twitter account and the Hillary Clinton private e-mail server? Pure hypocrisy!
2
Trump's private Twitter account is public and Clinton's server was private as in hers and also private as in secret and she conduced official business with it.
2
The better question involves the difference between Clinton's unsecure server and Trump's unsecure phone.
1
What? His "private twitter account is public".
1
Does that mean Twitter no longer block conservatives? or anyone else liberals dont like? Had to be a liberal who wrote vile stuff on his feed to sue,cause he blocked him/her. Half his feed is filled with liberal hate.
1
I blocked Donald by not being on Twitter at all — ever (Sorry, Jack Dorsey). Too bad the Chief Twit's lying tweets are broadcast 24/7 as if they are the utterances of Big Brother.
1
don the con can dish it out but he can't take it
typical bully/coward
7
If the man didn't want people to post obscene graphics depicting his behavior or take apart his lies with beautiful logic and data, he should have figured out how to be decent, honest, intelligent. Patriotic would be an improvement too. Just read a wonderful CS Monitor article on the jostling for oil/gas/mineral rights in the rapidly accessible Artic (melted ice floats many boats). Russia as the new Qatar. Donald might want to have someone summarize it for him and just get the heck off Twitter.
4
I hope the Times publishes a more detailed description of the analysis behind the court’s decision. There’s a lot of confusion about the first amendment, particularly where it applies in the grey zone between public forums and private spaces. More explanation might help to better inform the debate on other issues of current interest, like the NFL and kneeling, or campus efforts to suppress offensive speech, to name just two, where the scope and sometimes, the meaning and purpose of the first amendment, are not fully understood.
4
this sounds like a very slippery slope that will have more unintended consequences than can be imagined, like the loss of the freedom of speech.
4
This sounds like hyperbolic projection of the worst kind.
2
"Judge Buchwald had suggested that Mr. Trump has the right to ignore whomever he pleases on Twitter, and that the 'Mute' feature is a constitutional option for doing so."
Wouldn't this be tantamount to permitting the government to permanently and unconditionally infringe on "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"? Trump may have the right to not listen to objectors, but does he have the right to not even hear or see them?
2
he has a Gov Twitter account use that. this his personal one.
3
Everything Trump does is anathema, an abomination on decency and civil society. I cannot think of one single thing he has every done that is praiseworthy. I've been on this planet long enough to say that I have never encountered a human so repugnant and inhumane.
5
I wish a rich liberal would take over Twitter and delete DT’s account.
2
they control it. got in trouble when someone shut it down. funny you liberals cry all the time about free speech, yet have no problem shutting off anyone's who dont agree with you.
2
I wish that we could colelctively block HIM from every type of media source in our country.
3
I was blocked by Trump after I tweeted to him that he needed to comb his hair.
4
So what happens when jeff bezos buys twitter and closes drumpfs account?
How many alarming warning signs do we need that we are dealing with a petty dictator wannabe?
4
Prove it,without using liberal news sources.
2
Trump said on Fox & Friends that NFL players should stand "proudly" for the national anthem or maybe they shouldn't even be in this country. Enforced patriotism and deportation of dissidents are a dictator's stock in trade.
5
Let’s all join the twittersphere, shall we?
2
I had already blocked the President’s Twitter account. I found it to be full of vile, racist rants and abuse to many innocent people. I did not wish to be subjected to such evil and ignorance. Thought it best to rid myself of someone I would never care to spend any time with. You can do the same thing.
2
Actually, Twitter should be obligated to suspend the account for the very reasons you list, which are violations of it's terms of service.
What about Facebook managed "comments" on various websites, like my home town newspaper. Should one offense comment, a "truth that dare not be spoken" or "excess posting" as a writer tends to do be sufficient cause for a lifetime ban on commenting? Aren't Facebook, and Imgur, and all of these other social media sights the modern equivalent of the "town square," and shouldn't the First Amendment apply to these forums as well?
I see a Supreme Court case coming about online forums and free speech. Nobody HAS to read negatively rated comments, just as they can walk away from a Neo-Nazi making a speech in the park.
1
You seem to have missed the part about what differentiates the President's account from those of most everyday users of the service.
1
Our poor Prez! He's so thin-skinned that critical tweets might make him even crazier than he already is.
2
Like all bullies, Trump is a coward. Up until now, he has insulted and demeaned people through Twitter in such a way that people could not insult him back or even defend themselves. Let the reciprocal trolling begin.
4
One more shining example of this man’s authoritarian bent and despicable character, or lack thereof, overall. Sickening and not a little scary. O’ country, my country!
3
Once again Emperor Donald the Dumb has run up against the Constitution. He would certainly like to be dictator of the United States like Buzz Windrip in Sinclair Lewis' It Cant Happen Here, but thank God he hasn't been able to totally pack the courts. There are still a few judges out there who respect the first amendment for ALL, not just for the Alt-Right. Trump's attempts to destroy our nation are sickening.
2
What a bizarre world we are living in
Trump has 52 million followers because over half of those are bought phonies (ones that don't really exist).
1
is Twitter an official USA government entity now? like, www.twitter.gov
3
No, but the President is unquestionably "an official USA government entity."
1
Trump is a degenerate and moral weakling has no respect for the rule of law. He was no respect for the Constitution, laws, and law enforcement and does not hesitate to ignore.
His followers are also moral weaklings who see this contempt for law as a sign of strength. The problem in the country is deeper than one man installed with Russian help (and archaic antidemocratic laws) as president of the United States. However a good start if booting Trump's collaborators and fellow travelers out of office in November.
6
If the President’s Twitter account is an official government site, it should be banned from Twitter completely for posting lies and hateful speech. US government sites should not be spreading political propaganda and misinformation to the public nor the self-serving fantasies of elected officials and government employees.
2
He’s a brittle very thin skinned guy who thinks he’s the best thing since sliced bread. And thats about it. All gut. Another reason so many people have resigned from this white house.
2
People are dying in the schools and this is our attention. This president has brought all of us to a severely debased level. Can't we all get a better grip.
1
He can certainly dish it out but he can’t take it . . .
2
If Obama had used Twitter he would have been hailed by the Times as one who understood new technology and the internet. If you don’t believe me, just go back to the Times in 2008 and read articles, columns, letters that praised his campaign for understanding how to raise money on the internet.
1
Yes because his tweets would have at least been honest and rational. The opposite of this Manchurian candidate.
2
President Obama did and still does have a Twitter account, @BarackObama. Trump has 52.1 million followers, Obama has 102.7 million followers as of today.
2
Trump seems to understand Twitter, but he doesn't understand the Internet, the Web, or electronic mail, and he doesn't use computers, books, or magazines, probably because he has difficulty reading.
1
Trump's careless and obsessive use of "Twitter" to conduct executive branch business—
Should certainly be investigated by the FBI.
1
We want a “public forum” but we want to dictate who can participate. Somehow this does not sound very public to me
Perhaps if he renamed his Twitter site @OnlyGuysWhoAgreeWithTrump the problem would disappear.
1
Time to deport the Twitter company and its ilk to the next Mars trip--where it/they can stay forever. Twitter and Trump are a global blight.
I don't 'do' Twitter. A couple of times during Trump's reign of terror I have gone to his feed. I encourage people to do so. One doesn't understand how unhinged he is until one reads in quick sequence his tweets. Then you get the full picture of a man. And that full picture is frightening beyond belief.
He has 52 million followers? Now that is scary. We're never going to get rid of him. He wants to be a dictator and I'm predicting he will not willingly leave office. If he can get those millions of people to follow him when he is clearly not capable of leading this country, I predict he will never leave.
Sick. He's making this country very, very sick.
4
I have done the same. I haven’t formally “followed” him, I look every now and again to see what rant he’s on. I don’t want his “followers” numbers to falsely show people supporting him. That’s how HE sees it.
2
I think the oft-feared ‘normalising of behaviour’ has no better exemplar than the name-calling, trolling, passive-aggression, inciting, extremism and all round verbal abuse that covers Twitter. So now it’s a legitimate platform of government? Oh dear oh dear. Will government debates soon follow this standard? A President showing a sad cat meme when a terrorist outrage occurs maybe?
Why is the next (seeming to me natural) step, to unblock those Twitter dissenters, not being taken ? They are not alone !!!
How outrageous. The man demands his right to dump lies into the internet tweeting like a bird on steroids with the expectation that everyone will swoon at his every utterance, then turns around and tries to limit who has access to him. Freedom for him, but a muzzle or required ear plugs for everyone who does not vote for him.
3
Good for Judge Buchwald. Much needed sanity. Why is anyone still taking Donald Trump seriously as President. This has really gotten ridiculous -- to the point America is humiliating itself at home and around the world.
2
"Why is anyone still taking Donald Trump seriously as President."
Because not everyone thinks like you and should be free not to.
Don't worry, the freedom of the President's supporters to remain ignorant of reality is assured.
1
The right to petition the government comes from the 1st Amendment.The 1st applies to everyone and for more than petitioning the government. So it stands to reason that this ruling can be applied to anyone blocking anyone else from expressing their speech publicly... including the platform providers themselves.
Are you SURE that the Whitehouse lost this case?
#IBOR
Since the judge is a Clinton appointee, I am not surprised by the ruling.
4
Since the judge understands the rule of law (unlike this President) I am not surprised by the ruling.
1
I am one of those people that President Trump Blocked on Twitter I am guessing because I do not agree with his Points of View and replied as such in a civil manner so I am expecting to get a Tweet in the next 48 hours or say from @realdonaldtrump saying "I am sorry for blocking you please forgive me you are now able to read my Tweets"
It almost makes me want to join Twitter.
1
It a forum for Trump supporters. Period. Hope he keeps the trolls blocked.
2
If he is tweeting decisions that affect OUR country, and he’s changing administration via his twitter account, it is NOT only his supporters that it affects! If our citizens no longer have opinions about issues, we all lose! He’s a bully that expects everyone to bow to him. Nope...not happening in our lifetime!
3
On the contrary, Trump's Twitter feed is the ultimate source for Administration policy announcements. Remember the military transgender ban? Remember the recent demand for an investigation into the FBI investigation of Trump's Russian conspiracy? Those were revealed to the world on Twitter.
So, only his supporters get to engage with Dear Leader? Thanks for illustrating why the rest of the country doesn't trust your political instincts.
1
This President has LESS rights than any other American. I like the option of blocking obnoxious members on various social media sites and I often use it. People have a right to express themselves but there is no right that forces one to listen!
1
"Any other American" would already have been given the boot by Twitter for repeated violations of it's terms of service.
1
Trump's White House also has shut down the WhiteHouse.com web site, which under his watch initially continued the Obama practice of allowing comments to the President, Vice President, First Lady, etc. Can that shutdown also be reversed? Will Mr. Jaffer, the Knight Institute exec, please take up that issue?
1
Funny hearing all these Trump supporters decrying this 'violation' of Trump's first amendment rights, that this was his "private twitter" account, yet these same yahoos go on and on about HRC using her private e-mail for government business...and can't see that the two things are the same.
A government official is not supposed to use private e-mail to do government business, besides security issues, there is also that that e-mail is not monitored or archived and can be used to do things illegal or unethical without being seen (what Trump nation claims about HRC, in fact, she was hiding Benghazi and so forth).
The key thing is the voice that is using the e-mail or other digital platforms, and what it is being used for. Trump is using what had been his personal twitter as a mouthpiece of his role as the president; if he tweeted about the NY Jets, or tweeted about the DC eagles or the lousy weather he could argue that; but he uses his personal twitter account to tweet presidential business, and at that point it is no longer private, and you cannot limit the scope of who can get those tweets.
I am sure Fox News is screaming about this, given their legal analysts got their degrees from Bob Jones university school of law, and boobus americanus is decrying this as "violating Trump's first amendment rights", but when you use something as the President, as that role, the first amendment works the other way.
5
Excellent points! I was wondering about the similarities between HRC’s emails and Trumps tweets also, but wasn’t sure if I was thinking on the right track! Thanks for confirming my rational thoughts!
1
Like the President said, any one who is against him is an ennemy of the Ameican people.
So he should not merely block their account be put them in jail, as well as any and every opponent, just as another President, Erdogan,has done.
And if I may suggest, have them work on tne Wall and once built, which should be soon since millions would be enrolled, expel them, send them over the wall, so that the rest of us, good citizens admirers of Trump may live happily everafter
2
God help us if the President thinks he has enough time to read his critics' tweets, as well as tweet himself. Does he have a bunch of tweet readers in the White House who give him a daily briefing about his Twitter account? The mind boggles.
2
Yes, but we can block him.
I am wondering why the CEO of Twitter has not been offered a job in 45's administration. Twitter is the main reason that he was elected.
I would like to see Twitter delete his account and force him to face the people in press conferences. He only speaks when he is in control of the environment, such as when he speaks at rallies and spectators wear those silly red hats.
2
Plus, he turns everything into a rally! He even turned his meeting about MS13 into one!!
I Gail to see how it is unconstitutional for him to block critics and trolls. they can still see his tweets if they aren't logged in. does this rule go for anyone in power? this is a very shortsighted idea designed to strike at trump. however they have no unwittingly opened the door for future harassment. when the first female president arises just you see what happens if it's unconstitutional for her
If it was his personal twitter account then he would have the right to block anyone he wanted. However he uses the account as a government portal, therefore it is a public forum. He can set it up so he doesn't have to see these comments, which the judge suggested, but by blocking them he bars them from the ability to "speak" as no one can see their answers.
3
If Trump simply stopped tweeting he wouldn't have to block anybody.
4
Great ruling! And by the way, how tiny and weak does a man have to be to need to silence people who criticize him?
6
For those that claim Trump’s Twitter account is personal, remember that he fired Rex Tillerson on Twitter. With that, it was no longer Trump’s personal account as he was doing official White House business through it.
8
He even sent his wife a get well on Twitter! All while spelling her name wrong!! LOL
1
Finally,
I already sent a notice to Rep Keith Ellison to unblock my twitter following.
The judge did rule that no public persona can block twitter followers so I hope it wasn’t naive of me to think that his ruling actually applies to both sides??!
1
Can anything be done to stop Trump's use of Twitter? I am sure Twitter makes money from his rants; but if Twitter has any standards of what is offensive, Trump has violated them.
1
Trump's attempts to stifle is akin to the GOP dominated Congress excluding Democratic Reps or Senators from classified briefings such as an FBI informant regarding the Russian/2016 election investigations. All this and more, as we morph into a banana republic led by our Banana Republican In Chief, losing our strength through joy..
2
It's more relevant you can block replies. You can't completely block tracking the account, because anyone can go on Google and search @realdonaldtrump and see all the recent posts. That's identity-blind because you're not logged on to twitter and can do it with no account.
This ruling is significant in teaching the poseur-in-chief that First Amendment rights will be protected from his reach.I say significant because he has inferred his dislike of News and Media outlets that do not promote his lies and frequently are critical of his antics.He recently threatened to strip certain White House reporters of their credentials, barring them from press conferences, which would severely stilt fair reportage of White House statements to only those "friendly" outlets to him such as Fox or Sinclair.
Keep in mind that he also toyed with the idea of a separate, 4th Security Agency which would investigate private citizens who have expressed unfavorable opinions of him on Social media or opinion forums. This man isn't totally ignorant of our laws but he has enablers and sycophants in our Congress who too frequently turn a blind eye to his attempts to further an authoritarian reign. Make no mistake, this is the most dangerous individual to EVER hold public office.
3
Typical schoolyard bully behavior- DT can dish it out but he can't take it.
Doubtful that he will abide by the judge's ruling. Trump thinks he is above the law and the GOP backs him up at very turn.
Cannot wait until November 2018 and 2020.
4
The ruling actually feels like a violation of Trump’s rights, as crazy as that sounds. If Trump can’t block people from his twitter account then why can he have people forcibly removed from his rallies?
