I guess I have to join Twitter now
8
The New York Times can block comments that aren’t civil but comments on Twitter, can’t be blocked.
1
I LOVE debate. You can not do it in the comment section of the NYT's.
Or YOUTUBE. This ruling will bite you once we take over.
1
Of all the galling ideas Trump professes, the idea that EVERYTHING that he does is perfect, but that the same behavior on the part of anyone of whom he disapproves or with whom he does not agree is 100 percent wrong is THE most repulsive. To expect that his Twitter account is personal and that he possesses all rights to control what happens as a result of what he tweets, even though he has an absolute right as President of the United States to communicate official positions and policies and statements via that medium, is an irreconcilable position. It’s clear to the courts, and it’s clear to most thinking human brains, but Trump declares, just as in all similar situations, an exception has to be made for him.
Reason, no more than bourgeois morality, has no power in the Trump universe, and he believes we should all simply agree on that perfect proposition so he can get on with never having to broach any resistance or opposition to anything he does or says. And millions of mindless heads nod in agreement.
8
Mr. Trump has been violating the constitution from the first day he took office. What is the consequence of violating the constitution daily? Apparently, nothing; he will keep violating.
7
People were getting bored to death by Twitter until Trump bailed it out. It owes him, bigtime.
1
If this is the interpretation chosen by the courts, fine. Then it must apply to all in government. Right down to the local government workers. And messages that threaten an individual must also be actionable, including arrest.
I've seen and heard some pretty lousy sentiments about government officials over the years, but nothing like I've seen with Trump. And that goes both ways - things Trump tweets about individuals, and things individuals (and the media) say about Trump. The biggest problem is that the far left and far right believe they are spouting facts when they are really spouting an opinion. On social media, those false statements go viral and within a week or less, they become facts in the feeble minds of the social media followers.
Our government, our representations, our laws and their enforcement must NOT be influenced by social media!!!!
Live by the Tweet, Die by the Tweet.
8
I wish Twitter would block him from posting!
Hey, a gal can dream...
8
We need a Twitter Tsunami calling out Trump for the ignorant, incompetent destroyer of the US reputation we all know that he is! Twitter may become the digital world's way of "taking to the streets" in protest. Use Twitter to get out the vote and restore decency to our government.
3
Robust, even vehement, uncivil and plain-old-mean conflictual discourse has often and long been a hallmark of U.S. democracy.
What starts out as a 'mud-wrestle' tussle complete with taunts, pokes and provoking works can ultimately bring about awareness for all included of a bigger picture.
Those 'dirty rats' that disagree and hold authority figures feet to the fire may have just the needed recommendation for positive solutions
Bravo judges! You are upholding the First Amendment by allowing all citizens on this VERY public 'Twiitter' account page to 'have their say.'
2
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Charlie, ‘we the American people’ can either fire a; loud, public, sustained, ‘in-the-streets’, but totally non-violent “SHOUT (not shot) heard round the world” to ignite an essential Second American people’s peaceful “Political/economic & social Revolution Against Empire” — as expanded and fully defined from Bernie’s 2016 short campaign slogan of just “Political Revolution” — or, based on your ‘social media’ shout-out’, which “Trump Can’t Block”, the American people could simply start our essential Revolution Against Empire, by using social media, texting, tweeting, etc. for millions to shout this:
DUMP
EMPEROR
TRUMP
“We can’t be an EMPIRE”
2
If you have a very thin skin like Donald Bone Spurs Trump, just do not used twitter.
1
The previous leaders of nations who sought to silence political criticism of their actions led Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Sorry Mr. Trump but you can't have that kind of power. As your administration continues to act the way it does criticism should only grow.
4
why is the Justice Department using its lawyers when Trump is arguing he's a private citizen in this context?
8
Bring blocked by Trump would be an honor.
2
What's not mentioned is the absurdity of conducting government business via Twitter in the first place.
7
Another Trump Derangement Syndrome ruling.
“If a politician is holding a rally in a park (a traditional public forum), it doesn’t follow that he must permit critics to share the stage with him.”
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/the-second-circuit-court-of-appeals-was-wrong-to-rule-that-trump-cant-block-twitter-users/
When Trump became president, millions of Twitter followers were automatically added to his private account more than doubling that account. He got the presidential Twitter feed.
He can't continue to use it as a private account especially when he makes policy decisions using the feed.
Will this man stop at nothing to reduce our Constitution to rubble? Will nothing be done to stop him?
7
@Len: Nothing will stop Trump except that utterly ludicrous collection of clowns the US public elected to Congress and Senate.
1
Trump would rather get love letters from dictators than the truth from voters.
4
trump trashes, bashes, insults, incites war, bullies people on twitter and when it is returned, he wants critics silenced. Then, he should move to Korea, Russia, or Saudi. He can enjoy love letters from there.
8
Pete's sake why is the POTUS conducting official US government business on Twitter? I'm going to guess it is because he does not trust aides or other government officials to handle some official business. If the POTUS wishes to exclude other Americans from 'sticking their noses' into government business then do not broadcast via Twitter. That does not seem like a 'rocket science' suggestion. Twitter is after all designed for social interaction.
2
@Dave Steffe: Trump can't go where a 500 word vocabulary isn't enough.
1
Trump can solve this by not posting on Twitter anymore. Just about everything he posts on Twitter is related to policy. Like immigration, dispute with Mexico over trade and immigrants entering Mexico at its southern border. All those tweets are fair game to counter with differing opinions.
4
Kelly Laco, a department spokeswoman. “As we argued, President Trump’s decision to block users from his personal Twitter account does not violate the First Amendment.” Once again we have the Liar in Chief and his minions repeating lies, trying to make bullheaded opinion into fact. Ms Laco and her lying boss may THINK whatever they want. An appellate court--that is lawyers--have evaluated the fact and found that such action would violated the First Amendment. When will Trump decide that he has to follow the law like everyone else? How many appeals has the Trump administration taken? Is it a record yet?
IMHO another grounds for an impeachment inquiry. NOW
2
‘The Justice Department expressed disappointment...’ that is the saddest part of the whole article - since when is the JUSTICE department Trump’s personal legal team - I thought it was the Federal Justice Department for our whole country - especially The US Constitution?
6
How long would Trump last here?
Bring it on, Donald.
So everybody is free to spam Trump's Twitter account and he isn't allowed to do anything against them?
3
Yes. Or he could act like a normal president, and hold press conferences.
2
HA. I always wondered how many of his "followers" were people criticizing him and his tweets. Blocking those who disagree oughta cut the number by 50 to 90 percent. I heard this from a very reliable source. Nobody is talking about this. But I heard this from a lot of people. Everybody knows.
7
yes I heard it too. from very respected people.
3
“As we argued, President Trump’s decision to block users from his personal Twitter account does not violate the First Amendment,” said Kelly Laco, a Justice Department denialist. Hey Kelly, you lost.
5
Think it's time to get a twitter account. Start the day doing something other than reading the newspaper and cursing.
6
Stupid idea. Now all politicians are liable to be sued because they block someone. Celebrities don’t have to uphold the law but can block anyone all the way until they get political. If Twitter didn’t exist, then where was the precedent set? It’s a personal choice. Social media is not representative of national or international democracy. For all we know, he may have blocked Russians who disagreed with him. Are Instagrams & FaceBook profiles expected to be the future discourse for political policy? Just because democracy only gives us a choice every 4 years doesn’t mean our words we tweet every 4 minutes carry more weight or meaning.
If the president can use Twitter to inform the department of justice that the citizenship question is still on — which he did — then he’s using it for official business. As such, it’s not his account anymore: it’s ours. He cannot use Twitter for propaganda; he must allow contrary voices.
And yes, that applies to all politicians.
3
What a cute, adorable victory for Democracy. It's like getting one lick of a lollipop when you want a steak.
7
"The Justice Department expressed disappointment in the ruling.... " "Justice Department," truly a misnomer with its incumbent leadership!!!!
5
Who does trump think he is ?
A government servant who works for us not the other way around .
Americans should learn from the Brits how to treat this tardy old man.
8
How good is Trunp’s legal team, which argued that he uses his Twitter account „merely in a personal capacity“ and had the „right“ to block those who criticise or mock him?
Its argument is ludicrous. Anybody can see that Trump uses his Twitter account as a megaphone for political purposes.
As he is thin-skinned and doesn’t tolerate criticism and dissent, he has unfavourable comments removed and their authors blocked from interacting with his followers.
But he is president of a liberal democracy, and must live with those who aren’t his fawning admirers. By refusing to let them air their negative views he has knowingly violated the First Amendment and revealed his authoritarian personality.
4
But it would be okay if he were to go into the WH Press Office whenever he had something to say. That would require the hated MSM to keep reporters on duty 24/7 and not violate the First.
Not the same thing. Walking into an empty room and blathering does not violate free speech. It has not left the room. Reporters are not required by the Constitution to be there; they are there because the Constitution has given us the right to a free press and they cover news to keep us informed. Twitter for most people is private and within reason, you can say what you want. But a government official conducting the nation’s business through that channel has to allow all people the chance to read it and be able to respond
2
Not even the sycophants appointed by Trump and Junior would reach a different conclusion.
2
Was Twitter around when the constitution was written? Then interpreting the constitution is biased judicial outreach and the case should go through reasonable unbiased higher courts.
1
Yes, Twitter was around during the writing of the US constitution.
It was created right after George Washington got the redcoats out of the airports during the revo war.
3
It doesn’t work that way. New technology doesn’t require higher courts, reasonable and unbiased or otherwise.
1
Good Morning to yet another Trump controversy in our courts, on our front page news and on our cable news. This White House with Trump in charge uses valuable resources to resolve conflicts created by the inability of this president to interact in a rational manner with the world around him. Whether it’s Twitter, trade or tax breaks, this president manages on a daily basis to rob the American people of good government without Drama.
5
Almost makes me want to join Twitter!
3
Rep. Peter King out here in Long Island also blocks his constituents who criticize him on social media. He is also so pathetic (and clearly weak and fearful) that he even refuses to hold Town Halls for his constituents. It is a travesty he is still in office all these years. I am hoping he gets sent home for good next election.
5
Why does twitter permit trump to violate all its rules of engagement, day in and day out? He should have been banned years ago.
9
Trump is phenomenal at wasting taxpayer dollars. How much have we spent on Justice Department lawyers and federal court resources on his Twitter blocking? And if he’s acting in a private citizen capacity, why isn’t he paying for his own lawyers to fight this. It’s absurd.
11
I wonder if Trump believes that if one silences their critics they convert them?
2
Since when is it okay only for Trump to exercise his freedom of speech, and not others.
By making appropriate statements, he should have no more recourse than anyone else.
He always has the option, not to "speak", and only watch Fox and Friends 4 to 8 hours a day!
Or he could spend more time running the country, and support all of us, and just not those he likes and excludes others.
That is what all of our other, prior President's have done.
3
Ah, who really cares? So far down the list of his crimes and generally disgraceful and dangerous deeds that it's barely worth mentioning.
Besides, he can always take it to the Supreme Court and get it reversed by his buddies.
3
Yet again he violate his presidential oath to uphold and defened the Constitution. What are we going to do about it? We could try impeachment but it would be divisive, possibly backfire with sympathy generated for him and the cowardly, unpatriotic Republican controlled Senate would never be permitted by McConnell to convict Trump. So, let's remember all of his outrages and transgressions in November 2020 and throw him out.
8
And will Congress impeach him when he ignored the ruling?
1
A great ruling. Now let's see how the POTUS deals with the cacophony of reaction that is always created solely by himself.
It's probably clear to all rational adults that the guy is a Twitter addict. I wonder if this will be enough to make him stop; since my bet is his little self-involved mirror ball world will now be subject to the routine assault of the outraged American twitter-verse.
Maybe it will be enough to make him shut up. This would be a very good thing in my view. A very good thing indeed.
John~
American Net'Zen
1
This gives me a reason to use Twitter, she said gleefully.
1
Trump has a sweet, but illegal ,deal.Fox news parrots everything he says and gives him a loud megaphone.He has a “Twitter “ account which also allows him to reach his base and fire them up about his latest pronouncements-no dissenting voices, please! The United States Appeals Court for the Second Circuit Just said “No” to this end run around the First Amendment .This is good news-Trump’s trampling of all legal precedents is frightening.
4
Technology changes.
Our rights don’t!
4
As far as I can tell from over here, more Americans than not both disagree with and hate Donald Trump. He rather freely expresses his hatred toward others on his Twitter feed. Why shouldn't Americans be allowed to express their hatred of him--let alone their disagreements and counterarguments? Otherwise, the much-hyped First Amendment doesn't have much teeth.
4
The Emperor has no clothes. And we are free to say so, no matter what he thinks.
8
But what if the tweeters hurt the President's feelings? Surely hurt feelings trumps the First Amendment!
3
Just think of the insane amount of taxpayer dollars being spent just to employ the countless attorneys this administration throws at every lawsuit brought against it. In taking over the government, this administration did nothing but create a hostile environment that could only guarantee lawsuit after lawsuit against all the criminality that is rampant in the White House.
I honestly thought I’d never see the day this country would come to this.
4
The irony of this is rich beyond measure...
2
The Second Circuit properly presented the question: Is @realDonaldTrump a personal Twitter account, or not? It's not.
Like most people, I couldn't care less how Donald Trump feels about anything -- other than his President-related activities. As for the latter, I know the Times and other news media outlets will breathlessly report every Trump utterance to me within minutes, even within seconds, of when he utters it, and so it's highly unlikely that I'll even need Twitter.
But if I ever want to use Twitter to figure out how Donald Trump feels about some issue that might affect me, his @realDonaldTrump account is where I'd start. I understand Trump has added tens of millions of followers to that Twitter account since he took office; I doubt that many of them care at all about Donald Trump's opinion -- unless it might affect them, and what he writes at @realDonaldTrump might affect them.
1
When are we getting around to doing away with inalienable rights?
In Trump's onward march to Presidential Dictatorship this will mean nothing to him, he will simply add it to the list of ignored rulings that are mounting up. He has demonstrated quite clearly that if a law does not suit him he believes he is free to break it. Trump's 'dysfunctional, unpredictable, inept' and illegal behaviour is mostly unchecked and when it is he rants and raves against anyone he perceives as responsible, but it is never himself.
5
It occurs to me that resigning would fix this. Then one could block as many people as one wanted.
5
The twitter-pated erstwhile leader of the US has again been thwarted by the Courts from thumbing his nose at Constitutional rights being protected by the 1st Amendment. Trump would break every law in the land to his benefit. The Courts consistently block him. The GOP supports him in his violating our Democracy and it’s standards for the rule of law.