1
The judge could have ordered Twitter to disable the feature during the time in which an account is being used to present the views of a US government official.
Twitter bears a great deal of responsibility for the destruction of journalism, and has the ability to prevent first amendment violations of this kind.
Its nonsense, executive power is enjoined all the time. Separation of powers doesn't prevent the court from enjoining unconstitutional activity. A moral victory surely, but what real effect does it have and a President who really doesn't care about the rule of law when it apply to himself.
1
Interesting. No government official can block someone on Twitter? Does that mean they all have to accept my friend request?
1
I can't help it. Bwahahahahahaha! One of the man's main conduit of (supposedly) one-way communication, from which he can issue potentate-like statements, is to be besmirched by response and reply he does not like? Sheer poetry.
1
Well, I blocked the »realdonaldtrump«. It's easy to do and it feels good.
I’m no legal expert. But, I couldn’t see this going any other way.
2
He clearly uses Twitter as an official communication channel. Blocking people on Twitter would be no different than, say, ejecting a reporter he doesn't favor from a press conference. wait..he did that
3
Trump probably has a real enemies list he keeps under whatever sits atop his head but, if not, being blocked from his Twitter account is akin to this. Those on it, like those on Nixon's list, should feel honored. This vicious and small-minded president is all too aware of the power of free speech and dissent and of course wants to squelch them at every turn. Thanks to the courts, the media, concerned citizens, and groups like the ACLU, freedom of speech and the ability to peacefully protest will ultimately be Trump's undoing.
1
So does that mean that any one of us who blocks somebody due to abuse, bullying or simply because we do not like the person violates the 1st ammenment? Or did Twitter violated it by providing the function in the first place. I thought The 1st ammendment gives the right to free speech but it does not force a person to listen to it.
1
I don't understand why muting twitter users is still OK. That is like putting a gag on the mouth of someone at a town hall meeting.
If you can't take the heat, don't tweet.
1
It's a tough question b/c he has used Twitter in a unique way. He does make what seem like public policy statements on it. Or is it just his personal opinion, like anyone else's? Is it really a public forum, just because he's president, to which there must be equal access? This does not seem analogous to me, say, to putting a rule out for public comment online and blocking those who disagree with it. Or a presidential decree. Twitter is a communication service, and, like the telephone or email, it is hard to see why any person could not determine who they wish to communicate with other than for official statements. I can't agree that all of a president's statements, or those of any gov't official, even if made in public, necessarily create a public forum, though some could. And it can't only apply to Trump.
Are hecklers and trolls now allowed to harass all gov't officials, state and federal on Twitter, though they could be blocked from a private person's account?
This is really about Trump effectively communicating with the public outside of the mainstream media and his adversaries wanting to stop it by "any means possible." The intention is to harass and troll him, in particular, just like the lawsuits regarding the "ban," in which the plaintiff's counsel acknowledged that the same order by Pres. Obama would have been fine. Just reading the comments here, it seems pretty clear, this is just the "resistance" speaking.
2
Yakity yak, but don't talk back.
The applicable words to an old song (1950's) came back to me when I read this article. Trump wants to pontificate with no feed back or back talk.
3
Twitter should have blocked Trump long ago. He is the problem, not his critics.
9
So now Donnie has to "UNBLOCK" all of those who he decided to block but he can still "MUTE" them?
This ruling is a win for citizens but a mere inconvenience for Trump.
Will Twitter go into his account to clean-up his mess or will one of his admins?
I hope when this horribleness is behind us, we all uninstall Twitter and take a long break from Tweeting. It's novelty has long passed.
3
It comes as no surprise that Trump - autocratic and narcissistic - has blocked Twitter users who had criticised him or mocked him online. He only wants to surround himself with gullible supporters and fawning admirers.
Most of all he doesn't want them to read anything that could knock some sense into them, because many of Trump followers don't inform themselves about the political reality other than listening to him and his lackeys in Congress and the right-wing media.
9
A first, small step in curbing Trump's dictatorial tendencies. Crisis not averted, however, for whether he will abide by the rule of law is in serious question.
10
"The true (due) administration of justice is the firmest pillar of good government"
But what are you going to do about Trump as president who undermines the American rule of law and the entire fabric of the American society at large every day again? Not to speak of the dangers he causes for the rest of the world and his criminal acts as businessman and candidate.
4
He's the archetypal bully. Likes to dish out the slander in slabs, but can't take any criticism. In terms of character this President is the bottom of the bucket.
13
I thought the same. A bully that doesn’t like to be bullied. He only THINKS he’s the exception to the rules, although he does seem to get away with a lot of things that no other citizen, president or not, would be prosecuted for. Not the first time he’s ignored the Constitution or the rights of our citizens.
2
Little Lost here, which is not unusual in 21st Century America.
Do you pay to use a Twitter Account ?
If so does Trump pay for his account or does the
Government ?
If Trump does, where is the injustice ?
If the Government does how that is any different
if Trump gives a State Dinner at the White House and
none of us are invited ?
A Tweet is not like the private function of a state dinner.
It's a public announcement, like a television appearance.
Blocking users from his Tweets is like censoring their TV reception of him.
6
You have to try to be found in any Century, but Twitter is free and trump is the government.
2
Which is basically what he has done since taking office. He doesn’t do press briefings on public TV. Only cable news channels. Then calls every other media “FAKE”. So, just short of watching FOX NEWS (which I won’t do), he’ll just have to resign to the fact that people will criticize him on Twitter. He wants complete control over all media, no matter what it is.
1
He is thus hoist with his own petard although Shakespeare would probably not waste the phrase on so one-dimensional a character.
4
If all forms of the press would stop reporting and repeating his tweets, this argument would be mute. He wouldn't have a platform to call news 'fake' or insult his daily enemies; and thus would become less relevant. Sort of like calling a press conference and no one Showing up.
I only wish.,,
12
I imagine you meant "moot" rather than "mute", but "mute" turned it into a nice pun - "the argument would be mute"
He calls a press conference, only televised on Fox News by his press secretary. HE doesn’t even show up! He just doesn’t like facing the press!
I guess this is a victory of sorts but personally, I could care less what Trump tweets. I like political news the old fashioned way, where a decision is accompanied by the rationale behind it. Of course rational decisions is an oxymoron for this president, if even knows what that means.
13
Where is our dear friend from Verona, NJ. This person ALWAYS has great feedback.
3
Federal Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald has her nerve. Isn't the penalty for disrespecting our would-be king the guillotine? ,
12
Finally! Now, if only a certain segment of our country can stop for a moment and realize that before the Second Amendment there is a First Amendment. If only Trump and the Republicans in Congress would just defend our rights enshrined in the First Amendment as passionately as they do the Second Amendment. Almost daily since his campaign began,Trump has chipped away at the First Amendment from encouraging his followers to beat up protesters to his "fake news" calls to athletes during the National Anthem, he has tried to erode the freedom most important to a democracy.
A huge thanks to those who took him to court.
41
Expect your same vigorous defense of this decision if the next president is a democrat.
From what I figure, this administration would rather do nothing other than to tear up our constitution.
Once the courts have determined that a particular social media account is used by a public official for official purposes, it should fall on the company itself to (among other things) disable the blocking feature for that account or face penalty.
That would already be the case if platforms like Twitter and Facebook were regulated in a way that recognizes their central role in governmental activity. Twitter, for instance, is THE official channel of first resort for leaders around the world who want to issue public statements.
16
Corporations are not part of our government - even if they have their bought and paid for representatives. They do not have to regulate our politicians - all that has to happen is Trump stops banning users from a channel used for government feedback.
2
If one does not want to hear criticism he should not expect to be cheered up by compliment. Especially for officeholders. This looks fair enough.
6
If I understand this ruling, regarding his official Facebook page, our congressman should no longer be able to block constituents who are critical of his votes.
As one who first wrote President Kennedy,. Free speech and the free marketplace of ideas are crucial to democracy.
12
I just went to the big bully's twitter page - all non - bully comments are no longer there. The time was 11:25 P.M. (May 23, 2018). This afternoon, I could read the comments and replies to the bully. What happened?
9
"... all non - bully comments are no longer there."
When reporting a bug, please give specific details. What is the exact URL you were looking at? Is the problem still occurring?
Note that replies do not appear on a user's main page. You need to click a tweet's timestamp to see the replies.
I see a certain glee among some who think they can now flood Trump's Twitter account and wreck it.
That would be "time, place, and manner" which can be blocked, even by this ruling.
3
Does that apply to the Russian twitter bots that parrot every ridiculous thing Trumps tweets? Seems to me the critics should also have a shot at correcting the record.
"... they can now flood Trump's Twitter account and wreck it."
All Twitter users must adhere to "The Twitter Rules":
https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules
I tend to view rulings like this as being more political than anything else. Regardless of whether we are Democrats or Republicans we have firm ideas about many things. Even at the Supreme Court level it seems to be more about personal values. Ultimately as a people we have no choice in heavy matters. Somebody must set the rules. The article does mention that the Judge was appointed by Bill Clinton. Why do I not find this to be very telling? You be the judge.
3
So, your thoughts about the first amendment? He announces his policies there, it's a government account.
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
If you spit into the wind, the spit will come back on to your face.
A big bully eventually gets his just deserts!
20
Have any more useless platitudes to throw out there?
Time is fleeting?
One in the hand is better than two in the bush?
A rolling stone gathers no moss?
Claudia Tenney, NY-22 also routinely blocks constituents on her social media
1
If her social media is used only to contact friends - then that is fine. If she uses it to distribute political news and fundraisers and other official business, she should also be stopped from banning American citizens.
8
The judge is naive, if she thinks Trump will voluntarily abide by her ruling. He believes he is above the law, and will not follow it unless forced to.
14
I doubt he believes he is above the law but like all good CEOs he tests the boundaries often, and often they create new law, sometime for them, sometimes against, always testing.
2
He definitely thinks he is above the law. He tries to get those who go against him to be investigated and even jailed, but when his campaign gets investigated he uses the power of the office of the President of the United States to discredit his own justice department. He takes total advantage of his position to blatantly lie to the country because he knows his position puts him outside the law, for now. What he is doing is not testing, it's dismantling and destroying. Because of him, we'll need laws specifically designed to address potential actions carried out by spectacularly unethical, treasonous, and unbalanced leaders. The founding fathers never considered that Americans would allow such a person to lead our nation.
3
Sort of like the CEO of the company that made Solent Green, Right?
The courts and Judges can no longer tell Trump what to do. He and he alone is running the show. It is a show.
2
Trump may have won this battle, but might lose the war.
This decision will convince even more people to vote out Republicans in the 2018 elections.
3
Here's a remedy that doesn't tell the President what to do: if he fails to comply, order Twitter to shut down his account. That'll also spare us the need to have to see any more of his cofefe.
35
Whenever the left is displeased with an aspect of communications they declare the mode a "common carrier", akin to a regulated public utility, and desire to subject it to Federal Regulation.
Would suggest that Judge Buchwald spend some time write/ suggest modifications to Twitters EULA encompassing all comment and control of accounts by public officials. In the absence thereof, I don't see how Trump is in violation of Twitters' user agreement.
6
@jackinnj short hills
"Whenever the left is displeased with an aspect of communications they declare the mode a "common carrier", akin to a regulated public utility, and desire to subject it to Federal Regulation."
Can you please cite specific instances where "the left" has acted as you assert here? Which organ or persons or public officials of "the left" have been "displeased" and what are the Federal regulations imposed?
Of course, when the current POTUS and his minions are displeased with statements or questions by any particular public official or private person, media outlet, journalist, or other individual or organization, particularly any of whom or which offer criticism of the POTUS and his unsavory henchmen, the response is to
attack the First Amendment rights of critics and political opponents.
Often, the hysterical cries of "fake news" and mockery or insults to the Fourth Estate and others who speak truth to power are made in concurrence with the offering of "thoughts and prayers" to the victims of criminal abusers of the Second Amendment.
4
The argument was not about whether Twitter is a common carrier, but rather whether the back-and-forth dialog on his specific Twitter account while he is President amounts to it being a public forum. Please get your argument straight.
The article doesn’t report that the judge found Trump had violated Twitter’s user agreement. She didn’t declare Twitter a common carrier. She found that Trump uses his Twitter account for presidential communications and that it is in fact a public forum. Government officials may not exclude anyone from a public forum based on his or her viewpoint without violating the First Amendment. The judge is not imposing Federal Regulation, she is forbidding Trump and his lackeys from doing so. It’s almost like you didn’t actually read the article.
3
This is the correct decision. But my real desire is if we (the good citizens) could BLOCK Trump's tweets, words and actions.
19
No, this is not the correct decision, not by a long shot.
This decision effectively states that having someone listen to you is a core part of your right to free speech.
3
This isn't about free speech - this is about a government official attempting to prevent some citizens from hearing their official statements.
If this were Trump's personal Twitter, used only to discuss his lunch and that funny dog picture, the court ruling would not apply.
1
You still haven't understood it: The government can't interfere in your free speech. But Twitter is a private company. They can set their own rules. Trump could use all his other channels - WH press briefings, surrogates, WH website... to communicate.
1
Doubtful that Trump blocks users himself. Likely has taxpayer-funded aides doing it. Thus, even though the account is private, there is government action when government employees are doing the blocking — even assuming for the sake of argument that it’s a private forum rather than a public forum.
14
Its a step in the right direction, but the Administration will appeal the ruling until it finally ends up at the Supreme Court. At that point it comes down to which way Justice Kennedy will go, provided he's still on the SC two years from now.
The bottom line is the only way to address the Twit-In-Chief's noxious tweets is to vote defeat all Republicans running for office in November 2018.
38
Let's extrapolate a bit. Commentator A on CNN makes a comment about one of the President's tweets. President Trump doesn't like what that Commentator A said and changes the channel. Is President Trump now infringing on Commentator A's freedom of speech just as if Trump had blocked somebody on Twitter? Can the President and other government officials now be required to watch CNN and other networks broadcasting political commentary or run afoul of the First Amendment to the Constitution? Stay tuned, film at eleven.
No, what you're describing is analogous to the "mute" feature, which is perfectly okay.
Analogous to the "block" feature would be if Trump could immediately make the commentator disappear from CNN so that no one else could hear them comment in that forum again unless unblocked. The President's Twitter feed IS a public forum.
43
I hate to have to post again, but..
So many comments in which the writers did not seem to understand the difference between POTUS using Twitter as a platform to disseminate official news and comments and non-governmental accounts or even private accounts by public officials. Many also did not understand 1st Amendment free-speech protections. I am shocked at how uneducated in civics all these people are and how limited their critical thinking skills are,
Once upon a time, the Constitution and Bill of Rights were taught to us in school and ingrained in our minds by the time we finished high school. I guess that hasn't been true for a generation or more. Is it any wonder that we now have a president who is ignorant of these things too?
37
@m.pipik New York
Thanks for your cogent comments about the dumbing down of America.
I would add that blue states invest more in education, have more highly educated citizens, higher per person incomes, are in general wealthier than red states, and their citizens live longer.
Yet the policies pursued by wealthier blue states are being punished by the new tax bill which caps SALT deductions (state and local taxes), an important issue for high income, high property value states.
Democracies do not thrive with a citizenry poorly educated, weak in critical thinking skills, and ignorant of its rights under the law. But such populations are essential to autocratic systems.
9
Ignorant is exactly the way the GOP and the traitor-in-chief wants Americans, otherwise he never would have been voted into office, though I still maintain it was fraud that got him elected. No one had given any information to prove otherwise, except the lame, “there is no evidence the ballots were changed”. Yet not a single news article on how we know that to be true.
1
Let's be honest- does anyone think he actually READS twitter posts at him?
He posts things out to the wind and then checks in with his Fox Entertainment ("News") every night to see how it was received.