4
Never mind these preliminary rulings. The Trump Justices will soon put this right and allow Trump to do as he pleases
5
"President Trump cannot block critics from his Twitter account, a federal appeals court ruled." - This is what passes for governance these days. I wonder what Eisenhower would have thought about this Republican Administration and it's leader?
.... a very interesting twist on public officials using social media. To all appearances, the president is using his Twitter account like a PA loudspeaker. Used as a public official in the power of office, it has all the form of an informal "town meeting".
With 85 million followers, it seems unlikely that the blocking response can be entirely from the president; if one million people (less than 2 %) said negative things and one were blocked each second, it would take more than 11 days to block every one of the one million commenters. So the president must have _some_ handlers. Again, that means it is not a private account.
I doubt that Twitter is a productive way to carry out any genuine public discourse; it seems to function mostly as a means to spread ugliness and cruelty. It seems only fit to perhaps make public announcements of the rather mundane matters like dates of meetings and rather non-partisan news. Nevertheless, the essence of a "town meeting" is definitely there.
There really should be the requirement that people who post on these sorts of media cannot do so in anonymity. For a town meeting to be in order, this demands that a real face and a real name be tied to the person who raises an issue with the public official. Nevertheless, it remains that a public official using social media in the course of the duty of the office is using it as a public address. It is up to Twitter to change the nature of its social media policy on anonymity.
2
Has Trump disobeyed any court order?
"I'm afraid Trump will ignore this order and all the others the courts give him."
I asked that question only because I know the answer: No, he hasn't. If he did, I'd be quite upset.
"‘Tweeting’ is profoundly unpresidential in the first place."
I used to think that too, but I've since learned that most political leaders use Twitter. Chuck Shumer, for example, uses it extensively. I don't, and probably wouldn't if I were President, but who knows? Twitter is just one communication method among many. It's the content of what someone writes or speaks that matters, not the method. Twitter exposes shallowness and crassness more quickly, but shallowness and crassness are ultimately what counts.
2
Go talk down the judges. They must be Carter judges, or Clinton Judges, or Obama judges, and maybe Truman or FDR judges.
2
What’s to stop hundreds and thousands of “robots” reply negatively to Trump’s tweets, much like he and his cohorts use to amplify them?
It’s quite possible that soon Trump’s tweets will be flooded with negative reaction.
I will find all that laughable. Trump gives life to a monster and the monster turns against him.
7
So super duper glad that my tax dollars are funding the hashing out of super important cases like this, meanwhile we apparently can’t give children soap or toothbrushes.
18
The First Amendment isn't important?
2
trump is the best reason I can think of for abolishing twitter. Ironically enough, he would be better off if twitter did not exist.
4
Look at this...we're so desperate for some sign of ending the Trump rampage, we're ready to declare "No Block Day" and stay home to party.
Pelosi, your people need you to lead. Impeach, don't impeach, I don't care. But do something. Make these people respond. Make them. Hold them accountable.
Time to wake up, Nancy, or roll over and let somebody else get us where we need to go.
10
Why is the Justice Department continuously and shamelessly acting as Trumps personal lawyers? Why is it that they always side with Trump on every given issue?
7
When did Trump grow opposable thumbs?
9
While I am unsure how an account which is ultimately privately owned (Twitter "owns" all Twitter accounts), I am more interested to see how quickly this cascades. Already AOC has been sued because she has blocked twitter users, I'm sure others.. left, right, center; will follow.
First of all, why is the Justice Department arguing this case? They have no standing.
Secondly, as important as the first amendment issues are in this case, the real concern should be Trump's blocking the public to begin with. What kind of person would do that? It is his mental state that we should be discussing.
8
Mr. Trump’s blocking seems analogous to the “disappearing” of critics in autocratic countries. This is a fine ruling by the appeals court with words that bear repeating because they are so eloquently American: “If the First Amendment means anything, it means that the best response to disfavored speech on matters of public concern is more speech, not less.”
18
Good! Maybe this will result in fewer politicians using the vile platform that is a Twitter. Not likely, perhaps, but we wouldn’t be harmed by its disappearance.
7
The problem is, before Trump twitter was trying to figure out the best way to go bankrupt. His less than nobel, let alone presidential tweats caused every news organization to get more involved on the site.
As usual, he was the creator of the twitter wave as everything else, so his hurtful and “against company values” tweets didn’t apply. So much for corporate vales, right twitter?
When are you guys going to learn that your First Amendment rights are limited to praising Trump and don't include criticizing him ? If you don't believe it, ask him.
15
I'm afraid Trump will ignore this order and all the others the courts give him. Like other authoritarians, he believes he is above the law. Who is going to make him obey? He probably wouldn't leave if he impeached and convicted by the Senate, although his Republican Senators wouldn't convict him if he shot someone on 5th Avenue.
11
How dare anyone point out that the emperor has no clothes! How dare they criticize, or say bad things about Der President! What kind of dictatorship are we running here anyway? After all, none of Trump's buddies in Russia, North Korea, Iraq, and China have to put up with "free speech"! What's a wannabe tyrant supposed to do?
Of course Trump will appeal this to the S.C.O.T.T.S. (Supreme Court Of The Tribal States), where his stooges will overturn it. But at least some judges have some integrity it seems.
I do find it humorous though that Trump avails himself of Twitter, such that he's the Twitterer-In-Chief, or simply Twit for short. He still hasn't figured out that the more words you use, the cheaper their meaning. Given his overstated worth, I guess that's important to him.
Live by the Tweet, suffer by the Tweet.
19
I think I'll set up a Twitter account finally.
10
Of course Trump will take this to the SCOTUS. In his mind, their sole purpose is to agree with him.
9
Look up Noah Feldman's column today on Bloomberg for why this unanimous decision is not only incorrect (Twitter has rules and controls accounts, including Twitter has the ability to block Trump, and thus the President's account is a private account belonging to Twitter) and why this ruling needs to be overturned, quickly, by SCOTUS
2
The president is using Twitter as a public platform. Twitter hasn’t interfered thusfar. It has no standing at this point.
2
Twitter’s rules do not trump the First Amendment.
3
I agree in the use of Twitter as a public policy tool by the President is inappropriate. I also agree this is a strong ruling for democracy. But I seriously doubt if this keeps the President from picking and choosing his followers. I can not imagine what kind of life one must have if they are a Twitter follower and supporter of Trump. They must not have much else going on in their lives. As for his Twitter-based opponents, just allow him to keep tweeting his way down the road towards November 2020 unchecked. It is where we get to see and hear from the “real Donald Trump”.
2
I am old, very old
and feel even older,
can no one save us from the
" Invasion of the Twiteratti "
Why "Twits" are allowed to "Tweet" away
on your Twitter account, when you rather not read
their Tweets strikes me as odd.
I can block emails spammers that I do not wish
to receive emails, or at least until they invent a
new name and spam me once again.
Just because Trump speaks his mind,
all too often, if you ask me,
why does that make his Twitter account
an official Government Announcement ?
Doesn't someone have to sign a document and / or
imprint the seal of their office on the document
to make it official ?
Does Twitter have a rule that
you must allow any and all Twits
the absolute right to Tweet you back ?
Doesn't the reasoning in this ruling
demand public access to any meeting that
any government official is holding so that you
can make your response - appropriate or not ?
Will the Appellate Judges mind if I sit in on
the next conferences,
or lesser Judges,
their side-bars ?
If JFK, LBJ and RMN were alive and still recording
their White House Conferences/Telephone calls -
must I be allowed to listen in and add my two cents ?
[ Well make that a Hay-Penny
as I have lost 3/4th of my wits. ]
Is this how civilization ends ?
Not with a Bang
but a Twitter ?
7
It is fall-down laughing funny to see Trumpists wail and weep and maunder about this.
Trump a 73 year old man is as reckless as one can be , he tries to bend the law as he pleases, lies constantly and lies even more. Yes and he loves to tweet , even limite to a few words he constantly makes spelling errors.
This man is the current President of United States.
How embarrassing.
18
He'll just block them anyway. No one holds him accountable for anything, not the courts, not Congress, not anyone.
13
As long as this applies to all officials, I'm all for it. Next, we need to prohibit social media providers from employing political censorship.
1
And off the the Supreme Court! In another mindless attack on our democracy.
How many 100s of millions of taxpayer dollars and thousands of hours are being spent on conman Trump’s bigot agenda and corruption. The JD doesn’t have anything more important to do?
I really don’t know how the morally bankrupt Republican politicians supporting this fiasco can get up in the morning and kiss their children.
It’s all as false, incompetent and as vulgar as Trump.
The fish stinks from the head, and this Trump cesspool is proof of that.
17
Twitter and Trump 2 things without a question of doubt the world does not need.
21
The organized opposition to President Trump aided by oil money from certain countries mount resistance to every little aspect of his presidency.
There is a difference between Trump as President and Trump as a private citizen. He has the right to exclude miscreants from his rallies and disrupting the delivery of his message. His Twitter account is no different.
It is high time that the courts refrain from considering nuisance cases, silly rulings on narrow legalities and clog up the system. Jaleel Jaffer and his well-oiled academic leftists won this round but the President will ultimately prevail. The FBI or the CIA must investigate where Jaleel's funds are coming from.
2
I got news for you, chief. If he excluded “miscreants” from his rallies, the arenas would be empty.
22
@Appu Nair: If Trump wants his personal Twitter account to be considered private, then he needs to stop using it to conduct government business. I thought there was an official White House account he could use for that.
18
Yes, there is an “official” account for that -
@POTUS
2
And who exactly is going to make Trump un-block all those accounts?
7
I guess it’s standard practice now that when reporting on any high profile federal court case, it is necessary to include which President nominated the judges deciding it - which is sort of like a proxy for what political party they belong to, which is supposed to be completely irrelevant, but of course is of great relevance.
8
Trump wants to continually lie, and spread mid- information without anyone being able to call out his lies.
Trump needs to be held accountable for his hate speech and his lies need to be called out as such.
Twitter should step up and delete his account if he does not uphold the law
18
@Bummero, in several years, if Trump is re-elected (and at this stage there is so much erosion of our laws, courts, protections, and institutions that it may not matter), consider revisiting your post.
You may find that you do not like the “side” you chose as much as you thought you would.
1
I was unblocked by Trump several months ago. I will not follow him on twitter again.
In fact, I wish everyone who is fed up with Trump would unfollow his twitter account!
I imagine that would be an enormous amount of unfollows...
and wouldn’t that be something to behold!
7
Wouldn't it WAY more fun to call him out on all his lies?? Just think of it, there are more people in the country and on Twitter that despise what he has done to this country. Now that we can leave comments freely, the country's majority will out number the supporters. Maybe those on the fence about him, will see the truth now that it isn't blocked. Time for the Troll in Chief to get a tidal wave of trolling back. Maybe just Maybe he will leave Twitter
3
Fun as it was, and still is, it will bother him more to loose huge blocks of people.
I can still “troll” Trump by adding @realDonaldTrump to my tweet.
I can tell you from my own personal experience that we cannot write anything that would cause a MAGA follower to change their allegiance at this point. It’s baked in - if anything, the MAGA trolls will find you. They find me all the time.
Though Trump has been ordered to unblock, do you really think he won’t continue to block whenever he feels like it?
5
@WomanAgainstRapeCulture: You make a good point, but I'm kind of leaning towards Andrea's idea being the better one, simply because with Trump being the narcissist he is, it would infuriate him to lose all or close to all of his Twitter followers.
3
Problem is, you can still mute people on Twitter, causing their responses to not be seen
1
Since when does Trump obey court rulings?
10
I never laughed out loud at work like I did when this headline popped up on my phone. Trump is so uninformed he has no idea how he fits into the cog of government. Trump must be tired of all this “winning.”
10
Where does he really have the time to do this? Oh, wait! he is still campaigning and clearly (as most of the people would admit) not doing his job as a POTUS!
10
@JS
He doesn't so this himself, or at least not all of it. He has minions who block people who are critical of him.
1
I finally have a reason to join Twitter. This is gonna be fun!
4
Trump keeps forgetting that he is our employee.
18
Why does the American media refer to judges as a Republican or Democrat appointee.
Aren't judges guided in their decisions by the written law irrespective of who appointed them.....
Has the American people's view of the men and women in the judiciary fallen so low that people immediately expect bias...
7
He can't have it both ways. If it's a personal account, his tweets violate TOS regarding harassment, hate speech, inciting violence...
12
I would like to know why it is not alright for Trump to bar the negative comments on his Twitter account but it is alright for Amazon to block the negative comments on their web site when Hilary Clinton’s book WHAT HAPPENED was published and being reviewed by readers? Shouldn’t the same rules apply across the board?
2
@Averill Meyer. The First Amendment protects us from governmental censorship or suppression of speech. Amazon is a private corporation, so it is not bound by the First Amendment.
17
@Averil Meyer: I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that the "negative comments" you're referring to probably had nothing to do with the quality of the book and more to do with calling Clinton vulgar names and expressing wishes for her incarceration and/or death.
6
Please tell me why the paper insists on identifying and thus defining federal judges by the president who appointed them? What is the relevance?
5
HA! Makes me want to open a twitter account!
3
Sixty million followers? Unbelievable! Apparently, that means there are sixty million Americans with a third grade reading level, something I can believe.
8
@stan continople: Some might follow him because they believe Trump should have an eye kept on him at all times, not unlike a toddler holding matches in a room filled with gasoline.
3
Trump has Sixty million follows thanks to
1. MAGA maniacs.
2. Multiple accounts.
3. Bots.
4. People who cannot bear to pass up a
train wreck.
5
Laws, the Bill of Rights, helping people with whom the Constitution was trusted, dude. Live with it.
An illegitimate president questioning the legitimate actions of others? We never seem to run out of jokes. The judiciary must be tired of reminding this man that he lives in a land of laws.
7
As strange as it seemed at first that a U.S. president uses Twitter to communicate his thoughts to the public, as pleased I am today. This way, the public gets a sense of his thoughts that would otherwise be subjected to censorship of his own people who would try to avoid the kind of damage Trump often does to himself.
I often wonder why, in a country that has to offer so many fine minds, of alle people it has to be a man who is obviously unable to cope with the requirements this jobs comes with.
To top it of, the justice dempartment now has the duty to shield Trump from the well deserved critic. It's a relief to know that the justice system still works well enough to shut those efforts down.
Twitter has a very handy "mute" feature. If the president does not like someone's views, he is perfectly free to "mute" their Twitter accounts. They would still be able to read his posts and reply to them. He wouldn't see their replies. Best of all, people who are muted don't even know it.
It's the ideal way for Mr. Trump to avoid dissenting views. But the fact that he apparently prefers to block, not mute, tells me that he actually wants to prevent others from encountering the views he doesn't like.
8
Wait. The Justice Department is defending his personal use of Twitter and his personal right to block access? His Justice Department?
10
Good.
Trigger warning:
Hopefully the speech police on campuses and in classrooms will take a cue. Yikes. Is this too incendiary? Was my trigger warning sufficiently robust?
2
"Mr. Trump’s legal team argued, among other things, that he operated the account merely in a personal capacity, and so had the right to block whomever he wanted for any reason — including because users annoyed him by criticizing or mocking him."
It is becoming unbearable to witness how corrupt, disingenuous, and disreputable DOJ has become under the Dear Leader. Citizen Trump? That shocks the conscience. The court should have ordered a state ethics inquiry for all of the DOJ lawyers involved, included Mr. Barr. Disbarring (no pun intended) attorneys who enable the breakdown of the legal system is the only way to get them to stop it. Shame on each and every one of them.
14
I already receive the trump emails and most of the time I reply, my comment is usually addressed to the staffer dealing with the replies, if the even look at them.
I’m not very nice with my comment. Filling out the required boxes is something of a pain, so even though I promised myself to join any social media, letting Donnie know how much I detest him would be more efficient via Twitter.
@the realdonaldtrump will be my only feed.
4
No President should have personal social media accounts.
14
The President uses @realDonaldTrump as his personal twitter account. The President uses @POTUS as his official twitter account. I think the President can block anyone on his @realDonaldTrump account.
2
And his personal account should be subject to rules against hate speech, harassment, etc. and be deactivated.
11
really? have you seen @realdonaldtrump. It does notbseem personal to me.
7
@Cory Wright: If Trump used @realDonaldTrump only for things like showing off his grandchildren or bragging about his golf game, I'd agree that he has the right to block whomever he wishes for whatever reason he wishes.
However, he uses that account to discuss, in his role as President, political and governmental issues and business (his tirade against the UK ambassador to the US being the most recent example). That makes it an official government account and, per the First Amendment, Trump cannot prevent people from petitioning "the Government for a redress of grievances".
4
Really NYT? You call his use of Twitter government business?
@Moses Not the NYT -- that's what the courts decided. The NYT is simply reporting it.
9
@Moses
No, it was the Court of Appeals
4
His administration has done that for the Times.
2
Poor, poor little donald will now have to see in his twitter feed what a majority of people actually think of him, and it won't be pretty.
12
Does Trump have the right to pick and choose among networks/newspapers when he decides to do an interview on, say, the economy thereby blocking the uninvited who might have been trashing him ad nauseam, e.g., CNN, WP, NYT, and thus denying their First Amendment right to have access to the president and trash his message?
Has nothing to do with the First Amendment. Twitter blocks whomever it pleases whenever it pleases, as does Facebook. So where's the First Amendment for those they choose to block or to deny access?
By having a Twitter account, Trump has denied no citizen, or even illegal immigrant, for that matter, the right to write the White House.
But the real issue is, does he have the rights of any citizen when he uses a private Twitter account to communicate with Twitter followers (networks too?), or is it, if he Tweets to one, he Tweets "officially" to all?
Seems the Justices, or Clerics, depending on how one looks at them, are making stuff up again to advance the Cultural Marxist agenda--thwart Trump whenever possible.
Obviously, though the networks might like to believe otherwise, he isn't communicating with "the nation" when he uses his Twitter account, unlike a speech when he uses all three major networks, that never publish or broadcast all comments by their audiences--denying their First Amendment right?
Point of fact: Without Twitter our one-narrative Sovietized mass-media would own the message--nothing more against the First Amendment than that.
2
@Alice's Restaurant Trump can use twitter all he wants. This ruling simply prevents him from blocking people he doesn't like while he's using Twitter in his role as POTUS.
7
I find it somewhat surprising that Trump uses the title POTUS and calls it personal! How is this personal?
Only a dictatorial, fascist would behave in a manner of -I can not be questioned-. I question the motives and civil education of such supporters.
6
@Linda L
No kidding. Is that the issue? He has every right to do that, as any citizen would, despite the ruling of the Cultural Marxist Clerics that have carved out a special space for Trump--who needs Congress when we have benches replete with Clerics to run our Grand Collective lives? Unless it's Twitter.gov--you know, the Clinton thing.
My liberal friends should be ecstatic to know that I have signed them up 4 the Trump 20/20 Twitter site and put them on the Republican fundraising site.
Please don't disrespect the judge that ruled that you can't block anyone from your own accounts What Goes Around Comes Around
@Bummero They can easily "opt out" so your revenge will be short.
9
First, you didn’t. Second, you’d probably be much happier if you at least *tried* to get a job, don’t you think?
6
Trump just fell off his three legged stool.
Maybe this will be a wakeup call to Rep. Frederica Wilson (D - FL) and cause her to rethink her idea of filing a House Bill proposing 'people who mock members of Congress online should face prosecution'.
Based on the ruling, in the social-media era, the 1st Amendment reaches across the aisle, just as it should.
Three co-equal branches of government.
2
@Coffee Bean Citation, please. In this social media era, there's no excuse not to show that your quotes are not made up.
And please don't ask others to "look it up." The person who makes the claim has the responsibility to support it.
6
@Linda L
You are exactly correct.
For wont of noting what was tantamount to a summary, I should not have used singular quotation marks to denote the sum total of Rep Wilson's comment. There are few guidelines on the use of singular quotation marks.
It was still no excuse on my part.
Why hasn't twitter banned him? trump violates the rules against hate speech and promotes violence almost every day.
10
What surprises me the most, ""We are disappointed with the court’s decision and are exploring possible next steps,” said Kelly Laco, a department spokeswoman. “As we argued, President Trump’s decision to block users from his personal Twitter account does not violate the First Amendment.”.
What is wrong with these minions? Did they not go to Law School? Do they not take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution? Jeez ...
6
@Stepen P. Maybe they are more afraid for their jobs than they are patriots.
Maybe that goes for the Republican Senators and representatives, too.
5
Where was Twitter in allowing this blocking—
While Trump engaged in official government business with his Twitter-finger.
There should be some public outcry that Twitter hears loud and clear.
119
@srwdm
If Twitter allows citizens who purchase its service the means to block, then Trump has the right to block whomever he wishes--at least, until it becomes Twitter.gov--official gov'ment business.
The "public outcry" should be for that both Twitter and Facebook deny First Amendment rights as they please.
Where are those Lenin's Bay Area 9th Circuit clerics when you really need them?
6
@srwdm: Twitter was sliding down the tubes until Trump revived it.
3
@Alice's Restaurant So you don't think Trump si conducting official business on his personal Twitter account? Have you not learned hundreds of times what the WH stand is on different issues before any other medium made it public? If he wants a personal account, that's fine. Tell us about the everyday private comings and goings of his personal life, if that is what he wants. But once he spouts his political agenda and him being, (gag), the POTUS, he cannot cry invasion of privacy!
18
Nobody seems to mind a private company handling government announcements. How stupid are we.
5
There are any number of us who object quite a bit. Unfortunately, the Donald insists on his need to use it. He feels it allows him to speak directly to the people. He is less fond of the concept that he cannot pick and choose which Americans are worthy to hear him.
1
"The Justice Department expressed disappointment in the ruling..." Why is OUR Department of Justice "disappointed" in a ruling that upholds the First Amendment of our US Constitution? The DOJ is not Trump's personal legal defense team there to protect him from all of his unethical misdeeds.
18
Trump and his administration claim to be defenders of the First Amendment- see the rule forcing colleges and universities to allow all forms of speech, in the wake of conservative speakers being booed off. However, he turns around and blocks people who don't agree with him?
Actions speak louder than words, Mr. President.
6
Here's my idea: No policy can be made in a tweet. Isn't our democracy more than a tweet tweet?
Let's just ignore ANYTHING coming in a tweet. If Trump or another government official wants to make a statement, let it be made at a press conference or meeting where questions can be asked.
10
Let me get this straight.
The president can't block people on twitter. But twitter can ban people for posting hate speech?
Come on -- is tweeting protected free speech or not? If it is, then twitter -- the company -- can't ban people for posting what they think.
This decision is baffling.
4
Not at all baffling. As explained in a recent opinion authored by Justice Kavanaugh and joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, the First Amendment bars the government from restricting freedom of speech but does not apply to private actors (like Twitter). It’s not the platform that creates the free speech issue - it’s the fact that the President is restricting speech on a platform on which he has chosen to conduct government business. Twitter isn’t a government actor and isn’t conducting government business.
5
@ted The decision doesn't prevent Trump from tweeting; it prevents him from blocking people who criticize him, because he makes presidential announcements on his twitter account.
4
@ted I literally commented the same thing. Apparently we are the only two that are curious about this clear hypocrisy.
I can only assume that there are people, smarter than myself, who read this ruling and are already preparing legal paperwork. Nothing like have a recent precedent to strengthen your lawsuit.
It's either a town square for all accounts, or it isn't. They can't keep having it both ways
1
Quick question I hope I can get some type of response to: If a federal court rules that it is violating someone's first amendment right to be able to use Twitter to speak to the president, isn't Twitter, as a company, violating every person's first amendment right that they choose to ban? I am confused how you can have one without the other. If Twitter is considered to be a Town square, where free speech is protected, then the rules and regulations in the terms and conditions are unconstitutional.
Am I misinterpreting anything?
You are misinterpreting the First Amendment and to whom it applies. You (and Twitter and all private actors) can block speech on Twitter. The government (including Trump) cannot.
6
Trump can't block critics on Twitter but Hillary could block critics by hitting the delete key 33,000 times? Both are government officials using media for official business.
And if Trump can't block critics on Twitter because of free speech, how can he block reporters at a press conference? I should be allowed a press pass because I have YouTube channel with 2,200 subscribers.
Rather than discuss free speech, the Court should have demanded that Trump turn on spellcheck before tweeting since he seems to be tweeting out of both sides of his cofeve.
Hillary was trashed both by Trump and much of the “mainstream media” (meaning Fox and other powerful media outlets across the spectrum) because she allegedly endangered our government by using a private (albeit secure) email server through which she received and sent government-related emails (though Colin Powell amongst others commonly did the same and it was not a banned practice) - also the Trump kids feel free to do this frequently now that their Dad says they can.
The issue with Hillary’s emails related to - Did using a private (protected) email server pose potential hacking risks?
Trump conducts governmental business openly on Twitter. No hackers required.
The fact that this most recent issue with his Twitter account is ludicrous.
No president should be conducting our government’s business (it’s our government and Trump is our employee) on Twitter.
These are kindergarten antics of a toddler. While he is president, he is accountable to us. We are not his subjects; he is ours.
6
The Judicial system is the last bastion of democracy in our country when it comes to this administration. The Executive Branch is chaotic and inept, so basically non existent. The Legislative Branch is either traitorous (Senate) or cowardice (House). All that is left is the Judiciary Branch. Sad to say , I have more trust in and respect for the lower courts, than I do for SCOTUS. Let's see how this plays out.
4
No serious political leader should use twitter. Tweet, tweet - it's for the birds.
6
Seriously, there needs to be a type of Twitter account that simply does not accept responses.
If you were to look at twitter and see what appears as responses to the President's tweets you will understand the need for that type of account.
1
I must say an unintended benefit of Trump going off on Twitter is precisely that it provides a platform to contradict & debate him. This was brought home to me during the Kavanough Hearing when women vividly related their own stories. Powerful stuff for the history books.
Then some weeks later I realized my own replies stopped appearing under his account. I look forward to the benefits of seeing the entire story unfold, always, not just the airbrushed meme version the right flatters itself with lately.
3
The Twitter in Chief Trump reprimanded? Say it isn’t so. Doesn’t matter. He believes he has presidential immunity in all fields. Rules don’t apply to him.
So far, he’s gotten away with it, for we are use to holding our president’s to a much higher standard that Donald J. Trump just doesn’t qualify . It seems like he is just making it up as he goes. It’s been a total sad state of affairs for our country.
Lets hope that all starts to change next week when Robert Mueller takes the stand.
Chaos! In the Donald J. Trump White House, that’s all there has been. Every-second, every-minute, every-hour, every-day, every-week, and every-month, for two and half years straight. There has been absolute chaos from a POTUS, who thrives on it by governance from tweeting.
It’s no wonder his dysfunctional administration is upside down. It’s idiocy in its greatest form.
Make America Great Again (MAGA), by getting rid of him.
How far our country has fallen by his unorthodox leadership.
Twitter in Chief Trump indeed!
13
So what happens now, when he refuses to unblock everyone? Nothing.
10
A-hahahaha ... I love that, I just have to say I really love that this story shows in microcosm our illegimate appointed President's total ignorance and ultimate disregard for the very idea of rule of law and the theoretical basis for all government.
This fool in the White House is either clueless, totally clueless and just thrashing about on unimportant and egotistical matters, or he is at the spearhead of the most serious, gravest threat to the United States of America, and the world there has ever been.
Either way, he must go, and everything about him and the current Republican party must be isolated and understood in terms of its toxic effect on the people, government and economy.
10
You lose all credibility when you say Trump was illegally appointed. Seriously. There literally was an election and he literally secured more electoral votes - which is literally how we have elected presidents in this country for almost 250 years. Like totally.
1
I finally got to a screen big enough to read the decision - and found one of the most excellent, well-thought, carefully limited decisions by any court I have ever read.
The language is, both legally and otherwise, beautiful, specific, clear and concise.
This is one case (there are many decisions based on wordings of other decisions that require very deep analysis to understand what a judge is really saying) where I suggest most readers pretty much ignore the excellent story, and go straight to the decision, relying on the Times only if they are ignorant of 'speech' and the Constitution (I am afraid, from some of the responses that some readers of this august publication, that many suffer the most easily cured 'affliction' on this issue. Thank you NYT, again, for curing our ignorance in a world where none are masters of all).
3
Perhaps all of AOC 4 million Twitter followers could spend some time at 5.30AM responding to Mr Trump tweets , now that he can no longer block negative comments against him.
7
Sounds like you support a screaming mob to stifle speech that makes you uncomfortable? Or do I misunderstand the operational import of your call to mass noise?
1
Liberals don’t seem to understand that Trump is the President of the United States. That means something. There’s this thing called “separation of powers.” He doesn’t have to listen to the court anymore than they have to listen to him.
1
All due respect, that’s not how it works.
There were several precedents were the courts checked executive power most recent I recall was the original travel ban.
And some major ones in history like the Pentagon papers.
The courts can and do keep presidents behaviors in line with the constitution, and it it generally the courts job to do that.
21
Trump supporters don’t seem to understand the constitution, or our system of government. There are three equal branches. We are not a monarchy and as much as he likes to act like it, Trump is not a king.
14
@Mark, please read the Constitution.
If you do not understand the checks-and-balances system that our founders put in place to protect you from dictatorship, please don’t talk about the role of the President.