13
Someone reads them and then blocks some people who’s criticism appears effective. Unknown whether it’s actually trump who does this or his staff
1
Oh, I think he does - he's got a massive ego that is surpassed only by his insecurity and need for worship. No doubt he reads the posts. It's not like he's spending much time on policy.
1
“I hereby demand” directed at the Justice Department doesn’t sound like even Trump thinks it’s a personal account.
14
Completely absurd. Twitter is a private company and user's hold private accounts. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech and it is a gross infringement on one's personal freedom. What it really is: an infringement on his free speech to censor whoever he wants to on his private Twitter account. Complete overreach - BTW, I didn't vote for him and neither do I prefer him as the president.
5
If it's a "private account" why can everyone see it. If it's seen by the public, and the public's responses (tailored and vetted to appear supportive-- crucially-- by Trump and his aides) can be seen by the public, I would think this makes the First Amendment very relevant, especially in relation to the top political office holder in the nation. Just calling the account "private" in name or user contract doesn't mean it isn't a public platform.
So it is a public platform. And the public's responses on this very public platform to the president's tweets are being vetted, whitewashed, censored; and through these manipulations the remainder made to appear supportive overall of a top political office-holder, which is obviously a distortion.
This invokes the First Amendment by force.
9
Blocking some users from viewing his Tweets is exactly the same as would be blocking some viewers from his television broadcasts.
It's preventing selected people from access to public information.
1
There has never been a requirement that people listen to you as part of your right to free speech. That's what this laughable decision now requires.
Therr is nothing stopping Trumps critics from saying whatever they want about a Trump in their own feed. This decision goes way beyond that and requires that Trump listens to his critics.
I'm so sick of this haircut that passes for a man evrything he does. He's clearly 'sick' and has a great number of character disorders. When is someone, person or political party, going to do something about the loss of democracy in the United States?
16
You do a disservice to the cause of voting him out of power by claiming that there has been a "loss of democracy."
In case you haven't noticed, we are still having elections. We still have an independent judiciary, hundreds of legislators, as well as the freedom to dissent. In contrast to what pundits and even I believed would happen if Trump won, day to day life has not changed so radically as compared to the Obama years.
Trump campaigned against candidates far more qualified, infinitely better funded, and better connected with party power wielders.
He won in spite of this, in no small part because his message was one that had much common ground with the DNC party line for most of the 20th century. Consider that as distasteful as you find him, his election exemplifies democracy in action.
2
There has been a loss of democracy. You just described it. "Trump campaigned against candidates far more qualified...." - and won. That's democracy broken, which essentially a loss of democracy, as a viable system. Then, too, we should consider the Electoral College. That, too, is democracy broken and thus a loss of democracy. I don't think our national politics operate as much of a democracy. Really, does anyone? We're talking money interests running the show all day long, and they don't come close to equating to citizen interests.
2
"Democracy in action" would not have resulted in the election of a president by a minority of those who voted.
The Electoral College insures that democracy is non-existent.
3
Twitter is now a public free speech zone, and you cannot be banned for anything you say. 1st Amendment protects your freedom of speech.
2
It would be much more helpful if, instead of worrying about connecting and speaking out on Trump's Twitter account, people stopped letting The-Entertainer-In-Chief control each day's narrative (not to mention ruin their breakfast) by simply not paying attention to his tweets, which not only are not policy but which are likely to be reversed the next day just so he can keep getting the attention he craves. Why enable a lying narcissist ?
17
I fully agree with your line of thinking. Why follow a dim wit when there so many other positive things happening in America. This President and his supporters are stuck in the concrete boots of the past. It's time to forget this person and move forward.
The news channels should stop covering him everyday as he is a third rate TV star, because that is what he wants.
Trump is not the center of America,
The American People are the center of America.
America should look forward's, not back to the past, there is no future in that line of thinking.
Rob-Bob
5
Steve,
That may be desireable, but it's extremely unlikely to happen. And it's not the point.
People have a right to access to public information, and it's up to them, not the president, to decide whether or not to avail themselves of it.
If Trump won't unblock could the court order Twitter to do it?
3
Something was done by court action that was declared unconstitutional. Twitter has power.
Which leads to question why the Supreme Court that decided on the Presidency of Bush #2, cannot decide on the removal of another. Since the other two branches of Government remain mute on the criminal transactions of this President, can we somehow depend on the third branch to intervene and rescue what's left to salvage?
1
What are you talking about? Do you even know how the courts work? They can't just make a ruling out if thin air. There needs to be a trial.
Almost makes me want to sign up for Twitter.
Almost.
17
First reaction: rejoicing that a judge has declared it unconstitutional for Trump to block comments he dislikes in a public forum.
Second reaction: sober recognition that we must rejoice at the freedom of trolls and political operatives to poison discussions in public forums with comments we dislike.
We must not mistake the judge for a political ally. She is simply a defender of free speech. Any suggestions for legally enabling our side's noble protesters while keeping down the other side's ignoble mischief-makers will be welcome, but they must come from elsewhere.
6
It will be interesting to see how uniformly this ruling is applied across all parties and at all levels (local, state, etc) of government. Any official (elected or otherwise) blocking any response of basically any content on any official social media pages will be guilty of infringing on free speech.This also logically means that no one can be blocked from membership on official pages. If any citizens are allowed in, all must be. I see lots of $ ahead for lawyers and plaintiffs. Just the money to be made suing high school administrators for blocking comments and/or users will be astronomical.
1
I recall a press briefing some months back where the standing of the President's Twitter feed came up. Sarah Sanders basically said that if the President posts it, it's official. If that's the White House position on Trump's tweets, I can't see jhow Judge Buchwalkd could reach any other decision.
16
Too bad the judge didn’t block trump from Twitter- that would be a major victory for democracy in Americ.
13
I really think that we should be grateful for President Trump's outspokenness. If we didn't have this information we would never know what he is doing, thinking. He loves the attention and the red carpet treatment. If it were not that this is our country's leader, these antics would be very entertaining. However, as our leader, it is a very troublesome time.
3
That kind of boorish behavior is never entertaining.
Donald Trump can be free to block anyone he wants at any time he wants. All he has to do is quit.
36
To IKW:
Re: Trump speaks in speeches longer than reading 280 characters:
Yes, he does. But he uses a vocabulary of about 280 words. Communicating like a real president would involve listening carefully, responding thoughtfully, considering his whole constituency - ALL Americans - and using his role of leadership to promote a vision and inspire the nation.
23
TC: "... using his [Trump's] role of leadership to promote a vision and inspire the nation."
Trump definitely "promote[s] a vision": Make America Great Again.
And Trump has indeed "inspire[d] the nation", if you include his critics, such as the plaintiffs in the Twitter-blocking case.
I believe I read that his speeches, off the cuff statements and his tweets are uniformly expressed at a 6th grade level
Simply stated the courts found that American citizens have the right to criticize their president without fear of reprisal. Trump can’t abide criticism without reprisal, but he’s never read the U.S. Constitution so what can one expect?
61
Well said. But I still expect him to block people since he believes he's above the law.
18
Of course, Trump thinks he's above the law. What else is he to think when the Congress does nothing to rein him in? He will continue to defy the rule of law as long as one of the normal checks on his power lets him. Thank God for the judiciary. Oh, yeah - he's stacking that as I type.
6
His stacking of the judiciary is one of the truly destructive things he’s doing while people focus on his tweets and other transgressive behavior. All of it right out of the Roy Cohn playbook. Odd that a young Trump was mentored by the same lawyer that helped Joe McCarthy get ahead in politics. The difference being that back then McCarthy went too far with a lie by accusing the military leadership of being communist infiltrators, while Trump lies about everything, Day in and day out, including accusing Republican members of the FBI leadership of being Democrat partisans. it doesn’t seem to matter anymore what lies are told and that is very damaging to our political institutions.
This is an example of Stephen Miller stating at the beginning of the term that the president "will not be questioned." I think he meant to use the word "criticized". They should stick to their red hat rallies in the red state areas if they want unfetterred adoration.
31
Having never seen or touched or read Twitter I am not sure who I should be rooting for here but on general principles I will root for whoever is winning against Mr. Trump.
34
Pay usage of Twitter isn't necessary to understand the issue of free speech or protected political speech.
If Trump uses Twitter as his official platform, no citizen should be blocked because he answers to us. And who asked him to use social media in the first place, anyway? He's like a 12 year old school kid with his inane tweets.
Good for this ruling.
49
If this were an account registered to a government agency, like @TSA for example, I could see some sense to the ruling. As it stands, however, this is Mr. Trump's personal account and he, like any of the rest of us, should have the right to block anyone he pleases. I suspect that if this is deemed worthy of further review, it will not stand.
6
I seem to recall that the courts have already determined that as the President making public announcements, Trumps account is not considered a personal account and will be archived.
19
Trump has transformed the medium into an official channel by announcing policy with it. He made this choice. No need for further review.
28
The court has ruled that it is NOT his personal account. It is a public forum. Trump uses it to inform the public on everything he considers important. Therefore, the public has the right to respond.
11
Seems like an utterly ridiculous issue for our judicial system to spend its resources on. As if any one of Trump's many Twitter posts don't already achieve enough coverage so that even blocked people can know what's being said. How about the court hear some habeas petitions? Look into old cases? Retry suspicious cases? Do something actually important.
2
Indeed. What’s a little curtailment of free (political) free speech by the President of the United States as guaranteed by our Constitution? Hardly something important at all.
10
"Do something really important."
Such as making sure that the President abides by the Constitution he has sworn to preserve, protect, and defend?
11
but people sued so the courts have to rule
3
Trump refers to himself as the Ernest Hemingway of Tweets but he apparently lacks how Papa defined courage as “grace under pressure.”
12
Let's hope Trump does not switch from blocking people off his Twitter Account to actually putting their heads on a block. He appears quite capable of ordering the latter.
23
Is the US Justice Department seriously considering appealing a suggestion?
6
Sit back, close your eyes, and ponder this: We are all talking about the president of the United States speaking to the citizens of the United States, on T W I T T E R! Once you’ve digested that insanity, now, consider that he only wants to talk to people that are “nice” to him and if he can’t have his way he’ll make “his” Supreme Court change the rules.. God! I wish I had gone into comedy writing ‘cause this guy would’ve made me a millionaire.
31
It’s something much more sinister than comedy we are witnessing from this man and his republican and corporate supporters. This is an intentional dismantling of our republic.
1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Please name the law that Congress passed and the President signed that prevents the president from blocking users from users on twitter.
7
You mean the right to Freedom of Speech, or of the Press?
2
“The right of the people to peaceably assemble” was violated because the judge deemed Trump’s twitter to be a digital public forum. Blocking citizens from taking part in that forum because of their view violates their rights. That’s the basis of the ruling.
12
Twitter is a public platform Trump uses to spew insults, threaten, cajole and yes, make policy pronouncements. He can't choose only to talk to people who like him any more than he can choose only to answer questions from friendly (FOX) reporters. It's past time for him to grow up and stop whining.
7
So the president needs a judge ruling on what is common sense, common decency and obvious.
23
I have long believed that the appeal of Twitter to Mr. Trump is its one-way nature. He can say whatever he wants with no fear of anyone talking back, as at the press conferences he avoids. Mr. Trump will never accept a role as a public servant, and so has never been and will never be fit to be POTUS.
52
He mainly does it to bypass the media and talk to people directly. Unblocking trolls won't really affect that. Most people will ignore them.
BIG DEAL.
But she did not issue an injunction ordering Mr. Trump or Mr. Scavino to unblock the users, a nod to the separation-of-powers sensitivities of a judge’s ordering a president to do something. Rather, her ruling simply declared what the Constitution requires, with the expectation that the White House would comply.
Like he has complied with releasing his taxes, acting presidential, not using his presidency to make money for his personal business....
22
Finally a reason for me to open my very first twitter account which will have only one recipient!
10
Why be forced to unblock them? some users really, really can't behave themselves online especially around others.
3
Believe it or not, he is a public servant, and not a private citizen. His Whitehouse twitter account is public.
26
But they were blocked not for harassment, but merely for voicing dissenting opinions. That’s where the issue is.
14
In my view, Trump is the poster child for those who can’t behave themselves online especially around others.
6
"Because no government official is above the law and because all government officials are presumed to follow the law once the judiciary has said what the law is, we must assume that the president and Scavino will remedy the blocking we have held to be unconstitutional..."
I hope Judge Buchwald is not holding her breath.
14
As Twitter is not a government agency I submit they could just choose to disable this function for what is obviously now a tool of the government. Perhaps the concept should be applied to any official government accounts.
5
I’ll admit that I’m a Twitter naïf, but couldn’t those who were blocked just open another different Twitter account and learn to keep a civil tongue? Or is that really asking too much of people nowadays, the tongue, I mean. I know it’s tough clicking mouse buttons.
4
It’s the principle. The president, elected by the people to serve the public, should not be able to pick his audience in a public forum. Democracy. What a concept.
26
There's civility and there's agreeing with Trump. I think Trump is only interested in the latter.
15
Couldn't those people just rely on the US CONSTITUTION and their 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHTS to not to be censored by the government? I think that's is more important than suggesting workarounds. Knowledge of how to use Twitter isn't the issue at all.
5
The article seems unclear about the judge's actual ruling. I see there is a ruling as the constitutionality of the activity, but its unclear if there was an order issued? Isn't that a basic tenant of journalism, not just the why, but the what. What does the order, if its been issued, say?
2
It is explicitly stated in the article that no injunction was issued.
Tenants are those people you rent your house to, and, when they don't pay the rent, evict. Tenets are another thing entirely.
3
This is an exceedingly confusing ruling that probably won't stand up to further judicial review. The way the judge proposes to define a public forum is apparently ridiculous.
3
If the president is blocking people from reading his public policy pronouncements in the forum he makes them, then that is against the constitution.
10
I had the distinct honor of being one of the first the "real" Donald Trump blocked. I keep the image capture of the notification as a badge of pride. I was so overjoyed to have gotten his goat.
It is beyond reprehensible and disgusting that Twitter has not blocked him or shut down his account. When this abhorrent travesty is over, Twitter will be remembered as the demagogue's enabler. Whilst I have been blocked twice by Twitter for speaking my first amendment right to criticize that barely human monster, they know their fame and marketing enjoy a daily boost from the "Riddler's" obsessive abuse of every decent American on the platform.
But they, like the Republicans in the house, merely look away, as it isn't "convenient" to their business strategy. The notoriety has spiked the use of this otherwise tediously limited forum for expression, which serves third grade intellects best such as the mendacious brat's obvious crippling lack of substance or nuance in his understanding of anything, let alone our constitution and the august institutions that were created to keep power in check.
Twitter should be as ashamed as Republicans everywhere who legitimized this miscreant, and allowed his tantrums to dictate the national dialogue. They have allowed the sociopath to sully us all day in and day out with fraud and fiction, and Twitter does NADA!
628
Some think they are the judge and jury in today's politics. Democrats should be ashamed Hillary financed the DNC and as Warren stated the nomination was rigged then for Hillary. Some want politicians like Hillary and now Gov Murphy who promise everything to get elected and never follow through. The President should be supported in trying to stop criminal immigration into this country but some think allowing illegal immigration is a 'Civil right' comparing them to Martin Luther King. The Democrats should be ashamed that candidate Obama promised to end the wars and stop the NSA spying but as President he did not follow through.
2
Rene I feel your pain. Can you actually imagine suffering like that until 2024....
12
Define "mendacious"; define "miscreant." Just kidding!
8
You know what will happen? Nothing. This president doesn't care about the rule of law and the complicit GOP Congress doesn't either. The only Amendment they care about is the Second.
35
It's too bad the 2nd Amendment people think he is on THEIR side. If only they would realize he doesn't care about them personally...he cares only about their donations. He will say anything for the money! Go back and watch that interview where he said, "Take the gun away ...and deal with the rest later." Two meetings with the NRA later, he changed his mind. Why? Follow the money!
3
Does he have to unblock his critics now?