The rest of us took the time to learn about our government’s structure before commenting. Please do the same. Otherwise you just seem foolish.
8
The news media is just piling on the politicization of our Judicial branch by insisting on telling us which President nominated any specific Judge when reporting on opinions handed down. This obviously leads to assigning political leanings to judgements that should have no political aspect whatsoever. Please stop doing it.
4
It is amazing that we are forced to go through these unbelievable, childish issues almost daily with this toddler-in-chief, but democracies always face challenges to their resiliency and structural strength. If the courts can prevail, it is simply another test of our historic democratic system.
If the courts fail, then the also almost daily systemic attacks on our Constitution, our institutions, and our nation will be shown to have been successful. Democracies, even ours, can only sustain so much foundational assault.
Also, what a tremendous waste of time this all is, when we could have had a functioning, intelligent, pragmatic, well-informed person in the White House. Not perfect, but sane and fit for the job. How much has been wasted and harmed in these last two years. How many missed opportunities to really solve, at least in part, some of our problems and to create new opportunities in new cutting-edge industries and sectors. We are falling behind, alienating our allies, and wasting our time.
13
Hmmm, conducting official business on private Twitter account.
13
Why anyone would want to get into a moan fest with a toddler is beyond me.
6
@Futbolistaviva
To inform his followers of the truth, of course.
5
@Ana Luisa: Unfortunately, I think most of Trump's followers are too far gone to know what the truth is even if it danced in front of them with a neon sign.
3
Well now! I may have to reopen my Twitter account.
10
Has there ever been a more pathetic, dishonest, more thin-skinned, weak person than Donald J. trump? No.
39
Trump's ego is so fragile that he has to throw himself a big 4th of July parade with old tanks, and it hurts his feelings is anyone says anything mean about him.
His parents truly messed him up, and we're all paying for it.
30
Trump loves Twitter because he's a coward.
He rages against people from the safety of his phone and then grovels in their presence.
We have a president with no courage and no moral compass.
52
Exactly the type of behavior I would expect from a criminal president.
10
Trump loses yet another Court fight. His disrespect for the ultimate upholders of tradition may come back to bite him.
6
I think Twitter should block him if he continued to flaunt the court ruling. He certainly would have a fit since this is his main source of communication.
18
@Df Agree 100%. Anyway, he should never have been allowed to conduct official presidential business on Twitter.
5
The first sentence of the article: "President Trump has been violating the Constitution by blocking people from following his Twitter account because they criticized or mocked him, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday."
The last sentence of the oath of office of the president: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
How is it not obvious that Trump is unfit for the office?
40
If no man is truly above the law, Twitter’s next step should be to suspend Chump’s account until he complies with the law of the land. Chip is not the law!
8
So in essence these judges are saying that a person attending a public hearing such as Congressional hearing or a Supreme Court session cannot be removed for speaking out even for rude or even racial remarks.
3
@MDCooks8
One could make the argument that there are limits on free speech, such as yelling fire in a theater when there is none. If everyone is allowed to speak out during a congressional hearing or Supreme Court session, this would drastically impede their ability to work, possibly even make it impossible. This is not the case with Twitter; people being rude or making racial remarks to a public official doesn't impact anything (well, maybe their feelings). So there is no justification for censorship.
5
@MDCooks8 - Hillary was able to block critics by hitting her delete button so I don't understand why Trump can't hit his block button to essentially do the same thing.
1
I understood it to mostly mean you can’t be blocked from the President’s Twitter feed just because he disagrees with your speech.
I think it’s reasonable to say that the President’s Twitter feed is more like a public square than a Congressional hearing or a Supreme Court session. We want the latter two to maintain order and have authority in their settings much differently from how we want any president to control open public discourse. (I hope.)
Anyway, can Congress or the Supreme Court throw people out just for being rude or making racially prejudiced statements? Maybe if a person disrupts a hearing or session, but that’s a different thing— and Twitter is a forum for speech where the threshold for disruption is much higher.
1
I'm excited by this ruling because it puts social media solidly in the category of public discourse requiring all points of view to be represented. The users of social media need to directly feel the consequences of bullying and irresponsible statements which will force them to think before they thumb. May this be the beginning of a trend of pulling back on people's misuse of this frequently unhealthy medium since to me, it often represents the modern equivalent of graffiti on the bathroom wall.
4
The social media I’ve been witness to seems to be filled with an extensive variety of viewpoints. I’m not sure how you see this ruling as also controlling people from arguing about those viewpoints? Or as manners enforcement for those who treat one another poorly. I do wish the general public would stick to civil discourse, but I don’t see this ruling as affecting that one way or another.
1
Because he uses Twitter for official business he also cannot delete his tweets. They are considered official and part of the public record.
15
Since this would appear to have been a 'no-brainer' from the very beginning, I have to wonder how much taxpayer money has been spent litigating it? I'd call it wasteful spending, but if it results in far fewer Trump tweets, that's a plus. I have no doubt the Donald will back away from the platform once the flood of negative reactions starts showing up.
8
I'm assuming Twitter will have to handle unblocking his " foes," since court rulings mean nothing to Trump.
7
I suppose the rule would apply to all social media platforms and all federal officers, including senators and representatives.
4
@William Case
Of course. It's just that none of hem ever tried to systematically block people who disagree with them, you see?
That weakness is Trump's alone ...
Just like he tries to manipulate his supporters in such a way that they don't read nor watch independent news anymore.
6
@Ana Luisa - "Of course. It's just that none of hem ever tried to systematically block people who disagree with them, you see?"
I totally disagree. Hillary hired a team of lawyers to help her hit the delete button 33,000 times in an effort to systemically block people who disagree with her. I see no difference between Trump tweeting and Hillary deleting.
@Ana Luisa
I suspect people will begin to swamp social medial sites and twitter accounts belonging to senators and representative views contrary to their own views. When you go tot heir sites, most posts will reflect the oppositions view point.
A public figure has chosen a certain medium, however strange, to talk to the public about public policy. He has no no constitutionall right to determine who is privy to that information. This is a good precedent to create.
8
seems like a wrong decision.
twitter is not a govt medium. trump should follow the rules of twitter and block anyone he wants. if trump used a govt medium, then i would agree. i think the distinction between a govt medium and a public medium is important. twitter is not a utility under govt control and regulation. but this issue is one where fair-minded people can disagree
1
@Ari Weitzner
the ruling isn't saying that Twitter is a government medium.
It's saying that Trump is a governmental representative conducting public business on this medium, and blocking anyone from reading or responding to it is tantamount to censorship by a government official, which violates citizens' first amendment rights.
In other words, it's not about the medium, it's about the government using that medium to censor citizens.
13
Seriously? With all the things going on in this country and Trump is worried about this? Astonishing.
7
The lede of this story could have been shorter: "President Trump has been violating the Constitution." He does it every day -- and not just on Twitter.
Trump's flagrant misuse of Twitter, and abuse of the power of the Presidency, is the main reason I have abandoned social media of all kinds. Some have attributed the debased level of discourse on the internet to the anonymity some platforms afford, allowing users to hide behind aliases. But Trump uses the power of his office to be as crude, petty, mean, and dishonest as any anonymous troll. He relentlessly peddles disinformation, engages in witness tampering and other forms of public intimidation that might be expected from a thuggish right-wing media pundit but should never be acceptable from a President of the United States.
11
Who, I must ask, would want to see the tweets from a toddler-in-chief twit who tweets incessant lies and nonsense.
But, on the other hand, Trump is using tweet as his communication means of choice and now must face the non-believers, the political atheists who show no reverence for the despot.
He put himself in that situation and it will be interesting to see how his attorney, Barr, helps him get out.
4
"When you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen" He can dish it out, but can't take it, Real man!,
12
Is it part of the NYT style requirements that "Federal District Court" be capitalized? That seems odd to me as an attorney, I would normally have it lowercase and, frankly, "Federal" and "District Court" would be redundant where I practice. But it has only caught my eye in articles in the past few months. Is it a new thing or something I have just noticed?
@Leighton
There are district courts that aren't federal, so how is it redundant?
4
The courts should also rule that people like me, who’ve been banned from Twitter because of tweets found offensive, while our tweeting president rages on, should be unbanned as it is basically the primary method of communication from our commander in chief, and we have a right to read those messages.
4
President Andrew Jackson is often quoted as defiantly saying to colleagues, “[Chief Justice John] Marshall has made his ruling, now let him enforce it!”
President Trump is not the only public official subject to a 1st Amendment lawsuit over blocking critics on Twitter. The current Alabama Secretary of State and US Senate candidate, John H. Merrill, is subject to a similar lawsuit over similar action of claiming that his Twitter account, which states in is his bio; “Representing the People of Alabama as their 53rd Secretary of State”.
In transparency I am a party in this lawsuit awaiting a favorable ruling from the Alabama Middle District Court. https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/25704532/Fasking_et_al_v_Merrill
8
Rather than block his followers, why can't we insist that Twitter block Trump? His bullying tweets are not only offensive to many of his targets (and thinking loyal Americans) but provide him with an inappropriate platform with which to govern. We have become desensitized to this president's buffoonery and lack of leadership by allowing him through Twitter to hire and fire people, create public policy, mock the constitution, malign decent hard-working people and continue with impunity the host of self-serving initiatives that weaken our country.
8
Thank you, Ms. Buckwalter. A brilliant stroke that shows that both the legal community and Congress have been inept not to have sued over this the moment he put the word “President” on his twitter account.
I have never used twitter, but almost feel it is my constitutional duty to do so if it would chafe even an inch of arrogance off of this despot in the White House. A movement, anyone?
4
Having looked at the President's Twitter account - and the responses there have been many people I blocked - there is just so much vulgarity one can tolerate.
I think this ruling is wrong.
Blocking someone on Twitter means you don't have to see their tweets. It removes them from your conversation. They still have the right to send out messages.
Otherwise, why should the President's office secretary be a me to keep me from calling on the phone demanding a discussion with him?
I defy you to tell me that by hanging up on my phone call - similar to blocking tweets - is the same as abrogating my constitutional rights.
1
He is a public official conducting public business. What he does is a matter of public record. Nobody gets to erase 18 minutes of audio tape which documents the actions of public officials conducting public business. In your example you are a private citizen and are not subject to the same requirements of transparency and accountability.
5
Today is a victory for the First Amendment! And this judgement is a blow to the way Trump conducts his business. Trump spends most of his time as President wreaking revenge on those who slighted him in the past, including Obama and Clinton of course. The rest of the time we see Trump trying to ghost anyone who shames him in public. Most recently, the British Ambassador to the US was disinvited from a Trump function, simply because negative comments the man made privately were leaked to the press. The Ambassador's comments were based on his observations that Trump is insecure, inept, and incompetent. This same opinion of Trump is shared by the majority of voting Americans, along with the Democratic leadership. Trump has refused to work with Democrats, making a show of walking out of meetings with Pelosi and Schumer. Today, Trump found out that is not okay to just ghost us.
4
Why doesn't he want to see any criticism on his twitter account?
For the same reason that he imagines that the best way to criticize journalists is to claim that their network/newspaper has "low ratings": he knows his re-election will depend ENTIRELY on managing to keep his supporters isolated in an "alternative facts" bubble. So "protecting" them against any "real world" facts is vital, both for himself and the GOP.
Fortunately, there is still something called "the Constitution" ...
28
One word: snowflake.
6
Hmm...maybe it's time I joined Twitter.
10
Me too!
2
And if the President refuses to unblock his citizens, then what?
Exactly. He can thumb his nose at this ruling the same way he did with the ruling about Census questions. The courts themselves do not have the power to compel a President to obey the law; that would require the DOJ to step in. And as AG Barr has made perfectly clear, this administration has free rein to do anything.
16
Is he under the impression that the entire world loves him? Can he be that deluded? I believe the answer is yes! I have created several fake twitter accounts just to liberally insult him.
14
@Elmira
Sounds as petty as his tweets can be.
Unfortunately, by doing this, you contribute to the act of 'fake news' by appearing as if multiple people (you, yourself, & whatever other names used) disagree with his view.
While you may feel like you're also speaking on behalf of others without a Twitter (or any other social media account); when both sides do this, it really just feeds his ego and proves that the media AND the users of media are 'full of it'.
While not entirely true, ever hear of the phrase, "There's no such thing as bad publicity?"
1
@Elmira
It's the "liberal" part that will send him off raving...:)
1
@ATX_since84
Tweets aren't news. Don't exaggerate.
1
And thus, by court rule, Twitter becomes a freedom equal to all in our democracy as given to us by our constitution. Next is for our rule of law to limit the hate speech, the anti semitic behavior and the indignities. We must teach the values of freedom and the costs endured. For free speech is not free nor is freedom with cost.
3
@Charles Callaghan
No. Communications *by government representatives* using Twitter are equal to all, because otherwise it is censorship.
Twitter use by private people is not included in this ruling because it doesn't involve the government.
4
Let me know when he stops. It is going to be fun to join the swarm of bees. I have been waiting for it.
Imagine if we can all join in a fact check Trump in real time 1 million tweets at a time.
9
"Mr. Trump’s legal team argued, among other things, that he operated the account merely in a personal capacity, and so had the right to block whomever he wanted for any reason..."
Trump also operates the White House in a purely personal capacity so under his lawyer's logic he can evade Constitutional responsibilities as he sees fit.
He might even try to block members of the free press from access to White House press briefings or other events...oh, wait a minute, he already tried that one.
Maybe he will give a "non-partisan" speech at a July 4th event that he invented but then allocate all of the tickets to the front VIP section to only the RNC who would then dole them out to Trump donors...hold on, he did that already also.
We'll have to assume that his private meetings with Putin were also done in a personal capacity and therefore none of your darn business.
10
he's not going to stop blocking people and he can't be stopped and he will find ways around this. you could print his taxes and anything else. you could show him naked on a bed with a 14 year old girl and nothing will happen and I'm afraid he's going to get re-elected. I don't know what else can be done.
8
How then is he able to exclude protesters from his rallies?
8
Indeed. Particularly since they are paid for by the PUBLIC.
4
Sadly, Mr. BusyThumbs has turned Twitter into a replacement for his entire communications staff. He no longer bothers to offer daily news briefings by his minions. Reporters might as well sit by their computers elsewhere and wait for tweets. His in-person communications are either rude or lies or both, snatched by shouting reporters as he wanders from helicopter to White House and back again. Clearly, no one in the press office is able to filter his turdaceous opinions and bizarre vision of America. Twitter is the bane of our democracy as used by this unfortunate president.
6
The problem with Trump is that he doesn't see himself as a "public official" who was elected to serve the American public, that is all of the American public. Trump has a fascist mindset who has zero respect for the U.S Constitution. He only twists the Constitution to serve his purposes in order to stay in power and boost his sense of counterfeit prestige. He will probably appeal this to the Supreme Court, and may win only because of the conservative, … scratch that …, Republican majority.
But, it is clear to me that government officials who use public forums to voice their public policies and actions should not only be willing, but very open to public opinion on said public forums. If some of that public opinion is uncivil, personal attacks, lies, or misinformation, then tough cookies: "You reap what you sow".
4
Excellent ruling! Trump blocks opponents with large followings specifically to deplatform them. He wants to hide the large opposition and bolster those who praise him, regardless of whether they are real people and bots. This is why he was so upset when Twitter deleted millions of bot accounts.
10
Any of my Democratic friends getting tired of winning yet?
3
Bad actors in Shakespeare's time at the Globe Theater could be targets of rotten tomatoes and other fruits and objects being thrown in their direction by a displeased audience. Mr. Trump should be grateful that he lives in a time of more civil if not less critical discourse.
3
I think they just opened a box of worms.
If it's truly a public forum. Isn't twitter restricting your rights to contact your public officials by banning anyone?
2
@joe dag
Twitter isn't the government.
This is about censorship, not a private company enforcing its own policies and rules.
5
Trump violating the Constitution ? How could he consider such an action? Stupidity perhaps? He could care less? Maybe. He doesn’t care? Probably.
17
Let a onslaught of truth and reason rain down upon Donald Trump’s twitter account!
30
Thankfully snarling and snarky Donald Trump believes that tweeting and speaking nicknames and slurs while watching Fox News and playing golf is fighting.
While smiling and smirking Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin sends his foes to mental institutions, hospitals, prisons, urns and coffins.
8
Can we come to his rallies now as well? Instead of a MAGA hat, can mine say “Dump Trump” or something like that?
25
@YFJ Only if the get-togethers are billed as something other than a political rally, regardless of whether that is what they degenerate into or not. The issue is the president making official declarations vice campaign promises of pie in the sky.
I often write comments (negative) to his ramblings but so far I have not been blocked. Do I need to "follow" him? I would take blockage as a badge of honor, sort of a Thoreau in prison stand.
10
Trump's friends are the people he has dirt on. those are the people he loves. If he can't hurt them, he sees them as threats because he has such a guilty conscious.
7
The only logical answer is to stop using Twitter. Why should he support anyone who doesn't kiss the ring?
1
I thought this had already been resolved? I was banned by the President early on in his tenure. I kept a screenshot of the honor. Then the decision was made that it was against the Constitution and he returned to my feed.
Now I have been silenced by the content police of Twitter for defamatory comments against our dictato...uh, “President” they (Twitter) supports any and all obscenities, overtly racist allusions cloaked in weak aphorisms, and the Trumputins are given free reign.
So, in the end, Twitter silenced me, since the President couldn’t. Twitter is as bad as the Alex Jones channel, where the educated, politically informed and textually nuances are banned.
Don’t miss it. Or his daily idiocies. It’s enough to read about them in The NY Times. And so far, the Times hasn’t silenced my reproach.
7
Can’t you log out of Twitter and see his tweets because his twitter is public?
1
Wee-ickel Donnie-kins didn’t like what some of the mean people were saying about him, so he had them silenced. It’s like having Dudley Dursley as president.
8
Birds are supposed to tweet, not Presidents.
9
That something as fundamental to ANY democracy has actually to be EXPLAINED to Trump, and to explained by a judge (rather than his own staff, even before he decided to run) shows how low the GOP has fallen, and how it is actively undermining America's greatness each and every day.
A democracy is the strongest political regime precisely because the "market of ideas", through real, respectful debates, is what determines what the best idea is, whereas in a dictatorship, it's a bunch of people who imagine being superior to all others who do - until they've made so many mistakes that their own regime disintegrates.
The GOP has been VERY afraid of this free exchange of ideas, convinced that their own political philosophy cannot but be destroyed, once it can be freely debated.
That's why they founded Fox News in the first place. The GOP vitally needs a 24/7 "alternative facts" machine in order to survive and win elections.
Trump already refused to sign a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill that contained full funding of his wall, in 2018, just because of ONE tweet (Ann Coulter's).
And now he's so terrified that he even asked a court to protect him against tweets that might questions his words or acts.
His rhetoric might sound "tough" to some, but this shows how weak this man actually is.
6
I sure hope that “we the people” are not funding Trump’s defense of this lawsuit.
6
Trump dishes it out on a daily (hourly) basis but can't take the same. Sad.
10
Besides everything else, this man is extremely insecure. When an adult person cannot take criticism, it must be something wrong with his/her upbringing, level of maturity, etc. This so-called “ Billionaire is extremely entitled and cannot allow dissent.
10
@RBR
I mean, I get wanting to block people from your feed as a private citizen, but he's a public official now. He can't just block people because they "annoy" him. It's ridiculous. He needs to seriously grow up.
5
This is exactly why Trump is undergoing so much Presidential "harassment." As long as he continues to violate every law, rule, and norm that he happens not to like, Congress, and other defenders of these standards of our democracy, has no other option but to continue to challenge him. Well, I guess there is one other option: swallow your duty and your integrity and look the other way. But who would do that?
8
Trump loses his ability to control his media so that he can deliver his message without any challenges. It kind of destroys it's value to him. He has used it to avoid having to respond to reporters' questions when he delivers his messages.
4
It is due time for the president to start assessing the full effect of his ideas, policies, attitude on the whole citizenry --not just "HIS" base approval. Today is a good day for justice, if not for Trump. He probably will have some flunky techie erasing the negative messages before he sits down to read comments that feed his ego, but he won't be able to block them. We got his number and so do the courts.
6
In Trump's case, -- a very public account -- why can't Twitter just unblock those who are blocked? Or, even better, why not change the platform so it's impossible to block anyone whose account is used as a public forum?
11
Trump has created a vast echo chamber that blurts out his lies to a subservient audience of millions who seem to know no better, while blocking dissenting views. Only totalitarian regimes have comparable megaphones with which they disseminate misinformation or outright lies while suppressing the truth or dissenting voices. If Americans wish to live in a free country, Trump's abuse of social media cannot stand. The court's ruling to uphold the Constitution's First Amendment is an overdue defense of our freedom.
5
Touche !
1
This is exactly why Trump is undergoing so much Presidential "harassment." As long as he continues to violate every law, rule, and norm that he happens not to like, Congress, and other defenders of these standards of our democracy, has no other option but to continue to challenge him. Well, I guess there is one other option: swallow your duty and your integrity and look the other way. But who would do that?
2
What a ludicrous argument from his legal team! “Mr. Trump’s legal team argued that he operated the account merely in a personal capacity, and so had the right to block whomever he wanted for any reason — including because users annoyed him by criticizing or mocking him.” Trump fires, hires, threatens war, creates policy and more, all on behalf of the American people. This ruling is absolutely correct, and is not even the first on speech in the social media marketplace of ideas.
4
Trump will never understand that he is a public servant.
10
I wish that was the only way he is ignoring the Constitution. Corrupt to the core.
9
I'm sure the words "violating the Constitution" will be a recurring theme for years to come for this President.
3
Someone or some group needs to get the Federal Court to enforce the ruling beyond the plaintiffs so that everyone who has been blocked gets unblocked. Something enforceable with penalties. In essence this particular Twitter account needs to be open access to all.
5
What did Donald Trump think he was doing when he used his Twitter account? He made it clear that his Tweets were from the President of the United States, whether they were squawks of outrage at the media or announcements of changes to immigration regulations.
Trump's use of Twitter was inappropriate in any circumstances, for any government official, more so for the so-called Leader of the Free World.
The ruling is correct.
470
@dutchiris and so it stands... twitter 'is an official channel for government business' thus showcasing the 'thoughts & prayers' of a sitting toddler-in-chief. While his tweets are inappropriate, showing us everyday who he is at every inappropriate moment is most apropos.
60
@dutchiris The use of Twitter by the POTUS doesn't have to be inappropriate, per se. Trump just does it inappropriately.
32
@laikahurricane The problem is, there's a lot of toddlers-in-following out there. These are the sort of people who enjoyed Morton Downey, jr. or Jerry Springer or InfoWars. I think this was an appropriate move on the court's part.
38
I heartily applaud this ruling.
We either have free speech or we do not. The same laws should apply to public forums if they are a venue for public discourse. Plain and simple.
If some of the tweets are too offensive or if they qualify for defamation of character, these cases can be taken to court as they are in any other forum.
220
@Manuela: Suing people over what is written on the internet could be the biggest boondoggle for crooked lawyers in history.
14
@Manuela Since you are such a constitutional afficanado, this ruling also means social media platforms can no longer delete any lawful content, since that would violate their users right of free speech.
3
@Bob, the ruling says nothing about private social media companies in their dealings with private individual users. You should read the Constitution.
37
I’ve been wondering how feasible it would be for the US government to have its own online forum. Users would have to be eligible to vote or US citizens (I always thought the two were synonymous, but apparently they’re not) to register—maybe log in with real name and SSN as password since the government already has that information—and it wouldn’t be anonymous. It could also be organized by state and county.
Though I don’t know if current society could handle it given how many people still have issues with using technology, something like that would allow communities to be able to communicate with each other and officials very easily. It would also allow us to keep our politicians accountable, and would be somewhat similar to those neighborhood watch communities in way that links the entire country.
The president, congress, and the judiciary would then be able to make announcements that show up as banners at the top of the page, etc. Wouldn’t need to rely on things like Twitter and stuff like what’s outlined in this article wouldn’t be a problem. Creating such a system would also bring up many, if not the vast majority, of cyber-related issues that the law hasn’t yet caught up with. And, as this story demonstrates, there are plenty of those.
1
Given the governments numerous failures when it comes to cyber security, I sincerely hope this doesn’t happen anytime soon. It would be an immediate target for foreign governments, identity thieves and other hackers. A single data breach could be worth billions of dollars on the dark web or worse give a foreign government a powerful tool to target individual citizens of the US.
2
To me this is primarily an issue of access to government information. As President, Trump has chosen to use Twitter for official purposes. It’s not surprising that the court ruled that he does not have the right to block other Twitter users from reading his tweets. I doubt Trump grasps the concept of official communication but that’s a different problem.
18
This case represents yet another example of Donald Trump's disdain for the Constitution, democratic norms, reason, truth, decency and fairness. The fact that more than 40% of the American electorate still supports him is shameful. It is a stain that will endure, to the detriment of generations to come.
Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously said that sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants. If that is true, we will need a tremendous amount of sunlight, just to muddle through this horrible period of incipient fascism (albeit a softer kind) and Orwellian disdain for truth.
443
@Jon
I take it then, that you're in favor of Twitter reactivating the accounts that it banned because their political viewpoints were unpopular?
Like the National Policy Institute, Alex Jones, Meghan Murphy, etc?
4
@j Of course not. The ruling applies to Trump, not Twitter.
49
@J, what does the banning by a private company (Twitter) of offensive accounts (you wrote "unpopular," but you obviously meant "offensive" or "rule-violating") have to do with the First Amendment or the President's misrule?
50
The court decision to apply the First Amendment to a Trump's Twitter account will likely stand in appeals as Twitter is the main form of communication he uses with the general public.
The decision will also allow millions who oppose Trump's messages to sign on as followers and drown out his lies, racist rants, and generally ugly insults to all who offend him. This empowerment of the public critics of Trump could become one of the most effective applications of the First Amendment in the age of social media.
520
@USexpat
And the winner is Twitter!
4
@USexpat
Except ... what if Trump just keeps doing whatever he feels like, which seems to be his response to everything, even Supreme Court rulings from a Supreme Court that his party has stacked (with Mitch McConnell violating the Constitution, in that case). Government is so grid locked and nonfunctioning that it seems this result is what the Republicans are counting on: no consequences.
35
@DM
No. The winner is the citizens of America and their Constitutional right of free speech.
59
And so does the court then order him to unblock those he has blocked? And if he ignores the order, does this become yet another egregious act for which he suffers zero consequences?
693
@Jeremy Shatan
I suspect Twitter can unblock accounts. Whether they will, of course, is another matter.
23
@Jeremy Shatan The opinion states that he has already unblocked them.
4
@Jeremy Shatan if for no other reason to document his Presidental record.
5
His Twitter account must become publicly open, all of his uses of it must be published.
8
“he operated the account merely in a personal capacity”. Huh? Like when he spends the day watching cable news on multiple televisions? That kind of “personal capacity “???
14
NO American President should be tweeting. PERIOD.
65
Only birdbrains “tweet”
2
Same thing happened here in our Congressional District. Mr. Gosar our Congressman blocked constituents that he didn’t agree with. The Courts told him that he either quit the account or quit blocking.
31
So many folks are misinterpreting this ruling. It does not deal with free speech in general, but very specifically the right of individuals to respond to a government official’s statements.
If that is not your use for your Twitter account: You can still block whomever you wish. I expect that even a governmental official could have a second, strictly social, Twitter account and, provided no government policies or actions under that official’s purview are posted there, blocking of offensive responders would be allowed.
9
No doubt Mr. Trump is using tweets to engage his base and also denigrate those who disagree with him on policy. This guy is wrong on so many fronts which entail the Constitution of the United States and the rule of law that he will go down in history as the president who finally got us to rein in the executive branch.
6
One thing this author didn’t note is that two other appellate courts unanimously ruled the exact same way when other public officials tried to block users from accounts they used for official policies. Nothing here is surprising.
9
Well, now, this is something not even an executive order can stop!
5
Americans DON'T have unfettered !st amendments rights. You CAN mail the White House your thoughts or opinions, doesn't mean the President has to read them. It was NOT spelled out specifically but I wonder if he is allowed to MUTE offensive posts. Can you imagine if those on the RIGHT mega filled every Democrats INBOX of their email/twitter/Instagram/snap-chat accounts making them non-usable. Wouldn't happen, REPUBLICANS are NOT that childish. Its a left kind of mindset.
@James Servantes - Just because someone disagrees with you does not make their posts "offensive." Because Twitter is Trump's form of official presidential communication, it is a violation of the Constitution of the United States of America, to ban anyone who wishes to access the posts. Yes, he can ignore emails, and he can ignore the tweets he does not like, but he cannot refuse to let anyone read and respond.
5
@James Servantes You have unfettered rights when a public official makes a public forum for their official statements. The fact that it’s social media is completely irrelevant.
4
Um...do you use social media? I'm guessing you don't, as this isn't how any of this works. Getting thousands upon thousands of responses is the norm for all public figures. It's kinda the point - *social* media.
You should see AOC's Twitter account, if you think it's only the left.
4
That’ll stop him?
8
@Paul
No Dear. He’s trying to stop us.