1
Just think about how many lawyers and judges Trump and his cohorts are keeping busy on the various and sundry legal issues. Boon times for lawyers!!
3
It’s the 21st century version of the Sedition Act enacted during the Adams administration. Although in the 1790s the doctrine of Judicial Review had not been established. Thank you John Marshall!
2
As much as the haters dislike our President sending information via Twitter...”We The People” love it, because we can no longer trust MSM to get it right and hearing it from him allows us to hear his accomplishment Too which will give him a second term. #MAGA
1
Will you then deal with people being honest right back at him? They can't trust Fox News to do it for them, you know.
4
Don't count on that happening.
1
That's a good one, Dawn.
You mistrust professional journalists and reputable media to accurately report the news, as if they are all somehow colluding, and trust Trump's self-proclaimed "accomplishments," despite the overwhelming evidence that he is a serial liar.
It's ironic that you call those who object to Trump's transgressions of the law and common decency "haters," while you apparently hate every source of information except Trump.
"We respectfully disagree."
Somebody block that woman!!
12
Too funny!! I already posted a negative statement to him, and I see many others have. I bet this will stop him from Twittering--ha ha, when no one else could....(or, he will just not read them...)
2
Would it also be illegal for everyone to block Trump's tweets?
3
No, it only applies to government usage of Twitter.
Everyone else is not the president surfacing public policy in a social forum.
1
Will this extend to other government accounts, i.e., @TSA, @AskTSA, @TSAMedia_MikeE and @TSAMedia_BobB?
Anyone out there who thinks Donald Trump will abide by judges ruling, I have a bridge in New York I’d like to sell you.
6
He can block me. I don't listen to lies, insults and hate from anybody.
5
I am so glad our President is packing the courts with conservatives.
1
"I am so glad our President is packing the courts with conservatives."
Justice Scalia was a strong defender of freedom of speech, so you are deluding yourself:
"As a jurist, Justice Scalia was a staunch protector of free speech — even though, interestingly enough, the First Amendment doesn’t lend itself easily to originalism, his favored mode of analysis."
"Justice Scalia’s protectiveness of the First Amendment flowed more from his views on stare decisis and his respect for precedent, rather than his originalist approach to constitutional interpretation."
Justice Scalia, Originalism, Free Speech And The First Amendment
by David Lat
November 22, 2016
law.stanford.edu
1
I wonder if Francis Crozier, Thomas Blankey, James Fitzjames, or Thomas Jopson blocks their Twitter account
1
Can Twitter Block Trump?
I would love to see Twitter Block Trump due to racism, bigotry, lying and bullying he peddles on a daily basis, he's like someone yelling fire in a crowded movie theater to get off on it.
16
How would he communicate then?????
WHere could he write his own thoughts then????
2
The official @POTUS account retweets almost everything from @realDonaldTrump account, everything from @WhiteHouse account, everything from @VP, and way more.
Can you be blocked by @realDonaldTrump and read his messages when they are retweeted by @POTUS?
Trump has always managed to get through the eye of the needle legally speaking. On this one he cannot claim to be both private Twitterer and governmental at the same time, which is why the ruling is a fair one. Choose one or the other, D. You can’t be both and neither can the platform you use in this case.
21
Too bad the first amendment is not the only part of the constitution that he is violating. This is just one of his many violations.
37
Government trying to dictate what he does with his personal Twitter account? If I block my stalkers they can cry to a judge to get me to unblock them?
29
See, if this was just a personal Twitter account, we'd have no problems. But there's no denying that Trump is using his personal Twitter account as his official method of communicating with the public as President. Therefore, he's not allowed to block.
170
maybe he shouldn't perform official acts from this account, like firing cabinet members.
151
That would not happen to you. There is an important distinction here. At one point it was his personal one, however when he began using it as he occupies the office of the presidency, it is no longer personal, but rather the official twitter of said Office.
148
So, if it is an official government account, and Congress is asking that Facebook root our fake news, will Twitter be allowed to fact check and filter out his fake news before it posts?
40
Good question, good point.
3
I'm not sure why a person doesn't have the right to block someone from their account. You can block calls. Facebook allows us to block people. The NYT states that comments made by readers are screened before they are posted. It makes since. Their are plenty of outlets to rant hostilities. If a person wants to do that on Twitter, they can have a Twitter account of their own and go at it.
4
If the twitter account is being used to make statements by the President on official matters and his aides are involved in posting the statements, it is not being used as a personal account. It is being used to make official statements of the President and that includes his comments/thoughts. It is then treated like a govt account.
The government (President is a part of the govt) is not allowed to prevent certain people from participating and not others out of personal preference.
6
This ruling is not regarding blocking in general, by any person. It's regarding the President of the United States, and a platform he uses for official government communications.
6
President Trump is now a public servant, and no longer a private citizen. He uses Twitter as a public platform to communicate to the American people, and this is his choice (to set public policy, to fire public officials, etc.). As such, he must follow the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
15
This nutty ruling will surely be overturned on appeal. For no Supreme Court justice would ever want his or her own blocking feature on social media to no longer be an option.
5
No Supreme Court Justice uses a twitter account to affect and effect public policy or publish Supreme Court opinions. Twitter is Trump’s preferred mode of communicating official policy and that implicates the First Amendment.
10
find me a social media account of any SC justice. TIA
The right to petition is one of the first amendment rights, and has no less stature than free speech.
John Quincy Adams hanged an entire House of Representatives with this point, metaphorically speaking, in the 1830s.
2
totally unsurprising, considering this guy commissions good-news-only reports, and refers to a map of where he won as the only places he thinks he's responsible for now. if someone said something critical, or even not 100% supportive, of course he thinks he doesn't have to listen.
so what happens next?...
(a) he wastes his time reading comments on Twitter, getting angry, and shouting about, like he wastes his time obsessing over how poorly he's doing and people noticing, reporting, and commenting on how poorly he's doing. but not owning up, learning or growing, just blaming and harassing others from a position of power.
(b) he hires somebody to sum up the most flattering Tweets for him, like he hires somebody to dig for and present to him only the most flattering headlines.
(c) he zeroes in on and amplifies a few loud, flattering voices, like he does with his rallies, favorite wackadoodle pundits, and the random trolls, scams, and conspiracy theories he stumbles on and knee-jerk forwards out.
(d) all of the above. he's a self-serving, thin-skinned TV celebrity, who ran for publicity, only knows "ratings" and shocked to find himself here is making a giant cash grab while he can. what did we think would happen?
23
Absolutely, he has been very successful blocking anything negative about him, and his lemmings have allowed that. Since he doesn't read ANYTHING, I doubt he will read it. Let's make Sarah Sanders go through all of them and just give him the positive ones....
1
If this a private account, why is he being represented by the Justice Department.
Oh, yeah, so all those Trump voters (and the rest of us) can pay his legal bills.
Make America Gag Again.
57
“We respectfully disagree with the court’s decision and are considering our next steps,” said a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, which is representing Mr. Trump in the case.
Wow. "Respectfully"? From Mr. Trump? And, do my eyes deceive me? No, the word "considering" was also used! I fear our president is being held prisoner by some PC types...
3
I'm so glad this happened.
12
LOL. Manhattan makes the 2nd Circuit as absurd as the 9th Circuit sometimes. No one’s first amendment rights are being violated by being blocked on Twitter, a private platform. You can still put @realDonaldTrump into whatever tweet you want and put it out there; the president just isn’t going to see it. And he’s under no obligation to. We’ll see what the Supreme Court has to say about this one, I’m sure.
1
The point is not whether Trump sees you, but whether he has a right to block you from seeing him.
If you can't see his Tweets, you are being censored from accessing public information, so you cannot reply to them.
Nothing forces him to read your responses, but you have right to see his pronouncements and a right to respond, jus as you have a right to see him on TV and to write a letter to the White House.
Well, I have never so been tempted to get a twitter account before!
18
It would be much more helpful if, instead of worrying about connecting and speaking out on Trump's Twitter account, people stopped letting The-Entertainer-In-Chief control each day's narrative (not to mention ruin their breakfast) by simply not paying attention to his tweets, which not only are not policy but which are likely to be reversed the next day just so he can keep getting the attention he craves. Why enable a lying narcissist ?
11
Although surprised anyone would want to follow Trump and swallow his conneries on Twitter, especially given the amount of media attention they already enjoy, I can appreciate someone's desire to rant at him, and criticize by Twitter.
But what I really appreciate is the Federal district court's defense of the First Amendment. Free speech has not had support among Trumpies, with exception made for whatever untruths are vented by Trump himself, or media outlets that pump out Trump's dramatically skewed version of fact.
Kudos to this defender of the First Amendment!
17
Twitter is the Official White House communication tool and that of "this" President: Get off Twitter and start communicating like a Real President: But then- 280 Characters is about all this man can handle.
392
Trump will block whomever he wishes. He considers himself above the law and does what he wants i.e do you really think Trump ever revoked Kushner's security clearance?
15
"... start communicating like a Real President"
How would that be? On horseback?
"But then- 280 Characters is about all this man can handle."
Trump speaks at his rallies for much longer than it would take to read "280 Characters". You can find videos of Trump rallies on Youtube.
2
@IKW: Making noise isn't communicating; just noise.
3
How embarrassing is it that our President is so thin-skinned that he has to block people.
Maybe if he weren't such a troll himself, he wouldn't get trolled back.
So pathetic.
By the way, he may have 52M followers but that's still half of what Obama has and many of Trump's are bots.
39
Like every other rule or law that Trump doesn't like, he will ignore it, his base will howl in delight, the GOP will remain silent, and nothing much will be done.....
For the rest of us who disagree with Trump, we will have no choice but to sit by and watch....
8
Trump's Twitter account is a de facto official channel of communications. Everything from his "trade war" to his ordering the DOJ to investigate political enemies are announced via that account.
Of course, it is disturbing to think that an official channel of communication by the President of the United States also includes ungrammatical rants about witch hunts and "covfefe."
20
"De facto official" is an oxymoron.
What are the practical implications of such a ruling? (I did not read the ruling but) does the prohibition on blocking extend to every public servant, every elected official. It seems it should. Could militant protesters in great numbers personally and inappropriately slam elected county officials' twitter accounts with DMs, etc? Forms of cyber-bullying could occur. (Think 100,000 conservatives slamming a liberal judge's twitter account due to a ruling or 100,000 liberals slamming a county clerk's account enforcing a federal immigration procedure.)
Also, I do not see how Trump's blocks prevent free speech. (Almost) anyone in the US can have a twitter account and they can tweet away, whether or not they are blocked by Trump. The judge's ruling is not about speech, it is more about where the speaker is virtually standing.
Can protesters disrupt any public function, any political speech to the point of cancelling it - or are they given some other place to stand and protest? Must any President cede the podium on inauguration day or State of the Union day to those who protest? No. The protesters are given another place to stand and voice their opinion.
I did not vote for Trump and could never see that happening, but this ruling doesn't seem to contemplate the workings of social media and the mores of our current society.
3
No one said upholding the law would be easy. If you are going to use Twitter, you get the benefits but also need to pay the price.
6
You should read the decision before commenting on it. You posit several wholly dissimilar scenarios that have nothing to do with what was at issue in the lawsuit, e.g., 100,000 private citizens conspiring in a denial of service attack on a county clerk's "account" or protesters somehow having a right to share the podium/microphone at a presidential inauguration. BTW, so-called "free speech zones", or in your words, "the protesters are given another place to stand", are an insult the First Amendment.
Thank you, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald! It's heartening to know that at least some measure of law and order is still being exercised and that the Constitution is still understood and enforced by the court.
Again and again, the presidency of the United States is labeled the most powerful position in the world, but in the United States, it represents only one third of our government. When the POTUS oversteps the limits of his office he should be reined in and made to abide by the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.
24
When I worked for a state government agency, any time I used a personal account for official business that account became subject to the same review and access as state issued accounts. I knew this up front, and most all state governments have restrictions on using personal accounts for official business. Considering all his blather about HRC's emails on a private server POTUS should have a clue about this. If POTUS was using his twitter account to chat with his family, golf buddies and to share cat videos, I would think that would entitle him to restrict who had access to his feed. Given that he has consistently used it to conduct White House personnel actions, promulgate policy and procedure and communicate his intentions to the US public (in addition to a litany of insults and other weirdness), seems to me he gave up personal privacy rights long ago.
77
Every user has a right to block others. Declaring that only president Trump cannot block other users is discrimanetory.
While the president has blocked users from seeing and interacting with his posts (which are not official or have any weight unlike any bill he physically signs) they can read the news like any one else and if there is a tweet of his in the news that they wish to interact with they can freely use any of the number of communication channels with the white house.
Now, if you would like to have a law passed, that people in political positions cannot block other users and must, on penalty of death or worse, respond to each and every whiner on tweeter, be my guest. While other politicians world wide, where no such amendment exists, are protected by its non existence. This is a clear example where demanding an individual acquiesce to others demands is in direct violation of his own rights and freedoms.
5
That would be correct if he didn't use his account to conduct official business. His aides have also publicly stated that his statements on his Twitter account are official White House policy. He can't have it both ways. The ruling doesn't say he has to respond to his critics or even read what they say. It says, as per the Constitution, that he has created a public forum in his capacity as a government official and he cannot block people from participating it based on their political views.
51
This view could be defensible in Italy where speech might not enjoy the freedoms it does in the United States. Any decent constitutional scholar in United States would agree that the first amendment allows for this kind of speech in this forum. POTUS has used Twitter as a vehicle of communicating public policy - not for personal communications.
16
"...as a government official and he cannot block people from participating it based on their political views."
Every president I have lived through has had press conferences where no one was allowed to ask questions or "participate". Each one decides who gets press credentials and White House access. Each president has "blocked" people based on their political views.
Most senators have a comment section on their website and lots only allow feedback from people living in their district. They block anyone that does not have the appropriate zip code from making a comment.
Its a wonder that trump even has time to tweet, considering how many on twitter don't like him, he would be blocking all the time. We use the term Commander In Chief, which is CIC, trump should be known as Conspiracy Theorist In Chief, CTIC. Trump would then be equal with Sean Hannity and Alex Jones.
15
Trump was represented by the Justice Department.
Or should I say HIS Justice Department?
16
The Court should order Twitter, a private company, to shut down Trump's Twitter account until it complies with First Amendment requirements.
45
Twitter is a private company and the first ammendment does not apply:P
That ought to be the case but this judge apparently wants to grossly redefine the concept of a public forum.
How long before he tweets about this and demands am appeal
10
For Trump, the 1st Amendment only applies to statements he agrees with. I predict he will ignore the judgement.
19
No doubt that Dear Leader and his coterie of legal geniuses would like to resurrect the Sedition Act of 1798.
I wonder if any of them even knows what it was?
11
Donald, that thin skin of yours is showing again.
9
52 million followers??? How many are real people not bots? And how many are Americans? It’s disappointing to see the NYT reporting a Twitter number as if it’s fact!
19
fivethirtyeight.com had an interesting article about this: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/very-few-voters-actually-read-trump...
Ridiculous ruling. It is not a Federal Office account. It is Trump's.
9
Trump and his staff have called it an official account of the President so the ruling makes sense.
24
You might be right if it is you--a non-public government official rather than an elected government official communicating government positions with unsecured citizens of the United States in his capacity as President.
3
Who was installed as the president of this country, last I checked, and is therefore part of the government. The 1st amendment protects us from the government censoring our speech, which is what he does by blocking people who disagree with him from his account. Sorry, he doesn't get to eat his cake and have it too.
11
Thin-skinned individuals are truly "unfit" to be president. And now we learn that he's been using an "unsecure phone." After all the attacks he made on Hillary about her emails being "unsecured," you would think he would be especially cautious. But when one thinks he's god, he needn't concern himself with such petty details. Speaking of petty. . . .