7
@Paul - No, it will not stop him, but it will allow people to call him out when he lies on Twitter.
3
I'm now considering opening my first social media account, and the winner is....hold it....twitter.
14
@DaveB — ditto
2
Dear Mr. President
If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.
Less time on Twitter and more time educating yourself on matters that should occupy your time instead of embarrassing yourself and the USA.
Sincerely, most Americans.
132
Twitter is a public avenue. If you want a private avenue, talk to the FBI or CIA to help you.
7
The CIA is is prohibited from acting in an intelligence capacity against United States citizens (or any others for that matter) on US soil. That's the FBI's job and I expect they would be very uncooperative with any such order. After all, Trump has not been very friendly towards them either.
1
So what?
Unless the panel of judges specifically stated substantial penalties for failing to correct this unconstitutional conduct, there's no way Trump will re-authorize his critics to post on his Twitter account.
He will ignore the ruling and assume that a substantial response will not occur while he is in office.
And given Pelosi's cowardice and Shumer's ineffectiveness, he'll be right.
3
@W Ah but then twitter can close down his account because he’s not following what the court tells him. We shall see.
7
Twitter is a public avenue. If you want a private avenue, talk to the FBI or CIA to help you.
1
I predict thousands of new Twitter users will start following President Trump, if only to criticize or mock him.
16
He can dish it out but he sure can’t take it!
35
@Nancy
Considering he was falsely accused of colluding with Russia for more than 2 years. Is constantly undermined by media and politicians on foreign and domestic policy. Consistently blamed for everything wrong with the country now which was implemented and present before he was ever in office. I think he can take it.
Keeping abreast of a president's communications with the public is one of the basic features of being an American citizen. It's no more constitutional to block a person's access to Trump's social media posts, than it would be to forbid them from watching White House press briefings on their television sets.
12
@The Buddy
I’m not feeling this analysis. There is a place for private communication by the President. Twitter is naturally a public media privilege.
3
"The decision may have broader implications for how the First Amendment applies to officials’ accounts in the social-media era."
I've long suspected that Trump tweets from his private @realDonaldTrump account, rather than the expected @POTUS account that Barack Obama used, in an attempt to avoid a ruling such as this. Good that Judge Parker didn't make a distinction. If Trump uses the platform -- either a public or private account -- to convey official government information, then he should understand that this ruling is a no-brainer.
I'm curious about what comes next. Trump holds himself above any law with which he disagrees. Can any other party hold him to account when he is in the wrong? Or does the illegal activity just continue apace...?
14
Content arguments aside, the author felt compelled to identify the President who appointed the various judges. That makes the report a (perhaps inadvertent) soldier in Trump's army, polticising the judiciary and discrediingt judges who rule against him based on their "bias." We shouldn't help him damage the integrity of our institutions.
7
@Jim. Well, did you notice the judges included those appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents?
2
@Jim
I'm quite confident that it is directly because of Trump's knee jerk claims of political bias to adverse court rulings that the reporter felt compelled to make it clear that two of the judges were Bush appointees. Yes, anything or anyone that does not have the direct stamp of approval from Mr. Trump is open to excoriation and insult from him, but his self-serving and irrational disdain for everything that doesn't go absolutely his way is a little more obvious in situations like this.
I'm just waiting to see how Clarence Thomas will somehow find an "originalist" argument to excuse Trump's actions when this case, no doubt, goes to the Supreme Court. And he most assuredly will rule in Trump's favor, along with Alito. But the rest of the conservative wing of the SC may actually agree with the sound reasoning of the appellate court.
2
It seems to me that Twitter should be required to modify the account of people who use their service as a public service with a large following, by taking away the option to block people.
11
@Count Iblis
I think that's a great idea!
Once a user reaches a certain number of followers (hence larger influence), everyone should be able to see a fair and open discussion from that point onward.
- Also, once a person is a publicly elected official of the government (from Mayor on up & during their tenure), should have to listen to all their constituents.
5
@Count Iblis
Sounds like another court case in the making.
Why are we relegated to think of Twitter as some official communication channel of the POTUS or any other government official? Twitter is entertainment, pure and simple, and legislators ought to think about banning the use of Twitter and any other social media for official government purposes. Whatever happened to memorializing government policy with an official statement and memo documented in the Library of Congress? Americans have gotten too lazy...
5
@Don Funk
Trump's Twitter account is not an "official communication channel." But it becomes a de facto means of official communication in how Trump makes use of it (as well as other public officials, too). I don't think FDR's use of the radio for his "fireside chats" was ever given "official communication" status, but he WAS the President, and he DID communicate important information to the masses. In FDR's case, however, free speech didn't enter into it, because radio was a one-way medium. Twitter is designed to be a two-way communication channel, and Trump can't play like it's not.
3
@Don Funk Donald Trump broke it. It needs to stop because you are right, its entertainment and we have an entertainer as President; a venal one, but an entertainer nevertheless.
2
It didn't stop them from blocking me, just the same.
while it isn't surprising to see this ruling, I wonder what it will actually mean in changed behaviour. The rule of law doesn't seem to be a guiding principle of this presidency.
15
@banditandfergus
Let's assume that this decision goes all the way to the Supreme Court, and it is upheld at all levels (with Thomas and Alito, of course, voting against it for some cockamamie reason). Of course, Trump, being the scofflaw that he is, would ignore the ruling.
At that point, however, I think Twitter would feel pressure to rework its rules and processes for blocking accounts. I can imagine court cases being brought to force the issue. And in the end things would change.
Of course, this is one of the great frustrations with someone like Trump. He is so adept at using the legal system to delay any consequences he should suffer that those of us who feel that justice delayed is justice denied have to grind our teeth in frustration. But I guess we must satisfy ourselves with the knowledge that it will be less likely that another scofflaw will be able to simply run roughshod over the political and legal system in the future. We can't just throw up our hands in frustration and disgust, even if this particular culprit doesn't get his comeuppance until a later date.
1
This is an interesting question because if you are blocked, how is your free speech limited? It is only limited to that single account. You have tons of other outlets from your own twitter to letters to the editor to protests, ad naseum.
I you claim the purpose of your usage is dissemination of information only, not to create conversations, I don't quite see how the free speech argument applies.
The court ruled on the side of free speech, which is all good, but I could see an appeal going the other way.
3
This was the appeal. It’s not even a surprising ruling if you know First Amendment law.
5
@Marvin
The essence of the First Amendment is that the government cannot limit our speech. So while private entities can limit us all they want, the President, the highest representative of our government, cannot limit our speech.
8
I see it more of a serious ethical violation. So for example, if a teacher started to pick on the Mexican kids in his class, and posting his racist remarks on the class's discussion board for all to see, then proceed blocking same kids to respond, what is that? Tyranny.
5
What is becoming increasingly clear given Trump's record in the courts, is that the judicial branch is the last meaningful bastion (albeit fragile) between a society based on the tenets of laws formulated in a democratic forum and a society controlled by a tyrant or dictator who's only loyalty and service is to his or hers own power (aka NKor). This explains why Mitch McConnell and Senate Republican's are doing everything they can as fast as they can to dismantle that institution. The executive branch went rogue on Jan. 20 2017 and the congress, under Republican control, soon followed. The people pushed back in 2018, it will be interesting to see who wins the next battle in the war for control of this country. These are very dangerous times.
21
So, what are the steps he has to take now? Will he just unblock specific plaintiffs again, or all blocked accounts?
1
@Kenzie All blocked accounts. The plaintiffs have already been unblocked.
6
Thank goodness the courts are still sane. Open it up , let the majority speak to the Twitter Prez! Trump works for all of us, not in a reality-TV bubble. No clothes but NOT an emperor.
14
Another reason elected officials should be barred from using private Internet services that are neither fish nor fowel.
The Internet has become, as are many of its service providers, universal service providers like the Postal Service or the collective “phone company”.
These services, either government-owned or regulated in return for freedom to engage in monopolistic practices cannot discriminate on any basis other than refusing to follow rules necessary to make the system work or nonpayment.
Verizon cannot deny you a phone because someone in the company doesn’t like you, or because you might say things someone doesn’t like.
The Postal Service cannot refuse to deliver mail from the Green Red or Blue Party.
But Twitter, Google, Linked-In, Facebook, etc. are private entities that simply provide services using the ‘net.
Trump could establish two Twitter-like systems, one for government business, one for his campaign, very easily - it just takes either an IT crew and cash, or knowledge - something he lacks beyond the PT Barnum skill set.
He could possibly discriminate on a mass-e-mail server sending to members of the Campaign Loyal - assuming he didn’t discuss public policy, but sent notices of events and pleas for donations.
Almost anything else falls onto the Trump, the Government Employee side - that’s what he is, after all.
He is not Master but Chief Servant, something we’ve forgotten - and it is long time our Congressional employees did as required and dismissed him for us.
10
Let the criticism and mocking begin! This is just another example of the legally weak positions Mr. Trump puts his team of attorneys and the DOJ in. The court losses are certainly adding up, and I suspect this issue will be on the SCOTUS docket in the fall.
10
When did conducting "government business" via social media become a sanctioned activity? And for the president no less? The day Trump stepped into office?
I have my doubts this ruling will stick. Trump's lawyers will find some way around it. Or, more likely, Trump will ignore it altogether. What does he care who sues him or for what? Twitter is his rightful domain. The fact that he has been blocking his detractors there is very, very telling. The most thin-skinned man who ever lived needs to have everything and every one go his way.
The idea that Trump is engaging in "dialogue" on Twitter is false. He is using Twitter as a means to manipulate and influence people. Basically, as propaganda and propagation of lies.
Too bad there's no law against doing that.
6
'has been violating the Constitution by blocking people from following his Twitter account because they criticized or mocked him'
So if come one attacks my wife, i cannot block them?
How about I can, because it is my Twiter or FB or whatever. My feed, my choice.
If that means I violated the constitution, come get me.
2
@AutumnLeaf - please re-read the article. Because he uses his account to conduct government business, he can't block subscribers. If he has a twitter account which he DOESN'T use for official government business, he can block anyone. As the court has ruled, there is still a difference in this country.
13
@AutumnLeaf
I suggest you read the column again, this time reading ALL the words, to wit "elected official," etc.
14
@DaveB They will say absolutely anything to protect their master.
4
But Twitter can outright right ban people that disagree with politically?
What a joke.
2
@Scott Wilson
Twitter is a private company, free speech does not apply to them.
They can ban anyone they like.
5
Ha! The Brits are going to beat Trump at his own game. Gotta love the Brits! They won’t hold back. Trump may have met his match.... across the pond.
6
Oh, that poor, poor man, Mr. Trump. Worried about what people might think of his little tweets and twitters.
What a sad country we have being led by this man.
The real justice system, not the William Barr type, is taking action. Good.
16
What was it that British Ambassador Kim Darroch called the Trump Administration: "Erratic and incoherent"? Too bad he didn't complete the picture with what everyone else who tracks these jokers knows: "Paranoid and petty". And now the rest of us can say it to the Orange One personally, on Twitter and Facebook-Paranoid and Petty.
16
It would be nice if some of his atrocities are found illegal and he is able to be prosecuted. However, the DOJ continues to convert from the Dept of Justice to Donald's Office of Justice. I will look forward to his demise after he's out of office. Just 6 more years. That's frightening.
3
I am curious as to whether this ruling will have broader implications for social media platforms and their role (or lack thereof) in moderating content. It seems that the Appeals Court views Twitter as a public space for discourse... so logically, this would imply that it should be regulated as such. Could this have an affect on how Congress may eventually decide to regulate social media companies?
1
@Sam Spencer
I don't think this ruling leads to the entire platform being considered public space for discourse, but rather just the Twitter posts of public officials because they are representing the government, so if they block people, then that is the government limiting their First Amendment rights of free speech.
The accounts and posts of private people are not affected.
10
@Sam Spencer
It's more like the courts have weighed in and determined that if Trump is going to mouth off on twitter, then he has to also take it from others.
Trump is a "have your cake and eat it too" personality... and he wants the best of both worlds for him personally on twitter. He has been told now by the courts that as president.. he can't censor critics when he makes public statements via twitter.
Watch him now play victim once again as to how unfairly the courts are treating him. /eyeroll.
10
Maybe if half of the replies on his twitter account were negative, he’d give it up. Get to work America!
39
Lets hope this does not go to the Supreme Court where the 5 GOP Justices could seemingly gut the first amendment. Folks, the Trump administration is at war with our system of government and we need to fight back with more than words. Please support your Liberal elected officials with contributions and help if you can. Don't forget to vote and get your parents and friends to vote as well. Otherwise history will record us as the people who stood by while Trump and McConnell erased over two centuries of freedom.
27
Great! Can we impeach him now?
14
@Resist
' Can we impeach him now?'
Trump blocked his Twitter, let's impeach him!
Your logic, defies logic.
Sure, impeach. Enjoy Mike Pence for 9+ years.
1
@AutumnLeaf
Logic? Maybe. The Constitution? Never.
The president has defied the law since Day One of his tenure. Congress keeps looking the other way, even as the offenses accumulate. Some people, including me, are wondering what exactly the thing is that will spur Congress to hold him accountable for his defiance.
As for enjoying the vice president, that's just silly. Pence appears to be the least enjoyable of the lot in the WH.
It’s unfortunate that the Times feels it necessary to give the provenance of federal judges involved in adjudicating Trumpo’s acts and omissions.
It gives Pelosi’s quote in Dowd’s latest opinion piece added credence that the press is “constantly enabling” Trumpo.
5
@winthropo muchacho
What?
How is telling you who nominated the judge "enabling" Trump? Especially when many were Republican nominees?
3
@winthropo muchacho The Times doesn't say a judge is a Democrat or a Republican. It's fair to remind readers who appointed the judge; it's a question that most readers would ask. The name of the appointing president does not always provide a hint to the judge's ideology.
4
@K
Trumpo fallacious axiom: A federal judge/court makes decisions against him based solely on politics and/or race and or ethnicity.
Press spends ink or talking head verbiage showing how some decisions against Trumpo like the instant one were made by judges appointed by conservative GOP presidents to refute the fallacious axiom.
The apparently press finds it necessary to buttress every fed ct decision against Trumpo with the provenance of the judges adds to the illusion that their decisions can be traced to one of the three criteria in the Trumpo fallacious axiom, thus giving it legitimacy.
Bad show old man.
"He said that public officials’ social-media accounts are among the most significant forums for the public to discuss government policy."
Ouch.
5
What goes around comes around! So President Trump objects to people’s negative opinions of him? A taste of his own medicine!