16
Rather than identify the phone as a "unsecured phone" how about something a little more accurate considering the Pres. "thin skin"--e.g. something like an "insecure phone".
4
Wouldn't it be nice if he simply got in a huff and closed his Twitter account altogether?
29
President Twit(ter) takes another one to the nose.
15
so if he is claiming this is a PERSONAL account, why is he being represented by the US Justice Department, rather than his personal lawyer?
86
Since he obviously doesn't read any comments, what words does he have filtered in order to block them? Probably words like truth, justice, the American way.( Apologies to Superman)
19
Let's all be creative and use the medium to suffocate, irritate and mock him.
21
If @realDonaldTrump is being defended by the Department of Justice, the DOJ is asserting that @realDonaldTrump is an official Federal government channel.
339
H.R.2884 - COVFEFE Act of 2017. That's exactly what his twitter channel is.
5
Trump thinks he is a king. His fantasy is not real. At this point he must follow the law and if the courts tell him to unblock the users he better do it. From his cell he can block who he wants.
23
He should be able to block people from responding, and re-tweeting. I see this as a personal communications device as it should be and as a citizen he should have all the rights that I would, including blocking those that he wants to do so.
4
And if he were simply tweeting as a regular citizen, that would be his right. But he is tweeting as a head of state, and that changes everything.
28
"I see this as a personal communications device ..."
The Court never mentions a "device". The President is using his Twitter feed as a public forum, and, as a government official, he cannot block access to that forum.
22
Correct. He is obligated to hear what his "constituents," all Americans, would like him to know about making America great (?) again for the good of all its people. Our ideas are as significant as the Trumpet's, as Ryan's, and as the most junior of any Congress member.
Had Twitter account before being president. He has a separate presidential Twitter account. Will be reversed.
3
Oh no, my badge of honor was a message that I had been blocked from Trump's feed. Oh yes, time to jump on again.
6
This decision is nuts. There is no 1st Amendment requirement (which this is) that one has to listen to someone.
6
You’re right, but President Trump isn’t being compelled to read those tweets. The judge decided that his twitter profile serves as a public forum, and as such people who use it to express political opinions are protected from government infringement on their expression. Whether or not the President reads it isn’t the point, the point is that people are allowed to use public forums for political expression. Since his twitter account is moderated in part by a paid government employee, is used by the White House in a quasi official capacity to issue policy proclamations and other government correspondence, and is accessible by the general public, I find the forum argument pretty compelling.
25
If that's the basis then Twitter will have to stop shadow banning all conservative accounts. Careful what you ask for.
"the point is that people are allowed to use public forums for political expression."
NOT ALWAYS !
Supreme Court's 1919 decision in the case Schenck v. United States
Wait a minute, now, I missed this. Donald, doing official State business (according to him) in a space where his regime speaks "to the people," personally blocked anyone from disagreeing with him?
O that's the definition of Donald and his regime.
18
Not personally, he has a white house employee to deal with that kind of stuff of course. Just well spent tax payer money.
1
Trump will be unhappy about this ruling. Next he will try to unseat the 'liberal' Judge after disparaging her publicly. This will be another shameful attack on the rule of law by our President. This behavior of his is without precedence in the extent and rapaciousness of his attacking responses to the courts doing their appointed duties.
24
Ultimately, Trump should be grateful. If he can block those who 'offend' his delicate sensibilities, then Twitter might determine that some of his tweets can be blocked as 'hate speech.'
Meanwhile, so happy that I can continue to troll Trump's account. I don't 'follow' him- wouldn't want to add to his count of followers. But since his most inane tweets are published regularly, it's easy to click and reply.
16
Perhaps Trump should consider a private email account, discretion being the better part of twitter.
5
When has Trump EVER shown any degree of discretion? He has revealed himself from the get-go as lacking all self-control or judgment.
1
Twitter and other social media platforms like to fancy themselves as tech companies, but they are really media companies. Today's ruling understood that.
POTUS can not stop Twitter users from viewing his social media platform, anymore than he could prohibit someone from watching White House briefings on TV.
207
How about replying or re-tweeting. My understanding is that they could still see the tweets.
1
No. When Trump blocks people on Twitter, they *cannot* see his tweets. (In fact, if Trump would "mute" these people instead, it would solve the whole problem since muted people could still see his tweets, while Trump won't see their tweets.)
And since Trump uses Twitter to make official government announcements (public forum), it is unconstitutional to block critics (members of the public) from reading his Twitter announcements.
His Tweets are public, so people can still see them, just not when they're logged on (if they've been blocked).
Trump never bothered to read the Constitution. The fact that he placed his hand on a bible and swore to uphold it is a joke to him. From what I can discern, he supports only two amendments to it: the 2nd and the 5th.
14
Trump and his crew have tried and will continue to try to abuse the 1st amendment at every turn.
The whole purpose of free speech was so you could speak against the government without fear of reprisal.
Now Trump's crew member Pruitt is dictating which news service may be allowed in to press conferences, what ever happened to freedom of the press.
This administration is doing everything in it's power to change the United States of America and not make it great.
8
I see this as good news for everyone. 1. Trump's minions can see what the majority of Americans truly think about their president. (OK, maybe not such good news for them.) 2. It will be cathartic for those of us who will now tweet critical responses to false and misleading statements tweeted by Trump. and 3. Trump will be happy because he will have millions of new followers!
Oh, and as a byproduct, maybe we can break Twitter.
6
Hmm... I'm skeptical whether we really want to lend more fuel to trolls like the president by getting into twitter fights with them...but I do like the idea of shutting down Twitter.
2
If Twitter has become the public square, the President must hear the comments. Perhaps he will not listen, but this discourse is about the public's right to inform.
3
It Twitter is a public square, does Twitter get to ban users who tweet comments Twitter finds objectionable?
there's definitely an agenda-driven question here. it's currently ambiguous whether Twitter is "merely an open, neutral platform", or has some level of editing/moderation/integrity responsibility. that ambiguity and confusion has some benefits for the company, because it avoids certain regulatory costs. it also has some benefits for certain users, such as those avoiding accountability for harassment, or those seeking privacy protection. it might also benefit oppressive governments, because companies can be pressured to compromise unclear rules.
currently, the ambiguity about how to regulate new technology like Twitter harms the most vulnerable people in society with the least ability to protect themselves. keep your eye on the public good of developing meaningful systems of accountability. look for in-depth regulation proposals - not oversimplified analogies - and hard work to get it right.
First, the President has both a personal and a government Twitter account. @realDonaldTrump is definitely his personal account. Second, if I had people commenting on my Twitter account the way President Trump, I would definitely want the power to block them. And, if they persisted in insulting me on my Twitter feed, I would block them in a heartbeat.
2
And you would be well within your right, as long as you weren't using your account, in an official capacity, as someone who serves at the behest of the American taxpayer.
9
Twitter needs to shut down Trumps account.
I am sure he violated the rules a couple of times.
3
You’d think someone in the White House who “manages” DJT’s Twitter acct would be intelligent enough to realize this would be the decision of a judge. Or maybe all those people got disgusted with the President’s closed mind so they resigned.
2
Not a monarchy, yet.
4
Some have suggested fact checking Trump's tweets.
Why bother any more.
It's far easier and mostly correct to assume he continually lies.
The opposite of his tweets (and every other Trump statement) is closer to the truth.
7
The first amendment is alive and well in the USA. So is the kleptocratic administration of Trump. We shall see who wins this battle.
6
Just waiting for a reaction to this decision from John Barron's twitter account...
3
Wait -- so a private user blocking a private user "Violates the 1st Amendment," but Twitter algorithmically censoring users' posts en masse containing "#DNCleaks" and "#PodestaEmails" ISN'T Violating the 1st Amendment???
Scratching my head on this one.
5
Trump isn't a private user; he is the POTUS using his Twitter account to make public announcements, announce policies, conduct govt business, etc. Therefore, Trump's Twitter feed is a public forum under the law, so when he blocks his critics, he violates the 1st amendment.
(Fyi, People who are blocked by Trump on Twitter cannot see his tweets.)
he will call that judge a traitor.
3
How dare federal Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald besmirch our king? Off with her head! (For Trump patsies only: This is a written parody of you followers' chronic supplication to the thug who would be king. It is not a serious command or suggestion for you to obey.)
3
More than half of Mr. Trump's followers are fake -- that should be reported as well. He's a lying propaganda machine with his disgusting tweets and his fake number of followers. But, I'll say again -- the record should be kept of the vile things he says to all Americans he's supposed to serve -- our grandchildren should know this, so it never happens again.
http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-twitter-followers-fake-617873
21
If Donald J Trump, private citizen, uses Twitter, I think he can block anyone he wants. If Donald J Trump, POTUS, uses Twitter to communicate National Policy, no blocking. But using Twitter to communicate National Policy ... and slander and disinformation, etc. ...is a horrible activity... to say the least.
12
Works fine for me as long as we can block his tweets. How bout it NYT? Stop covering his tweets?
8
Can only laugh or cry
2
I'm doing both. Sometimes simultaneously. Help us all!
3
Meantime, Donald is working on the courts. Although this case seems obvious to law school grads and judges, the Senate has been confirming some pretty tenuous adherents to the rule of law and judicial precedent.
3
"... the Senate has been confirming some pretty tenuous adherents to the rule of law and judicial precedent."
Then name them.
1
As it is his _personal_ twitter account, the government does not have jurisdiction to compel him to engage in or participate in speech - to do so would be a violation of his free speech. If it were a government provided twitter account then there would be legitimate jurisdiction. But that he uses it for commubication "as president" that is
problematic.
I would argue the _correct_ resolution would be he cannot use his personal twitter for tweets as "president" but should instead use an "official" government twitter account of the office of the President - which blocking would then legitimately not be permitted as a free speech issue without any ambiguity. There, peoblem solved.
4
He uses his personal twitter account as his presidential account. There is no differentiation and this is a problem he created. Just more blurred lines of the Trump presidency.
10
By this definition, no one should be able to block someone on Twitter. Same for FB, and other social media platforms.
I am NOT a supporter of Trump. But this ruling should apply to all citizens, no?
4
No, because this is speech criticizing the government. The government cannot silence proponents of one side, unless they are legitimately dangerous (e.g. Let's plan for a revolution! meet me in x place at y time!"
No, the president's twitter acct is public, not private. Period.
No only the president who used his personal account as the official communication of the president. There in lies the problem of loose lines so prevalent in this administration.
2
As usual, Mr. Trump wants to have it both ways--1) consider his Twitter account "private" and 2) have millions of followers with lots of adulation.
Since he uses this account to announce all sorts of official business, as well as to "officially" denigrate people, it ceased to be private, as the judge rightly decided.
43
CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW.
What LAW is being referred to here in order to register a violation of the Constitution?
By the plain meaning of the text of the amendment, there NO LAW that is infringing the freedom of speech here.
2
Well, but let’s read on to the part of that sentence: “...or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...” According to the text of our first amendment, there exists an enumerated freedom of speech. While the Constitution goes out of its way to specifically call on Congress not to pass laws which infringe upon it, the latter statement also establishes that principle generally. Based on that principle, it doesn’t matter what government agent is infringing on that right, what matters is that the right exists and cannot be infringed to begin with. Multiple other cases have upheld that, especially those involving public forums (even though a large portion of those cases didn’t challenge congressional legislation whatsoever, largely they were attacking local ordinances and state laws). Congress doesn’t need to pass legislation for the right of free speech to be infringed, as the text of the Constitution alludes to its universality regardless.
1
"What LAW is being referred to here in order to register a violation of the Constitution?"
The US Supreme Court has extended freedom of speech protections beyond what is in the First Amendment.
In the case at hand, the President's Twitter feed is considered a "public forum", so the President cannot block access to it.
There are numerous books on the First Amendment and freedom of speech. Check your library.
2
In November 2017, DOJ lawyers representing the Trump Administration argued in Federal Court that Mr. Trump’s Twitter feed represents the official views of the White House. If so, then it is not a private forum and must accommodate the first amendment rights of those who wish to express dissent.
42
It's questionable that Trump has 52 million followers. He's been named as one of the many celebrities who bought millions of fake followers.
33
One can be a follower without being a supporter.
1
Just curious, why do you have to specify who appointed a judge? That seems to only throw bias and political shade on what should be an unbiased, legal outcome. I feel like these sorts of additions only lead to further partisanship and allow people to easily dismiss this judge because they feel they are “Clinton” biased.
27
Standard practice - adds context. They (and many other papers) have done the same thing with judges appointed by Republicans as well, and both regardless of the outcome of the decision.
1
I agree wholeheartedly.
1
I think it’s important because we live in a very polarized political environment, and judges are far from immune to that. While they are more often than not highly objective and thorough, the nature of these kinds of cases is that there is a lot of nuance to the facts and law. Often times, political affiliations are correlated to the underlying philosophy of judges, and that philosophy may be correlated to their ultimate opinions. A federal judge who leans hard to the left may have a very different outlook from one who leans hard right, and understanding which way a particular judge may lean can provide insight into what philosophical basis the opinion is derived from. When the law can go either way (I.e. not a lot of solid precedent, as is often the case when politicians and technology interact), it’s possible that philosophical basis is given more weight. I don’t think media organizations are wrong for acknowledging that, or for providing us context so we can make our own determinations.
The WH claims his RealDonaldTrump account announces his official government statements and positions. The first amendment guarantees the right of citizens to petition the government for a redress of grievances. If he is going to use this in his official capacity, then blocking citizens from challenging his office is a violation of those rights. The notion that it is going through the gear of a private company is no different than if the WH ordered a news organization to refuse the comments of people who are critical of their policies. That would not stand up in court, neither will his misuse of Twitter. An amateur with nothing to lose surrounded by sycophants with everything to lose is no way to run a government.
26
I’m thrilled by this ruling, but also worried. The temptation is to thump the trump, but the level of rage I see in this country is sky-high already. Is bear-baiting going to get us where we want to go? Or just energize his base—in time for the next elections? Isn’t there a martial arts credo that you win by meeting hardness with softness, and vise versa? I have a friend who wins any argument with smiling persistence—she’s never rude, never angry, she just rephrases her question or request and keeps on persisting. It works.
I’m hoping we can restrain ourselves to courteous requests for facts, not opinions. Can you verify that information, sir? You say that “everyone thinks or everyone knows”, but here in Utah I haven’t heard anyone say that. Sir, that is contrary to all known facts. Check out this link. Sir, Americans are better than that!
Two things to keep in mind: We can respect the presidency even if we despise the president.
And if Twitter is a public forum, then you’re talking to more than the man. WE all need to remember how to agree on our facts and our problems. Taunting won’t get us there.
5
This isn't simply a free speech issue that we've come to assume meaning the right to speak about anything you want. The First Amendment prohibits any law preventing citizens from petitioning government (including the president) for "redress of grievances." Good luck appealing.
9
Seems to me it’s a bit of a money trail question?
It gets into what is public and what is private when you are President. If the government pays any fee related to the account it is publicly funded and he should not be able to block tax paying citizens unless he invokes security or some such reason.
If he pays all bills associated with the account the account is privately owned. In this case the content and intent of his remarks becomes important. Were he to limit his discourse to private non-governmental matters he ought to be able to block people. Eg. if he prefaced remarks with something such as: “Speaking personally, and not as POTUS, I think....” However, if he uses it deliberately in his role as POTUS in order to make statements of presidential policy, incite political or international reactions, or if he makes statements that are intended to be reported and thus have public repercussions it really isn’t private speech nor does he intend it to be private. In that case he probably should not be able to deny folks necessary and timely access to the enlightened wisdom of his pronouncements.
4
It will be interesting to see how this is argued and decided at the appeals court and maybe the US Supreme Court. This is only a district court opinion and there are thousands of federal district judges.
On one hand I understand the First Amendment argument, however on the other hand Twitter is a social media owned by a private company. This makes me wonder whether Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat and other social media will be considered public forums by a judge or the government and no longer considered personal or private communication through media whose trademark and software are owned and controlled by private companies.
2
But they aren't private companies. They are publicly owned corporations.
10
This ruling only applies to Trump's use of Twitter as POTUS, and whether he violates the 1st amendment by blocking his critics. This decision does not apply to other people (private citizens) who use Twitter or other social media.
It also has nothing to do with who owns Twitter (or other social media). It's *how* Trump is using Twitter.
Basically, since Trump uses Twitter to make govt announcements, etc. in his capacity as POTUS, it is a public forum, so blocking his critics violates the 1st amendment.
It's a "public forum" bc Trump's using it in his official capacity as POTUS - and not personally. If Trump was using this Twitter account in his personal capacity (no govt business), he could, presumably, block Twitter critics freely, just like a private citizen.
2
Who pays for the account?? No one. therefore it is not "personal" in that sense and the fact that celebs lose certain privacy rights simply by being celebs reigns.
2
The judge is wrong -- when one signs up for the platform, one agrees to abide by the terms of the platform, which include the ability to block and the potential to be blocked.
5
Remember, this is the same Trump who crowed 'we're going to open up the libel laws.' The same darling of the right wing that vociferously demands the unfettered First Amendment right to engage in hate speech in our cities and on American campuses, no matter the economic cost or the human toll of its conduct, e.g., Charlottesville.
These guys believe in one First Amendment for themselves, and another one for their critics. The Constitution draws no such distinction; and neither do our courts.
20
So, the penalty should be a suppression of his twitter account indefinitely and Trump will need to open a Facebook account and posts there....
3
It's time to regulate social media and the interned more broadly in the same way we do every other media channel. Twitter, Facebook and Google are media, not technology companies, and should be held to account just as news and television and radio are held to minimum standards of decency and truth telling. These companies can no longer claim that they are just well meaning providers of a platform that is, through no fault of their own, devastating our democracy. Come too think of it, that's the same argument the NRA makes about selling military grade weapons to civilians knowing full well that they will be used in the next school massacre. Let's not pretend that there is any other reason for the present lack of regulation than the desire to maximize profit potential.
2
“Twitter, Facebook and Google are media, not technology companies, and should be held to account just as news and television and radio are held to minimum standards”
As much as I dislike everything about the current administration, this isn’t a valid comparison.
News and television media are represented by their employees, and they can and should be held to the standards of their employers, but people posting on Twitter or Facebook or any other social media platform are not employees of those platforms. They simply are using the free megaphone these platforms provide.
3
I would really like to see a hostile takeover of twitter, or at least a mass sell off with green mail requiring blocking Trump.
2
But, but, but the king has spoken.
His supporters must be thrilled. Their man tries to cut off free speech, too.....even theirs.
9
This is grounds to arrest and impeach. Mr Mueller please immediately remove him from office.
4
Free speech does not mean someone is forced to listen to you. A judge confused on this matter should not be in power.
3
No. The first amendment states that the state cannot stifle the speech. Trumps account, it was argued, was a government platform. That argument won. Sorry.
27
but it's not a 'someone'...the point of the ruling is that the President's account is, and is used as, a public, governmental account. It's supported by a government-paid employee/social media director, and another employee of the people - the President. As such, it should be open to all citizens...regardless of whether they agree with him or not.
Constitution aside, listening to and hearing only those views you like or that are like yours means the Pres will maintain his own belief-bubble, even though the job description is that he serve and represent us ALL.
14
Actually it does. The president has designated his Twitter account as a political forum. As such the first amendment requires all citizens be given equal opportunity to be heard. I wouldn't want a judge on the bench who didn't know the basics of our constitution either. Glad this one does.
9
I don't use Twitter (or Facebook or any social media - that's a story for another day).
However, if by using Twitter I could tell him exactly what I think of him, I might have to reconsider. What a pleasure that would be. It would very much hurt his widdle feelings though, might even set his phone on fire. How do I sign up?
10
I guess it’s time to sign up for a Twitter account. :-)
11
I wish you had explained a little more about the applicable law. My guess is that the judge ruled that Trumps twitter account created a public forum of 5.2 million people. Furthermore, Trump and his White House have stated that his tweets are official government communications, therefore this pubic forum is a government public forum. By excluding (blocking) speakers from this public government forum, Trump violated the First Amendment rights of those he blocks. Because they are blocked due to the content of their speech, Trumps actions do not meet the criteria of what the case law calls "time, place and manner" restrictions. Therefore the blocking constitutes a violation of the First Amendment.
402
Ah, ha! I wasn't the only one on this topic who mis-spelled "public" in an almost embarrassing manner!
13
It would be nice if the Times had posted the opinion. Sometimes they do. Possibly it was not yet available on the Court's website.
7
tony, as someone who edits documents as part of my job, that's a typo that I regularly check for. Trust me, you're not alone.
Trump won't obey the ruling. But if Twitter had any guts they'd block Trump. They alone are responsible for the lies and garbage he tweets. If he can block users they should block him. But they won't because they are cowards and good for their business. Another example like Facebook where social media has been corrupted by greed.
14
A compromise remedy would be to have Twitter disable Trump's ability to block, and unblock all those that he blocked in the past.
4
Bigoted Twitter's own staff systematically ban people who report blatantly bannable offenses, like racism and harassment; and of course, they aid and abet "covfefe" and other traitors.
It should be avoided, not targeted and dignified with hashtag spams and petitions.
Still, it's nice to know that the dotard can't both block his personal bugbears and pretend that his account speaks for the United States. You can't have your dozen Diet Cokes and gulp them too.
1
Maybe now he will stop his inane tweeting now that others can point out the absurdity of most of what he writes.
8
Good. Another loss in Federal court.
I guess his Twitter feed is going to grow so large as to crash.
Trump is not a president but rather a bad and dangerous imposter enabled by RW media and Republicans who have no shame and care about nothing more than their political ideology and power.
8
Will Donald Trump be asking for a DOJ investigation of this judge? Clearly, the judge is biased against him and is in the tank with the Democrats.
1
Finally, a reason to open a Twitter account....and rest assured, I plan to FULLY exercise my 1st amendment rights if only to antagonize and reveal the hypocrisy of those fixated on the indisputability of their 2nd amendment rights but who will then in nearly the same breath seek to silence my 1st amendment rights...
7
We all would be much better off if Twitter would just shut down. Unless Twitter gets a court order to unblock users he has blocked, I have a hard time imagining that he will do it himself.
4
Looks like I finally have a reason to join Twitter (nope).
Now Trump will get a twit-full of what people really think of him.
1
aw. now I can never earn the "blocked by Trump" achievement.
2
Darn!!!! My goal was to get blocked by him!!!
3
So any time that one blocks someone from Facebook or Twitter is a violation of that person's First Amendment rights? You have got to be kidding me. The ramifications are astounding.
2
Not anytime or anyone. Only if you are an elected official and using that account as a de facto official mouthpiece of the government.
Trump may claim otherwise, but when he uses it to make official government business, that's what it is.
It's not that simple (a nuance that will be lost on most Trump followers).
6
Mr. Trump is not "anyone." He is president of the US and his WH has repeatedly stated that his Twitter pronouncements are official statements of the US government. The First Amendment protects the right of citizens to petition the government for redress. Therefore, Mr. Trump has no right to block Twitter users who respond to his tweets with comments that do not agree with government positions he posts on Twitter.
11
You are right that if the judge was saying that it would be very dangerous, but the argument hinges on if Trump is tweeting as POTUS, thus putting the weight of his office behind his tweets and making them public speech or if, as you say, they are truly just private utterances of Trump the man and thus protected by the First Amendment. The judge ruled that Trump’s tweets were not simply his private speech but intended as public statements from the POTUS. The fact that all the remarks also get tweeted from the official POTUS account confirms their public, presidential, nature. Purely private remarks unrelated to his job as President would not be broadcast on official channels.
2
But who can enforce this, and how?
Twitter can enforce it
1
I don't follow Trump however, realDonaldtrump chooses to follow me. He Tweets very rude, nasty and vicious things but I have not blocked him. Freedom of speech whether I like it or not. Trump doesn't respect the rule of law and clearly doesn't understand the constitution.
2
No, in his mind he IS the rule of law.
My goodness! You mean there are really people who don't love our beloved "Leader?"
4
I thought @realdonaldtrump is his personal account and @POTUS is the official account regardless of how it’s being used. Love the guy or hate him, this is all so petty. I’m sad to see our country in this condition, and it’s not because of the commander-in-chief. He is a symptom of a much greater problem brought about by decades of race baiting, identity politics, and the alienation of the many by the few. Are many of his statements cringe-worthy? Absolutely. But I think we have the president we deserve. Sorry to hit people with the sad truth, but....
1
It ceases to be a personal account when it is used to conduct official government business. It without dispute that that's what the account is being used for.
4
Violating the constitution is not a petty thing.
Trump is tweeting as his official capacity as POTUS bc his tweets contain govt announcements, policies, etc & the WH has stated that his @realDonaldTrump tweets are official statements.
Basically, whether Trump's Twitter account is public (POTUS) or private is based on how Trump uses it. And Trump is clearly tweeting as POTUS, based on the *content* of his tweets.
Mr. Trump wants to be able to say any nasty things about anyone he does not like. And he wants to label any information that does not jive with his own constructs as false. On the top of that, he wants to stop those who are the target of his attacks from defending themselves. If that is not bullying, let me know what it is.
8
How will the president react to negative feedback? He certainly doesn't receive any from the White House sycophants. I suspect that he will label the naysayers as plants from the Obama Administration or the villainous "deep state." Perhaps Congressional Republicans can launch an investigation(s) to out the guilty parties?
3
Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald is a patriot for ruling against Trump and his effort to block Twitter users from seeing his posts. Now the bloviating, bombastic, mendacious Trump will have to reap what he's sown; he deserves all the backlash he gets.
4
This president thinks it's an emperor; an emperor that can just make laws up as it goes. And, of course, this emperor thinks it's above all laws because it is an emperor. And finally, this emperor only tells the truth; i.e.- anything it says is made true by proclamation.
3
Why would anyone want to be on Trump's twitter feed in the first place?
Do something else. Go for a walk. Be kind to a stranger. Contribute to society. Get off social media!
2
I didn't even know he was blocking people. My goodness what a fragile man.
10
Twitter can block Trump, however. The reason it is a terrible, make that catastrophic, mistake to allow Trump to break the rules is because people with power need boundaries as much as the rest of us. Trump suffers at the lack of boundaries. A permissive relationship, where the authority (twitter) indulges the user (Trump and the rest of us), allowing anti-social behavior's such as ad hominem's (bullying) and lies, is that it results in the user becoming self centered and more inclined to have a negative attribution bias. Behaviors, when repeated, becomes a habit, even our thoughts. Twitter's decision to hold his account and behaviors as an exception is for their financial gain, and the result is the decay of our culture. This and the varying lack of guidelines based critical thinking in our social media is encouraging an unhealthy environment. The primary ingredient for healthy human development is a safe base through caring relationships. It generates a sense of belonging. No sense of belonging is behind all eating disorders, substance abuse issues and random acts of violence and greed.
5
There's nothing better for a federal judge to do than regulate Trump's Twitter behavior? Don't give him another reason to cry witch hunt.
The judge did not "decide to regulate Trump's Twitter behavior." The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit. Trump's attorney answered the claim. The judge made a decision. That's what we are paying her for.
2
This president is so dismissive of the rule of law that I seriously believe he will have Scavino re-instate the blocks and direct him to say Trump reblocked the accounts. Trump will push this to another court ruling.
The text of the decision, whether delivered written or orally, please.
This president violated the First Amendment? This is hardly news. How long will it be before the president calls her a “so called judge”? The accompanying photo explains his attitude. It’s a can’t-be-bothered dismissive brush off when things don’t go his way. Since he can’t stand criticism he should resign and go back to Moscow where he belongs.
3
He was only blocking those users to set an example for Melanie's, excuse me, Melania's "Be Best" program.
Trump wanted to set the example that it wasn't right for people to troll him on Twitter, Twitter should be no place for personal attacks, so he blocked those users.
It was his own way of saying: "Be Best" America!
2
That headline alone should win an instant Pulitzer for “Contemporary Oxymoronic Prescience”
And I went ahead and blocked Trump from tweeting to me or following me. Waste of my time.
Writing "Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, who was appointed to the federal bench in 1999 by President Bill Clinton" is giving in to the false Trumpian worldview that everyone is always acting in a corrupt and partisan manner and therefore you must always look at their political affiliation. Precisely because the Trumpians always attack their critics with this accusation, without ever presenting any evidence of bias, you must fight back and not question our civil servants, almost all of whom take their jobs very seriously and set aside their political views when they go to work, unless their is real evidence of bias. Our civil servants deserve better treatment and it is a scandal how the corrupt Trumpians are always unjustly maligning hardworking Americans.
I am so tired of this man ,that stole the presidency through illigal & corrupt means,and is spewing his vile words of hate and sickening the US and it's reputation in the world .
His Twitter should be canceled for the content , and everyone on Twitter should protest until he is .
The midterms cannot come soon enough ,and then we'll see the new house of Representatives come roaring in to hold him And his corrupt cabinet accountable .
3
Taxpayer money well spent.... meanwhile innocent people sit on death row
1
it would be great if NYT had a policy of always including case name, court, and case number when they write about case developments.
2
Trump ranted against the NFL players who took a knee during the National Anthem. Now he gets his own personal lesson in the First Amendment. Couldn't happen to a more biased person.
4
Finally, someone challenged this dictator.
2
“We respectfully disagree with the court’s decision and are considering our next steps,” said a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, which is representing Mr. Trump in the case.
Or, Trump can grow up and act like an adult, and be able to accept that not everyone loves everything he says and does. As a public employee, he should understand that because he works for us, our opinions of his actions are more than legitimate. They are necessary for him to carry out his duties as president effectively.
3
It's extremely doubtful that the Justice Department actually objects to the ruling. That's just part of the White House pacification program. Who could successfully argue that the First Amendment is a one way street?
2
This behavior by Trump is very un-american.
8
This ruling is patently reasonable! If a person - a public official - agrees to be a part of the Federal Government, and as such spend taxpayer resources, they are pretty well beholden to accept public comment on a public forum without discrimination. If the President didn't use his Twitter account as a mouthpiece of his administration, it would be as others might say: a private person's site; but it isn't--it's the administration's site.
And while others might jump to hyperbolic similes, likening such a ruling to allowing someone the right to trespass at your home, I am pretty sure forcing the government (President in this case) to allow its citizens to comment on its social media feed is something short of open access to the person of the President.
People have a right to regulate their Twitter usage; the government has to accept all comers who aren't obscene, excessively abusive, and/or profane; you know, cause they are our government. It's the internet, not a house, or your personal space.
This has got to be one of the most inevitable rulings ever arising from the most stupid administration in the history of Free Speech, may that right live indefinitely.
312
The fact that it is the justice department and not his own personal lawyer representing him in this matter reinforces the idea that this is a government account.
(Or perhaps it just reinforces the idea that Trump THINKS that the justice department IS his own personal lawyers, but we won't go there).
20
John,
I don't know if anyone still writes "Letters to the President" but if they do, must they all be opened
and duly read ?
If Trump blocks people how is that different from
the White House telling staffers not to open letters
from San Francisco ?
2
The ruling didn't say he had to read them, only that they be allowed to reply.
Revolutionary idea: Stop sending Tweets and instead issue carefully edited, fully-thought-out communiques, like a real leader instead of an embarrassing old demented uncle.
21
OK. Neat. How does this get enforced?
5
This matters little. We all know that Trump doesn't read. We also know that when he tweets, he lies.
4
By blocking those Twitter users who do not support him, Trump is clearly demonstrating that he is not the American president - he is only the president of his deluded right wing followers. Twitter should immediately make it impossible for Trump to block anyone from his account.