11
This IS refreshing! Let’s all participate
In our first amendment rights,
And begin a grass roots campaign to affirm our love and patriotism
for our country by
Engaging with our president,
So he will have a rich treasure trove
Of information
About the diversity of opinions ,
and desires
Of his people for peace and prosperity,
Saving our little planet, and kindness and compassion for all,
tips for
Harmonious relationships with our allies,
Tips for de stressing,
Good books to read,
Forest bathing etc
What a wealth available to him
The first time in the history of the world!!!
7
@Awake
Almost makes me want to sign up for a twitter account!
5
@Elizabeth
Not for me. There's enough drama to read through on FB & YouTube between between those with TDS & those who worship blindly.
Trump violate the Constitution? Say it ain’t so!!
9
Why on earth would a president want to be on Twitter.
18
@barbara
That's easy. This president has the vocabulary and attention span of a child -- perfect for Twitter.
(Yep, I don't use Twitter, never will.)
8
@barbara Well, obviously, because it affords him an unfiltered, direct megaphone aimed at his supporters, who accept all of his myriad lies at face value. The media debunks the lies, and he shouts "FAKE NEWS!" on Twitter, thereby negating the debunking.
2
Let's see if Trump unblocks everyone or will he just ignore the court's ruling as if he were a king.
16
Our autocratic President would like nothing more than to be our dictator. Our system of Courts, primarily, has been the thorn in his side to prevent his accomplishing this move. The GOP has facilitated his wishes as much as possible. They are more Fascist than the most right wing parties in Europe, the birthplace of Fascism.
11
It seems to me that arguing with Trump and/or his supporters on his Twitter feed falls squarely under the heading "Teaching Pigs To Sing".... which everyone knows is both a waste of time and, as his lawyers argued, annoys the pig.
11
@Jim
It's not about getting Trump or his supporters to change their minds.
It's about the audience.
There may be people reading the exchange who are more open-minded and never heard your side before. At the very least it counters the narrative... like that meme that goes around every Pride month, which says that arguing with your crazy aunt at Thanksgiving isn't about changing her mind, but letting your young nephew know that he's not a monster if it turns out he's gay.
1
How cruel of these judges not to consider the feelings of the delicate flower that is Donald Trump.
At least to Donald.
To the rest of us, it's called following the law.
14
Good call for free speech.
When I was on Twitter, I did a bit of trolling and detracting. Especially of one public figure: I saw one of his friends' posts suggested banning me.
He never did ban me. And I was a pest. He just left the insults in the fresh air. I was harmless, as are the people who critique DT. Eventually, I left Twitter. it's not for everyone. So what, right?
Anyway, my point is Donald Trump is not big enough to take it! In the words of George Harrison:
Peace, remember peace is how we make it,
Here within your reach
If you're big enough to take it.
10
If Trump can't handle the heat, he should get out of the kitchen.
25
@mungomunro
I know, right?
Imagine the gall of someone who runs for the highest office in the land, makes sweeping changes after being elected, and then thinks it's appropriate to block people just for criticizing him?
3
ROSENBAUM:
Some corrections in your post are necessary for clarity.
The SCOTUS has ruled for gerrymandering not against, for voter suppression, not against. Additionally, they voted for forced arbitration not against, they blocked your right to sue in labor cases, they say Corporations are people(Citizen’s United). The GOP is a far right example of Fascism operating within the US.
28
I can not wait to see what Trump tweets about this one.
15
Therefore these "social" media platforms can no longer censor, block, or delete anyone or anything for anything they post. It has to work both ways ya know.
2
Don't think so. They can block and delete according to their rules. The President, having selected this forum for his communications, must abide by those rules, but he cannot block people. Twitter is private. The President is public.
22
@bob No, this is about Trump who is using an arm of the government censoring free speech on an official public forum used for governmental business.
8
@bob
Twitter is not the US government. If they block someone, they're not violating the First Amendment. It's their platform and they can impose and enforce rules, as long as it is not for reasons that involve a protected status (ie they can't impose or enforce rules that single out and block people of a specific race, for example).
Trump is the US government. He cannot censor or impede citizens' First Amendment rights because they "annoy" him.
Bit of a difference there.
1
The court does not understand: Trump is only the President of the people who voted for him. He does not care one wit for the rest of us.
He has cultivated a cult and he cannot accept criticism, really anything but slobbering praise.
18
What?!! Violating the Constitution again? What is this presidency coming to? I thought Donald was an expert on constitutional law!
11
The government is archiving all this stuff, right? You know - for posterity.
4
Donald Trump violates the constitution every single day, in every way imaginable. Full stop..
23
Oh the fur will fly now. Donald’s thin skin will be bruised into oblivion. Maybe he’ll have to leave Twitter.
10
Great! Now I have a reason to join Twitter: so I can insult that twit until he stops using it.
29
This is perfect. A President who runs the country by Twitter will be taken down by the same. Seems worthy of tweeting!
13
Would this not imply, then, that the president, or any public official, cannot leave a public forum, for example a press conference, without allowing everyone to ask all the questions they want, as that would exclude some from being able to express their interpretations of actions and events?
2
@Al No, this would imply that the president, or any public official, cannot simply invite the people who agree with him/her to comment or ask questions at the press conference.
Next on the docket, Presidential Press Briefings...
10
@Al
It might imply that if it were to say the POTUS cannot leave Twitter until he engages with each and every Twitter response @him...but it doesn't say that. To equivocate to a press conference, it says that the POTUS cannot bar someone from attending the conference because they might say something he doesn't like within the conference (whether the POTUS addresses the comment or not).
2
What exactly will be the enforcement mechanism of this ruling?
A court-appointed Conservator for the president's phone and Twitter account?
6
Why should Twitter allow the option at all - for anyone? The courts have better things to do than to tell Twitter who can and who can't block posts on every account.
2
@Harpo
Better things to do? Better than interpreting the laws of the land? That is exactly why we have them. Telling the President that he has to obey the Constitution is as about as important as it gets.
26
@BJW I understand your point but there are many others whose blockages would not stand up to a court challenge. Once Twitter allows blocking, it has no simple way to deal with it. The court is obviously doing the right thing but it should be applied widely.
@Harpo Twitter is a private entity and can block anyone they decide is violating their TOS. DJT is a public official and a constitutional officer. He is at the top of one branch of government and bound by the restrictions on government and what speech can be blocked or banned.
Who doesn't want to silence his/her critics? People in top government office with great power were exactly who the Bill of Rights was meant to put limits on......and not We, the People, who have a duty to hold them accountable.
1
So, he can't block critics from his twitter account but he can block critical ambassadors from our biggest ally from accessing the state? Fun world we live in today.
11
We are ruling on Twitter accounts in federal court now? We are in the "Petty and Trifling Era" . . . right before the total collapse of sanity.
2
We are in the era where the President has chosen to communicate directly to the public through a private mechanism. It does not need to be Twitter. It could be Instagram, it could be Facebook, it could be something not invented yet.
5
@Chip
I mean, I don't really consider government censorship "petty and trifling", but okay.
Trump is the one who turned his Twitter account into a public forum. There is a reason previous presidents didn't use social media this way, and stuck to press conferences instead. Maybe Trump should do the same.
2
"The ruling will ensure that people aren’t excluded from these forums simply because of their viewpoints... "
Unless they're unpopular conservatives.
1
People get excluded when they violate the rules. Simple.
5
Wrong. Even unpopular conservatives who are blocked by Trump are protected by this ruling.
5
@j
"These forums" refers to the ones run by governmental representatives, not Twitter itself.
There is a big difference between a private company deciding what messages they want on their platform, and the President of the United States blocking people who "annoy" him. One is normal business, the other is governmental censorship.
2
Governing via Twitter comes with a price, and per this ruling, the price is that (at least on Twitter) Trump will no longer live in the Fox-esque echo chamber of sycophants. Everyone is entitled to read his tweets and everyone can respond.
It will be interesting to see if Trump is willing to pay this price, given his need for constant praise and adoration.
6
@DM
Chris Chistie pointed out that DJT has to swing at every pitch. He cannot tolerate public criticism and feeds on public praise even his praise of himself. He will be consumed swinging at all the critics. Expect an uptick in the madness and infantile tantrums.
5
Nothing will be done about this latest crime. It will go away just like every other accusation that’s been brought against him.
6
Has trump ever won one of these cases? I can only recall one lower court ruling. If he had a normal brain, I think it he would consider his legal positions, so profoundly out of step with this country, that defending them would be a waste of time. Of course this is an old strategy he uses to delay.
3
"asked the White House to be unblocked "
There may be a more awkward way to phrase this, but I can't think of it.
3
Don't expect Trump or his supporters to accept, or understand, this ruling. It's too complicated.
7
If Twitter blocked Trump, he would be forced to communicate to the American people as the Presidents before him.
But then he’d have to have a working Press Secretary.
6
Lock him up as he has far exceeded the scope of the allegations he made about Ms. Clinton’s e-mails. Hope he turns over all Twitter traffic to the National Archives for all to view rather than just Twitter’s clients.
7
This is the correct decision, but I would feel a lot better about it if Twitter maintained higher standards of decency and blocked or suspended robots and trolls.
On the other hand, this would probably lead to President Trump's account being suspended in short order, so I guess you have to take the bad with the good.
3
@James Funny, all I get is Democrat trolls asking for opinions, money, and votes. How would Warren with her hundreds of thousands of $28 donations raise money?
1
This just in Trump to issue an Emergency Declaration that the First Amendment was written solly for him. America must take whatever he says as the truth, the whole, and always until he changes the truth truth.
Second he will nationalize Twitter.
2
Fantastic ruling. It took nearly 200 years to establish firm constitutional limits Donnie can't just overstep. Trying to ignore the 1st amendment, is really hard even for reps.
3
As for Twitter being a "digital town hall," Republican senators and representatives in recent years have shown a predilection for "town halls" to which only invitees and their (pre-screened) questions were welcome, diminishing the possibility of being faced with embarrassing challenges for which they are not prepared or, more accurately, afraid to address. Will these physical "public" forums also be required to follow the guidelines the courts is setting down for Trump's twitterations?
9
Very good question. According to this ruling, it appears logically to be the case that any politician who chooses to air her/his political views publicly must forgo any right to censor audience participation or limit attendance to supporters only.
2
@vebiltdervan Nope. It’s not about political views but whether the account is used for official purposes/statements. For example, WH staff runs the Trump account, Trump has announced official policies using his account (transgender military ban and various cabinet resignations), the @POTUS account retweets the Trump account, Spicer said the Trump account was for official presidential statements, etc.
"Mr. Trump’s legal team argued, among other things, that he operated the account merely in a personal capacity...." Thankfully, the judges can read.
5
When will a court ruling, at any level, actually hold Trump to account, and I don't mean getting him to just stop it? He's getting away with anything he chooses and he uses a bag of propagandist and mafia tactics to do it.
It's all now somehow "normal" to be in constant and growing anxiety as laws are broken, some courts react, and then little happens while things grow ever worse in this country and around the world. Just don't ask Trump how things are going.
4
i'm glad to see the times has decided to specifically identify the judge(s) who decide cases. this is a welcome change.
the premise that it "should not matter" which particular judge authored and opinion was obviously false, beginning at least as early as the litmus-testing days of the reagan administration, and it has become less reliable today.
i hope you continue to list the judge(s) on every case you write about.
2
...so I take it that trump will now simply expand his enemies list to include everyone who says mean (viz. honest) things about him on his Twitter account....
2
"Mr. Trump’s legal team argued, among other things, that he operated the account merely in a personal capacity, and so had the right to block whomever he wanted for any reason — including because users annoyed him by criticizing or mocking him."
That's pretty obviously a lie. Black is not white, and if a lawyer states same, what penalties is s/he subject to as an officer of the court?
3
@Andrew
Lawyers can argue just about any absurd and ridiculous theory they think will fly. They cannot misrepresent facts or tamper with evidence or witnesses. What kind of lawyer makes such absurd arguments? The kind DJT ends up with when reputable lawyers turn him down.
2
So this already happened once before in May of 2018.
Nothing happened then , nothing will happen now.
From May 2018
But on Wednesday, one of Mr. Trump’s Twitter habits — his practice of blocking critics on the service, preventing them from engaging with his account — was declared unconstitutional by a federal judge in Manhattan.
Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, addressing a novel issue about how the Constitution applies to social media platforms and public officials, found that the president’s Twitter feed is a public forum. As a result, she ruled that when Mr. Trump or an aide blocked seven plaintiffs from viewing and replying to his posts, he violated the First Amendment.
What’s different about today’s ruling then?????
2
@Manderine, the decision you refer to was in the trial court. Today's decision by the court of appeals addressed an appeal from the trial court's decision, and upheld it.
3
@Manderine This wasn’t even a novel issue. Two other appellate courts already said the exact same thing regarding other public officials.
As with defamation, the court has gotten it wrong.
Does this mean that Donald Trump is not the ruler of the universe after all? That laws actually apply to him, too? Good heavens. Now who is going to be the bearer of these bad tidings to the erstwhile czar-of-all-earth? Good luck!
4
The so-called president ignoring the Constitution; violating the law.
Another day in Individual-1's America.
5
Almost too good to be true!
1
Shouldn't the tweeter in chief be busy doing the people's work instead of reading responses to his tweets? How much daily executive time does he need?
9
@Gerry
That's why he can't keep staff. His best men are reading tweets!
3
What reason is there to want protection from Trump blocking one’s access to his zero sum Twitter account. I just seek to be able to block him from my life, not participate in his.
not his first violation of the Constitution and I'm sure it won't be his last.
3
Such a sensitive little man. Whenever he realizes someone doesn't "like" him, (British ambassadors, Americans on Twitter) he decides he doesn't want to deal with or hear from them. Meanwhile, he goes crazy insulting, demeaning and attacking everyone who doesn't show "loyalty" to him.
10
There already is an "official" and government-approved presidential Twitter account, @POTUS. Obama used it frequently (AFAIK never to announce policy, which is another conversation). Trump uses his personal account, @realDonaldTrump, exclusively, including to announce official policy, promote himself and denigrate others. @POTUS has been demoted to exclusively retweet posts from his personal account.
Because his official business is originated and conducted through his personal account and not the US Govt. account, this decision is absolutely appropriate.
7
Imagine what life would be like for trump if Twitter didn’t exist.
It’s the number one place he communicates with his followers, spreading lies, trashing his perceived enemies and the free press on a daily basis. I try not to read what he tweets but it’s like a bad accident. It’s hard not to watch.
5
The man is a walking violation of the Constitution.
11
He doesn’t care, if the president does it, it’s not illegal.
2
Just as Trump wanted only supporters at his "Salute to America" held on public space at the Lincoln Memorial where tickets to it were distributed by the White House, and the RNC coordinating with his reelection campaign.