9
This is a nonsense ruling - it is the equivalent of saying that anyone can stand up and argue with the President during any of his speeches.
2
It's nothing of the sort.
8
they can.
I can't wait to see what the Supreme Court says about this one. I hope a case reaches them soon, maybe even this one.
1
Considering the only thing Donald Trump knows about the U.S. Constitution is how to hold himself above it -- this is welcome news.
17
I find this not only humorous but just.
11
BTW: it's completely possible that Twitter already employs the solution to this issue: "Don't block, MUTE"!
2
This now begs a question about the First Amendment right: Is it freedom to speak or freedom to be heard? Must public officials hear and read all comments from their constituents?
The plaintiffs' right to read and write comments from and about Trump was not violated by Trump's blocking. Their ability to write comments about him on his public account was blocked.
1
It appears to be such an obvious, blatant violation of the First Amendment that a first year law student would immediately spot it. Nevertheless, neither the POTUS nor his WH aide apparently saw it. Hashtag # whatasurprise
8
Really? First Amendment guarantees the right to speak. Does it guarantee the right to be heard, and especially by a public official? Do you have the right to have your representative read your letter written to him/her? If he/she refuses to open your letter, does he/she violate your First Amendment right?
The plaintiffs were NOT forbidden to write or comment, just not on Trump's public social account.
It don't think it's that simple.
I avoided signing up for Twitter until now...!!!
1
What a fantastic ruling! Trump found guilty of violating First Amendment rights. May it not be the last lesson he learns about the rule of law and the constitution.
495
But will he learn it? He is not amenable to learning.
24
I'm pretty sure that he has learned nothing, except that the judge has failed to show him the "loyalty" to which he believes himself entitled.
16
Ha! You mean may it be the FIRST lesson he learns; we're still stuck at registration with this dunce.
3
He is OUR employee. I follow him on Twitter because that is where he makes his proclamations. HE won't answer reporters, and when he does and they quote him, he says it is fake news. So he should want to know what the WHOLE country says and wants rather than just feeding his ego from the roar of his base at rallies.
15
I say to all those who want to criticize Trump on his Twitter account BRING IT ON!
7
No man is above the law.
Not you either, Donald Trump.
Follow the law or pay the consequences. The American people have had enough of your shenanigans.
10
Twittergate gutted by the First Amendment. This is the biggest scandal since Watergate. Trump exposed as a violator of Constitution.
7
The president is acting like a demigod. It is refreshing when the rule of law is able to knock back this president’s actions. I hope in the next two years the rule of law will continue to prevail.
8
Well apparently now he'll only be able to do this with his Cabinet and Communication Dept.
4
Who would have known even using Twitter could become so complicated...
8
Good one. Facebook can direct political opinions in the US and Ireland, but Trump cannot block obscene comments.
2
There is a walk-around.
Mr. Trump will have to release his Twitter opinions through non-governmental entities such as the GOP. They can block rude comments and the press will still pick them up as they do on the judicially declared "official" @realDonaldTrump. Perhaps @DonaldTrumpSays (or something similar) will let Trump be Trump.
1
And just exactly what will the justice department do about it?
Exactly, nothing.
4
Trump’s tweets are most likely punched in by a semi-literate subordinate. Trump probably dictates his random, venous thoughts to this guy or woman, and then they appear as tweets.
Now he wanted to block tweeters from responding to him. A victory for the critical responders who are not trumpsters.
A Twitter translator and a hair stylist on call 18 hours a day. What a country.
7
Awww...leave the poor guy alone. Can you imagine how hard it must be to drag that huge rear end of his around? Watch as he walks to and from his flights. His rear end sticks out a mile and quivers and shakes like jelly. Frankly I was unaware that cheeseburgers could have that effect, but judging from how vitriol he spews out from day to day he must be aware of it and it makes him angry. So don't get on him because he blocks the Twitter users that criticize him, they just don't know what he's going through.
9
I dislike Trump as much as the next sane person, but Naomi Reice Buchwald's ruling betrays her lack of understanding of technology in general. This is silly in the extreme. Misconstruing something as vital to social platforms as the ability to block other users as a freedom of speech issue is nothing more than political grandstanding.
33
He uses it as official communication for policy.
91
And your comment betrays your lack of understanding of the First Amendment. If Trump wants to block users on Twitter, he can't use his account for Administration announcements ("I hereby demand" blah blah blah).
107
If it's used for official purposes (policy announcements), then the tax payers paid for it and it should be accessible to all who use it responsibly. It's not just another social platform. This includes access to those who are critical of his policies. The problem is that DJT equates criticism of him as disloyalty or lacking patriotism, and not misconstruing a vital aspect of a social platform.
44
Rather than being an absurd judgement, this is in line with the agreement made between the White House and National Archives to save all Trump’s Tweets, even the ones he’s deleted. The Presidential Records Act of 1978 requires he do so.
So, since Trump’s Tweets are official (even from his personal account), any infringement of the right to view and respond to those tweets would violate the 1st Amendment’s protection of, not only free speech, but of a citizen’s right to petition the government for redress of grievances.
18
This makes complete sense. If Trump were using Twitter as a private citizen then he could block anyone he wants.
But our bully child/president has decided to use a social media platform to speak to the citizenry. He does that in the hopes that he will simply get applause. Not going to happen.
He is so needy and insecure that he can't operate like an adult and take serious questions from the press.
I don't have a twitter account. But I may just sign up so I can ask the Predator in Chief some questions.
26
Freedom of expression is made up of the explicit rights of freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied right of association. The right of association carries with it the right NOT to associate. The President does not give up his Constitutional rights when he takes office including the right to associate.
1
I'm not sure how your law school taught constitutional law, but you should go have another look at the public forum doctrine. He decided to use his account as a place that conducts government business. Imagine if a President said, "You can only picket the White House if I agree with you." That's about as un-Constitutional as it gets.
10
The Constitution is a document that even Donald should read and comprehend, as should his followers. They lost the argument when it was ruled that Donald used Twitter to communicate with "the people".
Ignoble followers are attempting to have it both ways.
8
Therein lies the difficulty - "comprehend"
Bill Maher showed a tweet from one of the Florida shooter's victims after Trump tweeted his "thoughts and prayers" dreck. I can't post what the young victim said here because of what he said but I'm sure people can find it on Maher's "Real Time" site. Kudos to Bill Maher.
7
Yes. Yes. But what is the practical outcome of the ruling? Is there any directive from the bench?
And which admirable democrat (small “d”) spent her/his money to bring this suit? Let’s celebrate this person by putting her/his name up in lights in Times Square.
4
Great! Trump's core followers now get to be exposed to a opinions contrary to what our Liar In Chief spews.
Maybe Fox 'News' could be made to offer counter arguments to the drivel they put out and call news.
11
Hahahahahahahaha.........best news of the day. The Trumpet has no place to hide from his "constituents." Who knew how complicated the pprezzz i ddduncy could be?
10
like Ms. Abrahms stated during her campaign there is no reason trying to suck up (my words there) to conservatives any longer.
for this president to be told thgis today that is a good thing. grow up twitter in chief. play responsibly with others. Mr. Twitter in chief ;welcome to fairness.
3
He's not just the most thinned-skinned president we've ever had, he's one of the most think-skinned people I've ever 'known.' And he's a typical bully; love to dish it out, but can't take it.
This ruling makes me happy.
13
Maybe he can ask Russia to help him.
8
Thank you to Judge Buchwald and to the plaintiffs.
“Revenge is Tweet!”
9
Liberal judge impinging on free speech rights!
Please explain how hiding from a reply to a tweet is an “impingement” on free speech.
3
Liberal judge letting the everyone have free speech, not just the president.
2
Countdown to Trump attacking this judge in 3...2...1...
11
YES!! I am @kittfawkes42 on Twitter and I'm positive he blocks me actually Pence also. I have said things to him that are inflammatory but I have wanted him to see how it feels to be on the other end. Unfortunately, he is currently acting as a dictator and megomaniac and needs to be removed from office because he is starting to crack under his own chaos and pressure. We must save America soon before it is too late!
3
Now I am going to get a Twitter account and keep the Dotard up at night!
7
Countdown to "Trump" attack-tweeting about Federal District Court Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald in 10...9....8...7...
8
“Badges? We ain’t got no badges! We don’t need no badges! I don’t have to show you any stinking badges!”
Gold Hat, "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre"
5
Perhaps off topic but what about the press being blocked from Pruitt’s meeting the other day? Isn’t that official government communications?
13
Yes. They officially communicated that they and they alone would control the "news."
3
If it was all of the press, probably not. If he only let in journalists whose views he agreed with, then it probably would.
"Man guilty of murder gets parking ticket."
6
One small victory for reason. Now, let's all use Twitter to con-troll this crime boss.
4
So... what happens now?
1
Uh oh, Trumpie, a court order. Real News.
6
Wow. This will allow real Americans to drown out the twit-in-chief who is drowning Americans in his toxic swamp.
First Amendment First.
8
Srves him right, the loudmouth bully, who seems to have a sensitive under belly.
3
The opportunity to harrass the con man who occupies the White House makes one good reason to create a Twitter account.
3
Woot woot. Just keep Rope-a Dopin' this lying cheating con and we'll win this fight! :)
1
Ha, ha, Mr. Trump. Ain't the Constitution great?
2
The illiberal-one is told to behave and follow the law. What a jerk...
Donald Trump, you are the current POTUS, so learn to let ALL people express themselves, not just the ones who kiss up to you. You can dish it out on Twitter, but you are too thin-skinned to take it, apparently.
Better grow a thicker hide -- you'll need it!
p.s. I am not a Twitter user, so I will not be one of the commenters. If I were, I would have plenty of critical things to say to you.
3
Lordy, I may just have to dust off my twitter account.
6
We needed a judge to tell us this?
2
What a waste of time! So what u gonna persecute the blondy in the White House lol ..talk to Muller lol
Yes, Donald there are other points of view other than yours and it looks like you will be viewing all of them! Looks like this is truly a "Covfefe" moment, Donald!
7
Oh boy, now to join Twitter!
2
Trump can easily avoid seeing tweets critical of him and his administration. Just don't use Twitter. Forth-three presidents managed without it, and we'd all be better off if he did.
3
This ruling is patently absurd! If a person - even a pubic official - wants to block someone on Twitter, she or he should be able to do so. How this judge reads a Constitutional right to access someone's Twitter site in the US Constitution, even on the grounds of free speech, is beyond me.
That's like saying, because I have a Constitutional right to free speech, I therefore have a right to knock on the door of the White House to express myself at **any time** and at **any hour**. This is absurd.
People have a right to regulate their Twitter usage in the same way they have a right to regulate who physically shows up on their front door steps to their house.
This has got to be one of the most absurd ruling ever in the name of Free Speech.
20
No, it is considered a public forum. Your house analysis falls short. He is engaging the public in the public sphere. In this case the govt. cannot regulate or deny those who wish to speak out in the forum. This is not the same as showing up to someone's house. He tweets as POTUS, not a private citizen. Therefore, this is all a matter of public concern and record
125
Not so. This judge was absolutely astute in today's ruling; DJT's twitter account is an official extension of his official government duties, and as such, he does not have the right to block comments. I commend this judge's ruling wholeheartedly! Well done!
71
I don’t think knocking on the WH door is the correct analogy.
How about access to the WH website? Since Trump clearly announces policy on Twitter, shouldn’t all have access if they want?
33
Welcome to the slippery slope. A twitter account has been designated a "public space." How long would it take to people who have been banned from Twitter to claim they have "lost access to this public space" and demand to be reinstated? After all the logic goes is that if you are banned from twitter, you are banned from following President Trump's tweets. Hence twitter needs to reinstate your account - at least to the extent of interacting with all government leaders, members, agencies, and such.
2
no, the person who hold this account is a public servant. and the medium he uses to communicate with the public has been designated public space.
How hard is that to understand?
11
If they are banned from Twitter, that is not a government action. Therefore the First Amendment is not implicated.
1
Twitter isn't the government, so it can ban you. But the government can't ban you from commenting on a government Twitter account. Read the First Amendment. It's pretty clear.
1
Does this ruling mean that the Twitter accounts of all public officials be treated likewise?
1
yes. A lower court ruled the same. Unfortunately until the Supreme Court rules on the issue it won't be uniform across all circuits, but it would be wise for public officials to heed the warning and unblock constituents if they're using their social media account for political business.
16
To the degree that the account is used for official purposes and managed by government employees, quite likely.
Thus we will have three potential categories of Twitter accounts for elected officials.
1) Personal accounts that are not used to conduct government business. Officials may block folks on these.
2) Campaign accounts. These are clearly not accounts used for government business, and therefore they may block political opponents.
3) Official accounts used for government purposes. These may not block political opponents.
8
No. Only if the account is used as public record by someone functioning in a governmental capacity. The Presidential Records Act of 1978 covers Trump's tweets and those of his staff using his account, as Presidential records.
6
trump and his administration are clearly testing the limits of his power, and it is encouraging to see that some limits are being reached. Our democracy depends largely on the ethical character of its leaders -- something this president has yet to show.
17
The question is not what I may think of the president's policies, but rather any public person can protect himself or herself from Twitter annoyances. This ruling strikes me as bizarre.
3
I'm not a legal expert, but I believe that this ruling would specifically affect government leaders who use their personal accounts for government business. This would not affect a public person/celebrity/elected official if they use their personal account only for private use.
18
If Donald Trump were using his account for strictly personal or political purposes, he would be able to. But to the degree he is using it -- and government employees - for official purposes, he may not block folks for expressing contrary political views. Doing so is the equivalent of bnning opponents from looking at the White House website or mailing letters to the White House.
14
This is what happens when you don't separate your work accounts from your personal accounts. (Something he blasted HRC for doing, of course.) As long as he uses his personal Twitter account as a de facto presidential account, he needs to allow the public access to that platform. We have a right to petition the government for redress of grievances. I would prefer that the president not use Twitter has is medium to communicate with the public, but as long as he does, we have the right to communicate back.
70
Trump clearly uses his account for government purposes. He goes after the justice department, threatens to fire government officials, announces new policies, etc. Heck, all of these tweets are being written from government housing (the White House). He loves all the power that comes with being president, but rejects any corresponding obligations or responsibilities. It's about time he realized that being president is about more than just campaigning for the next term.
55
So "twitter" being considered a matter of public record, every deleted tweet since January 2017 needs to be restored and all those users already blocked will automatically be unblocked?
Have they also now removed thumps block and delete privileges? Perhaps that will correct the ugly, flaming language and threats in what he posts.
15
If Trump doesn't like the ruling he can simply shut down his account. A win-win for all of us.
290
No, it's even simpler than that: he and others can simply "mute" persons. I say, "If you don't like someone on Twitter, don't block -- MUTE!"
One hand given, while other takes away.
NFL ruled that players exerting their first amendment rights to kneel during the national anthem will be fined.
15
The players are NFL employees and required to follow the rules of their workplace.
For example, a salesperson selling new homes maybe required by the company to fly the US flag. Let them decide not to fly it or fly it upside down and see how long they last.
The only reason these players still have jobs is that the game can’t be played at the expected level without them.
1
So kneeling in front of the loser-pres would be okay, hail Kim/Trump!, but there can be no kneeling to the flag, to the people in the grandstands?
This corporate decision is a devastating blow to free expression, and from my point in Europe, untenable in a democracy. it is more than workplace behavior, it is public television and prime time.
But hate speech is also untenable for a democracy, as the so-called pres uses daily in the public forum.
But y'all believe in god, right?
Just for the reord. You don't have to be in Europe to recognize the corporate N.F.L. decision is a devastating blow to the 1st Amendment.
Several comments seem to not understand the ruling and are quick to label it over reach. I have seen people using personal accounts as examples. Trumos account is being used in official government communications. Therefore it doesn't compare to the strawman examples of blocking people from personal accounts who are criticizing you.
However, if anyone is using an account for official government communications they can not block users from communicating back to that same account. That would be limiting speech by a government official.
64
The President is not supposed to have a private Twitter feed anyway, especially on an insecure phone. That is the way the cookies crumble. You get to use it again when you’re not President anymore. If he had stuck to using his official account, his private account would not now be public.
37
A genius and a great communicator has to know that communication works both ways.
30
"People are saying" this is a great ruling. Maybe the best Twitter related ruling in history. We'll see what happens. I hope it's great, but whatever it is, it is.
29
If this is the official policy choice trump is going to use all the time to fire people, make policy, start wars, & name call, then he should not be allowed to block any American citizen who wants to follow his twitter. Sarah Sanders & Kellyanne Conway have said twitter is the official administration's statements. When they talk about some legislative items going public, then the public should be able to criticize trump & his administration. First Amendment rights win out against trump's hate of negative comments.
51
Was twitter around when the first amendment was passed? Is the twitter account being used currently by Trump the same as it was when he was a private citizen. As long as twitter is free and Trump does not sign as POTUS or provide classified information via twitter, it is his business what he does with his twitter account. This sets a precedent that could affect everyone's right to freedom over one's own account. Next will be blocking people on Twitter like it is done on Facebook. We are reaching a point at which it seems everyone else has rights accept you. Don't rejoice because Trump is at the receiving end of this judge. You could be next.
2
The judge ruled that his Twitter account is official and managed by his aides, who apparently sometimes write his Tweets for him, making deliberate grammatical mistakes in the name of authenticity.
47
Politicians and Celebrities give up some rights to privacy that most of us have.
2
I am not the President of the United States and I do not use my personal Twitter account to conduct public business.
Trump can either delete his personal account or he has to let us see what he writes. Period.
3
This is a small victory for free speech.
The deeper problem with Trump's twitter account is that it allows him to pump out his lies and falsehoods to over 50 million followers without any fact checking. It would be more valuable if corrections to his lies could be sent to these same people. The free press corrects its mistakes in public, visible for all to see, but this is not the case for Trump's twitter account (nor for Fox "News").
As it stands, his twitter machine does at least as much damage to our democracy as Fox "News" by one-sided dissemination of lies, propaganda and conspiracy theories.
72
Which is why it is crucial that his falsehoods be pointed out to him every time he tweets one. Only way to do that and reach his fellow twitter believers is to respond to him - on his twitter feed. Has to be done promptly and thoroughly.
4
Now we can all correct his lies on his twitter page.
Poetic justice! Our belligerent president used his 1st amendment rights to attack all sorts of people, yet people can't critique what he's saying?
There's a big difference between attacking the person--which is what Donald Trump does with his insulting nicknames and his lies about what theyve said or done in the past --and attacking what a person says in real time.
Well done Twitter!!
117
Twitter had nothing to do with it. It was a Democrat-appointed judge.
2
Well, keep in mind that Mueller was a Republican appointed FBI Director and a Republican appointed Special Prosecuter.
So based on this ruling it would be a violation of free speech for a city council member in a rural Oklahoma to block someone on Twitter for criticizing them? What if the criticism stemmed from a little league baseball dispute rather than government policy, could they still not block that person because of their position as a city council member?
It seems like this ruling is a little far reaching. Does it apply to all federal employees, does it only apply to elected officials, does it apply to military personnel since they represent the government indirectly?
2
Most normal adults don't conduct their official business from a twitter account. Trump created this problem by not using more formal appropriate methods of communication.
24
it applies to any account being used in an official government capacity. so if the official is using his personal account for official government business then no they can't block it. the ruling is not over reach. if you are communicating from a Twitter account for government communications you cannot block users from communicating back.
5
you would have to find out in court, but the precedent is set, so its a pretty easy argument in your favor if you are holding the public official in violation. As a defense attorney, you'd have to argue the exception. Military are not elected officials.
1
I guess I better not swat any mosquitoes buzzing in my ears here in America, either, they probably have lawyers too. Hate speech is fine as long as it's pointed where you want it. So much for principles when they're relative.
2
You don’t get it. The hate speech, if there is any, is coming from Trump who is the owner of the account.
4
Trump is the king of hate speech.
And criticism of a sitting president is allowed.
2
Hate speech? Against the most powerful man in the world. Weak
3
Thanks to everyone who pursued this. I have never been on Twitter, but that is about to change. Donnie, I'm a counter puncher too! And a thoroughly unstable genius. About to follow you, big guy!
60
I have found replying to his Tweets to be somewhat cathartic, even knowing that he'll probably never see my replies.
8
No doubt Trump's lawyers (who were his lawyers?) argued that the @realDonaldTrump account is a personal account. Even though Trump uses it almost exclusively as a communication tool for his presidency. So, will Trump now unblock the users who brought the suit? I'd be surprised if he did.
22
Except that Sarah Sanders has said that the Twitter account is an official communication channel. Although, they are masters at trying to have it both ways.
16
He would be in contempt if he didnt.
1
Common sense from the courts once again trumps the current president. We still have three branches of government, and I am ever grateful for the judiciary.
153
Right on!
2
Don't get too excited. This president is working as hard as possible to load the courts with people who think like he does. And those judicial appointments last for life.
8
Yes, which is why it is imperative that Democrats take control in 2018. Trump is doing his best to stack the judiciary with unqualified ideological hacks -- if he succeeds, America is lost...
10
I thought Bill Clinton playing sax on Arsenio Hall was beneath the dignity of the office. Twitter accounts for the President? Way, way, worse than that. It trivializes presidential communication, lessens respect for the office, and in this case it makes anyone who reads the tweet nervous about the country's safety.
26
Perhaps the next step is preservation of communications and stopping his habit of deleting tweets.
42
Another addition to the long list of impeachable offenses: spectacularly failing (again) to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States”.
All his GOP enablers in Congress should be removed from office for the same reason.
182
Very likely not an impeachable offense. Guess his age has kept him from the impeachable offense of sexual acts in the Oval Office.
1
All members of congress have Twitter accounts. The article should report how many elected representatives block unwanted comments. ... All the News that fits the anti-Trump narrative.
4
A criminal offense in this instance, no. As has often been pointed out, an “impeachable” offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives will agree with (e.g., Nixon and Clinton). The standard is higher in the Senate, where two-thirds of senators must vote for removal. The vote on Clinton failed to meet that threshold, and Nixon was never tried in the Senate, having resigned before that could occur.
Trump could have bypassed the whole controversy by keeping his personal account private, and using the @POTUS public account for official government business. But then someone would have to teach him how to do that.
And what's going to happen when trump ignores this ruling? Who enforces this? What are the consequences?
Just as I thought... Of the norms this guy disregards, this isn't even a speedbump.
131
He'll turn the problem over to Giuliani. Who better?
4
Ignoring the ruling would be an impeachable offense.
If the GOP still had any integrity.
11
The injured parties will be able to sue for damages for a knowing violation of a Constitutional right. Of course, Trump will then expect the Judgement Fund to pay the damages. Would the Justice Department authorize payment in that case?
3
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
"Congress shall make no law..." Even liberal progressive judges can be wrong.
4
Of course they could be. So could you. "Congress" was interpreted to mean all levels of government, state and federal, legislative, executive and judicial, almost a hundred years ago. But keep on truckin'!
12
The Supreme Court has long maintained that the 1st Amendment applies to all government actions, not just Congress. This has been established principle upheld by both "liberal progressive judges" and conservative ones.
28
That is why the ruling was correct since Trump uses Twitter in his official capacity. Blocking people is prohibiting the free exercise of the freedom of speech.
Trump is the government and he is telling citizens that he can stop them from free speech. That violates the 1st amendment.
This isn't a law, it allows citizens to be able to protest Trump's official announcements on Twitter (the government). Otherwise Trump is abridging the freedom of speech.
Perhaps he shouldn't be making official announcements on Twitter.
4
Bizarre, I block any person I find disagreeable on Twitter. So does every friend. I am not about to put up with rudeness or crudeness and no one should have to.
7
Nancy, you aren't a public official. The ruling is that Trump's use of the account is governmental in nature, and the government cannot suppress free speech, even speech it finds objectionable.
147
But you're not the president or a public official. Trump works for us. He's a public servant (although he doesn't realize this-someone should tell him.)
90
I don't appreciate rudeness or crudeness any more than anyone else, and in my private life don't have to tolerate it.
The president isn't just anyone, though. He's an elected official, and his Twitter account is, to a degree, "managed" by the social media director. Trump tweets in an official capacity.
He's not a private citizen. The rules are different.
67
Finally, the checks and balances of the Republic start to show their power. Of course it violates first amendment. He is an elected public figure not a private individual anymore.
His personal account is used to create public policy and to disseminate information.
242
His personal account is used to undermine public policy and disseminate disinformation. Fixed that for ya.
16
Let us not forget the origin of the word 'republic', 'res publica', Latin for 'the public thing' that the citizens of this country own in common. It doesn't belong just to the wealthy, no matter how much they believe it and try to convince the rest of us of it.
2
With this decision, I hope that organizations such as politifact and other fact checking organizations, *including this NY Times*, will be able to reply to each tweet identifying false statements. In this way, the 53 million could begin to be educated on the falsehoods that come thru the "direct line" to his base.
371
Fat chance that anyone will listen. Trump’s followers are a herd of closed minds.
17
Fact check:
It was 63 million.
:-)
They mean "followers" and not voters.
Notice that this ruling was possible because the Trump twitter account is considered an official government account, so restriction of free speech is not permissible. This ruling will not affect my being blocked by the NRA Facebook page, however, because that is a private organization, not a government account, and therefore my rants against the NRA can be blocked if the NRA wishes to do so, which it does. Just in case anyone here was wondering why they hadn't seen my posts on that site recently.
98
Bravo -- I'm sure the propaganda-in-chief will appeal, but it's a win for the First Amendment, something Mr. Trump has no clue about how or why it works.
179
......or that it exists.....
1
If he appeals the case is back to square one, as legal rulings of trial judges don't mean squat to appellate judges.
Yes, even the propaganda-in-chief deserves the benefits of a country that is set up to be fair and honest even when he is the least fair and least honest person on the planet. But there is no denying the lower court acted correctly and hopefully that decision will hold on appeal because decisions regarding about the First Amendment pertains to all of us.
Simply because a person (even the president) has the freedom of speech, that does not mean he has to be listened to by everybody. I can choose not to talk with somebody and that is perfectly acceptable under the First Amendment. What is the difference between me ignoring somebody and the president doing so (which he and all his predecessors surely do and did)?
3
It is completely different because his Twitter account is an official White House vehicle for communication and all citizens have a right to respond to his messages. He does not have to read them however.
20
He’s not ignoring them (which he’s certainly allowed to do if he had that capacity), he’s blocking their inability to express their opinions on his Twitter feed.
16
He does not have to listen, but he cannot block dissenting opinions on a government sponsored platform/account.
41
A victory for the First Amendment.
I still don't think Trump understands the difference between his role as a government employee and a private citizen.
As a government employee, he works for us and all his correspondence and "tweets" and whatever else he communicates as president belong to us, the American taxpayer.
He claims to be one of the smartest people around, but he sure is slow when it comes to figuring out the difference between working for the public and working for himself.
448
I'm not sure it's that he doesn't understand. I just think he doesn't care. He looks at being president as having more power to do whatever he wants. Hopefully, the citizens of this country will let him know he can't. He might start caring then.
59
Thump is not able to care. An anti-social narcissist is unable to cultivate feelings of empathy. He learned that at a very young age with his parents bought off every complaint about his behavior reinforcing him that he is above the law instead of teaching him that there are consequences for your actions.
Could someone remind him he works FOR us? Serves at OUR pleasure and not his own? Because I don’t think he gets that. I demand he stop playing golf! He is spending to much of our money!!
24
Why is it necessary to list who appointed a judge every time a decision is made? It just furthers polarization and perhaps prevents a nonpartisan reading of the decision.
568
"Why is it necessary to list who appointed a judge every time a decision is made?"
Because inquiring minds want to know... Is there something wrong with that?
19
Why do Democrats and Republicans fight presidential elections on the basis of who gets to appoint Supreme Court justices?
8
I think it damages the judicial decision. Before Trump supporters consider why the judge ruled a certain way, they will dismiss that judge as a partisan hack based on who appointed her rather than the consideration of the law. The same applies for conservative judges. Turning judgeships into such strong ideological weapons does not bode well for democracy. Would that presidents and congress would select the best legal minds instead of the most partisan legal minds - but once appointed, their rulings should be based on the Constitution and legal precedence.
This is the crux of the issue, as the author states......."Mr. Trump’s Twitter feed is an official government account and that blocking users from following it was a violation of their First Amendment rights."
54
A welcome ruling for the first amendment. Twitter is not a one-way government propaganda tool. And free speech cuts both ways.
1118
so what about the other people that block people?
Should anybody be allowed to block anybody? Social media is a whole new world.....
1
Applies to government suppression of speech - not other communication. One is a Constitutional First Amendment issue, the other is a cultural issue (not a legal one) based on the spirit of the 1A.
Remember when President Obama used to go on Twitter every morning and slander Americans?
No?
60
Rather than blocking users on Twitter perhaps Trump should just stop tweeting. That would be a sure-fire fix for criticism from other Twitter users he finds objectionable and probably better for our country in the long run.
752
No, no! Let him keep incriminating himself, err, tweeting!
75
EXACTLY!!!!
19
So pretty much every official should stop tweeting right?
4
I don't see how they can rule that, the are not being banned from speaking, the President is simply refusing to listen. If the Govt had used it's powers to get them kicked off twitter i could see it making more sense, but this seems like overreach from the judge.
9
Because the first amendment actually is five freedoms, not one. And one of them gives us the right to petition the government with grievances. Trump is the government. He doesn't have the right to refuse to listen.
11
By blocking, the President is not only choosing not to listen, but also preventing OTHERS from seeing the criticism, which as a government official, he is NOT allowed to do. He can stop reading the criticism anytime he'd like to, but he can't legally prevent others from reading it.
22
He's a public servant. Admittedly that's the exact opposite of what he thinks he is.
24
I agree with this decision. None of our other presidents needed Twitter, and this one can do without it also.
Thank you, Judge Buchwald.
91
I'm just picturing some president like John Adams shooting the carrier pigeons as they approached the White House. The courts would be in an uproar, not to mention PETA.
4
Trump's Twitter feed is absolutely being used as the official White House platform.
This ruling is good news for our country. Trump should be listening to everyone's comments, not just his supporters, as the president of the United States.
851
Trump is not the President of the United States. By his own choosing, he only represents his followers, those that sold their souls to the GOP for a few pieces of tarnished silver.
62
Do you really think Trump will obey the judge? He will find a way to disparage him and if the judge is female he will do worse.
27
Indeed, or at least, if not listening, he should be forced to scroll through all of the noise he does not like.
19
I fully support the First Amendment. And I understand the Judge's ruling and respect the folks who fought for it. But there just isn't much to cheer about when, practically speaking, the ruling means that everyone gets access to the childish rantings of a very damaged man who happens to be our President.
47
Here, here!
1
A very good reason to remove the toy from the mentally disturbed person who has singularly brought the USA down to the level of a Banana Republic. More currently, would be good if the sink hole just swallows him up along with his gang and Twitter.....
7
But we also get access to the responses to that childish man's comments with this ruling. That's the significant point: 45 can't shut down people being able to post to his feed.
2
I would be interested in the makeup of those blocked by Trump. I tweet harsh criticism to both the @POTUS and @realdonaldtrump accounts daily and have never been blocked. Also, perhaps the amount of followers one has plays a role.
30
"I would be interested in the makeup of those blocked by Trump."
The Knight First Amendment Institute Twitter page lists the plaintiffs and has links to the legal documents:
https://twitter.com/knightcolumbia
1