4
I wish that all Americans who truly value our special relationship with friend and ally Great Britain, would send Trump multiple tweets defending the British ambassador Sir Kim Darroch from Trump’s scurrilous, ongoing attacks on him, after Darroch was the victim of a leak of his secret diplomatic communications which were less than flattering about Trump and his administration. Real men rise above such revelations, but our president has a hissy fit on Twitter. He is contemptible!
8
@Susan
... but one must admit, he's not complicated.
I agree with the Judges. Politicians using social media to speak on their efforts, their work, their platforms as it relates to their jobs and their daily representation of entire populations. And though opinion is free speech - I think a law should be passed that makes everyone put a symbol or something to signify it is opinion and not fact after every statement when it involves commentary on political sites, politicians social media, and news sites whenever the content has to do with national laws, national crisis's, legislative bills, foreign policy, trade --really any national business that effects Americans. Because opinion is passing too often as factual when most of the time it is purely opinion and someone's disdain for someone else.
8
@FR Yep. And allowing replies allows fact checking.
A ruling that places American's First.
Won't it be interesting to see when/if this gets to the Supreme Court how truth and the right to lie match up?
1
@FR finally, the liberal purveyors of these platforms can no longer censor conservatives or posted content on their platforms.
@bob As the conservatives and rabid republicans do
3
We the people live under the illusion that we have control and that people in the government are out for our best interests.
4
@Mindfulness: I learned many years ago that the US is a crackpot scheme to provide bullies with liberty to enslave.
2
Twitter is a horrible medium for making policy announcements. What possible detail or nuance can one express in a couple of hundred characters? Of course, this presumes that there is ever any intention of conveying detail or nuance by the current WH occupant.
Perhaps now the hypothesis that offensive speech is best regulated by more speech will be given a real-world test. I'm skeptical and not holding my breath, however.
6
I am sure that the life long Republicans who inhabit the Supreme Court will see it differently. They have ruled against Gerrymandering, voter suppression, an individual rights at work (forced arbitration), the right to sue, Corporations are people, money does not influence elections and shown loyalty to their party and not country.
22
Since this is a First Amendment ruling, I assume the president could still legally block users who aren't American citizens, and do not have the same constitutional right to participate in his Twitter feed?
4
The Bill of Rights generally limits the federal government in its dealings with individuals. It doesn't matter what country you are from, what matters is that it's the government that's doing something.
2
No.
The Constitutional prohibition about laws against free speech, the basis of the decision, is universal.
Non-citizens enjoy the same protections derived from, and descended from, the First Amendment as anyone else does.
7
@Bob
That would be an invalid assumption. The Constitution operates as a framework for the Federal Government. The guaranteed freedoms and rights are not limited to US citizens.
3
Donald J. Trump made the decision once he got inaugurated to continue to use his personal account and not the "President of the United States" account. So you see.. laws have implications. He could have kept his personal account but no.. the bully chief has decided what he wants is always right. Welcome to the United States. The 1st amendment lives on as was intended.
26
@TFPLD
He'll just delete this account and make a new one with new rules. He makes-up stuff as he goes.
2
In every stage of these oppressions we have tweeted for redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated tweets have been answered only by repeated injury. A president, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
13
I thank you judge Parker. I knew you 30 years ago when you chaired the board of an organization I worked at. You were an honorable and intelligent man, and I thank you for carrying on your father's Legacy on the bench.
12
I have never followed Trump on Twitter nor anyone else for that matter. I recommend that everyone stop following him. If he wants to make official statements, let him do so through governmental channels, hold press conferences or otherwise use traditional means to make policy statements to the American people. His rants are undignified and unpresidential. They do nothing to promote free exchange of ideas and public discussion of government policy.
11
Unfortunately, ignoring statements made by our Chief Employee does not render them unmade.
3
@John Kendall
That's what he wants, for anyone who disagrees to just go away.
@John Kendall
Twitter along with most social media is a curse. It is much worse than heroin and more addictive.
Perhaps a well-deserved irony could be the overflow of 'negative' remarks hitting his account could drive him from Twitter which will do Our Country a great service. More likely, he'll just spend more time on twitter trying to bolster his fake reality and divisiveness.
30
Have you never looked at his Twitter account?
1
Twitter should block him completely and all the problem will be gone.
339
@HCJ. Well said.
8
@HCJ, dream on. Need to vote him out.
10
@joan Why can't we have both? :-)
25
"Judge Parker was appointed by President George W. Bush. He was joined in the opinion by Judges Peter Hall, another Bush appointee, and Christopher Droney, an appointee of former President Barack Obama." Bush is "President" and Obama is "former President"? Please unpack the nuance here.
165
@mg1228
Poor Clinton didn't even rate. But judging from the author's past work, this was a style thing, not a Freudian slip.
3
It must be an error, because former President Obama has no authority to appoint a federal judge.
13
@mg1228: an editing error, I suspect.
Good catch!
2
Many responders are plainly abusive. I block them myself.
4
@Analyst
And what is your role in running the federal government?
8
@Analyst
And that is the way of social media. If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.. as they say.
5
@Analyst You aren't a government official using your Twitter account to conduct government business. Unless you are, in which case this ruling applies to you as well.
8
Hurrah for free speech! The First Amendment Lives!!
65
Finally---Twitter has a good reason to deactivate his account.
How can they be a legitimate business when one of their biggest customers is using them to disobey Federal law?
That's the best enforcement of this ruling I can think of.
200
Twitter stockholders love Trump.
In addition to publicly, it gives them the raw material they need to produce data packages for sale to politicians, one of their primary products.
6
I have never joined Twitter and try not to read trump’s outlandish Twitter pronouncements and name calling ( unfortunately very hard to avoid because of excessive press coverage). But now I’m going to try it because I know that trump does not like to hear a negative word about his actions and I want to help make sure he knows that the world does not love him as much as he loves himself.
109
Prepare to figuratively cover your eyes then!
We ought to know who is paying for all the lawyers who are racing around first losing Trump`s irresponsible lawsuits and then appealing them.
If Trump argues in this case that his Twitter utterings are personal, shouldn't he personally pay for the legal costs of defending his undefendable position? Why should this be a taxpayer expense like protecting his golf trips?
495
@Peter Rosenwald
Hear! Hear!
22
@Peter Rosenwald An easy question my friend. We are. The lawyers are federal employees, their checks come through the government so every taxpayer is subsidizing the actions of the Department of Justice.
15
We are. Sigh. It’s good to be king.
4
This should do him in.
25
@R siroka Lots of things should do him in but so far..... Oh well, hope springs eternal.
2
It is not "his" personal twitter account. It is an official presidential account. That is the determinant fact.
83
"Mr. Trump’s legal team argued that he operated the account merely in a personal capacity..."
To personally attack people, institutions, the rule of law, spread lies, etc.
How convenient to decide when you are being president representing/speaking to all the people and when you are The Donald representing yourself.
115
@cretino He is *always* the latter, "The Donald", representing his own personal interests.
26
I applaud Judge Parker’s ruling And agree with it’s entirety.
The arrogance of this president is unprecedented and I am glad to see some significant check and balance taking place.
If Trump doesn’t like the social media backlash that comes from communicating through a personal account, he can always shut down that account in under one minute on his smartphone.
‘Tweeting’ is profoundly unpresidential in the first place.
797
@WGM I agree, except to point out that according to Trump's administration's own declaration, Trump's twitter account is also the official account of the President of the United States, at least while Trump is President and the account stays active.
The law of unintended consequences, indeed...
80
@WGM
It is depressing that this issue even had to go to court. It is painfully obvious to anyone with a glimmer of common sense that The President should not be permitted to block people from a media account where government business is discussed. The fact that Trump either does not know this, or simply does not care, is extremely concerning.
100
@arusso Trump will fight anything that crosses him, up to and beyond court battles. The problem is that when he was a private citizen, he had to pay his lawyers out of his own pocket. To Trump, it's heaven when he can have taxpayers pay the legal costs of defending his own outrages to those same taxpayers!
61
If Mr. Trump operated this twitter account in "merely a personal capacity" as argued by the Department of Justice, then why is the DOJ defending him?
826
@Gregory Zierk excellent point..... we pay though
22
@Gregory Zierk, because he's the Current Occupant of the White House.
Unfortunately.
1
The most powerful man in the world is blocking people who make him sad? What a snowflake.
820
@Matt, he's Scared Donald.
Trump could just stop tweeting, but we know that will not happen. And who will enforce this ruling?! No one seems to be holding him accountable for anything, even when the laws of our country and justice system dictate what should be done.
320
@DJA Well, he’s the president, and as Brett Kavanaugh realized when serving GWB, the president’s job is TOO IMPORTANT to hold him/her legally accountable for their actions. (Of course, he didn’t feel that way about Clinton when working for Ken Starr.)
62
@DJA sadly he cannot help himself and it's a true reflection of toddler-in-chief supporters who are in office, on the bench, and were possibly at airports during the revolutionary war.
10
Thank you to the courts for upholding the first amendment.
The use of a twitter account for purposes of putting out policy statements is highly unusual, but if he wants to do that, he should be open to criticism.It is good to see that some freedoms still exist.
241
Trump can tweet to his little heart's content. But a tweet is just that. Public policy needs to be introduced by traditional and legal means. Not via a tweet by the man/child in chief.
125
What Trump writes is twits. The man is mental two year old.
79
stu - but thats not how he or his staff is working. he's using it to make policy and communicate his wishes to staff and beyond...
his twitter acct is his main policy and minion ordering tool.
23
@ Steve Bolger, no offense to two-year olds.
1
Trump? Violating the U.S.Constitution? In his case it’s possible his ignorance of the law might make it o.k. He’d be justified in pardoning himself!
11
@Lewis Sternberg Well, you might know that ignorance of the law is no excuse. That is doubly so for the president.
12
I suppose Trump will appeal this to SCOTUS, even though they let him down on the citizenship question. And as he did in that case, if SCOTUS doesn't rule in his favor, he will keep sending it back to them until they do.
42
@Sheila Berry He will find a way to get his way -- whether it's legal, illegal, unethical. We can't survive another year of this.
30
@Sheila Berry
As he did/is doing with the citizenship question, he will simply ignore the SCOTUS ruling.
2
It's encouraging to learn Trump is not above any well-deserved criticism on his social media account.
28
What are we up to now...23 violations of the constitution that Trump has committed? What excuse will Pelosi have this week for not starting impeachment proceedings?
226
@Dario Bernardini, she believes the McConnell GOP Senate will ignore the evidence and declare Trump Innocent, as did Barr. She is likely right but I think the damage to the GOP, Trump, and McConnell might be enough to bring them all down. I think she is less optimistic and her experience is overwhelming.
17
@Ted
Past behavior suggessts that the GOP will never vote to convict Trump, were articles of impeachment sent to them. I honestly do not believe that there is any act that Trump could commit that would change their mind. And I do mean any act. The GOP would rationalize that there was either a reasonable explanation or that the evidence was fraudulent, or some other flimsy excuse why Trump didn't do it or if he did do it, it was justified. Their base would blindly agree and nothing would be accomplished.
The GOP and their base are beyond useless, they are outright dangerous. They are a threat to the country we grew up in and at this point I am not certain that they can be overcome.
16
@arusso
.... but they have the power to do what they want...
1
Maybe now some of his followers who only hear what he or the Fox News bubble says will suddenly hear a differing opinion that does not agree with him or his actions or policies. Hopefully, this will open some of their eyes.
17
@Diane
Please don’t hold your breath Diane. Sigh.
3
Gee, this is excellent news. While I have not been blocked, I had recently increased my Twitter comments because he makes it so easy to want to share your feelings with him. Let us all share our thoughts and feelings with this president as regularly as possible. Only good can come of it.
98
@writer, you'll just be feeding the beast (Twitter).
I expect Trump to soon say he is preparing an Executive Order stating he, as the Czar, is not subject to the U.S. Constitution.
137
@mike, Barr likely has already done so and Trump is basically acting as if it is true. The SCOTUS ruling being ignored on the Census citizenship question is but the latest example.
12
Why doesn't this ruling also apply to ALL Twitter ... or Facebook etc ... users even those who are not PUBLIC OFFICIALS ... who would comment on ANY Twitter ... or Facebook etc ... account? That also is free speech. Why is it limited to "public officials."
@Dan Lewis Center This case isn't about free speech in all its aspects, it is about the President conducting official government business (all his tweets are considered official government communications) and attempting to exclude Americans from that process. That is what makes it unconstitutional. The average person on social media is not conducting public business while being paid by the American people and attempting to exclude Americans from the process of government.
91
@Dan Lewis Center Because they are acting in their role as an official of the government and that makes whatever they put on there public business. If they want to have a personal account they can't conduct public business on it. This is the same issue as their using a private email server and conducting public business in secret. Technically we have an open government and all public business is supposed to be recorded and subject to investigation.
34
@Dan Lewis Center
Because the first amendment protects people from government interference in our free speech. Private individuals and corporations can choose what to publish and what messages to promote or block. The ruling was that Trump is clearly crossing the line from ‘private individual’ to ‘government entity’ so he needs to abide by first amendment rules.
56
"President Trump has been violating the Constitution by blocking people from following his Twitter account because they criticized or mocked him, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday."
This, among all the other things this con man has done, is an impeachable offense. Let's go Democrats!
93
If he wants to conduct official government business on Twitter, then he has to hear all the Twitter responses.
Of course, he could stop using social media as the exclusive platform to announce official government policies, and this whole lawsuit would immediately become moo.t
55
@Samuel: I doubt he reads those mocking responses. He is not much of a reader or a listener. What disturbs him is that his followers will now have the opportunity to read all those "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" that his minions are so anxious to suppress.
8
Like he has to take all phone calls to the White House?
1
God bless America!
It's good to know that the federal courts aren't under the thumb of this supposed "man," who can't bear to hear what people who disagree with him (which is about 95% of humanity, from what I gather) think.
Sorry! You can't just take your ball and go home.
47
President Lawless! Even with all the conservative judges this President has appointed and McConnell has rushed through the Senate, the lower Courts are mostly functioning reasonably.
The Courts are the the last bastion of our Constitution, particularly since the GOP Senate has relinquished their duty for a number of years now.
40
This is refreshing news.
39
And how does one enforce Judge Barrington D. Parker's ruling?
56
@Steve
The judge issues an order force Twitter to disable his accounts ability to block users
35
@mike Exactly. Or even better, the judges (there were three, not one) issue an order forcing Twitter to block Trump entirely.
5
The court could order Twitter to make it impossible for the president to block people. The might have to write some new program.
1
Ahh..Twitter and the Law of Unintended Consequences!
Mr. Trump, our disruptor-in-chief, tried to silence his critics while taking advantage of social media to rile folks up. Now it looks like his halcyon days of modern day fireside chat's are about to get really interesting.
35
@Chris: Please don't dignify the "president's" tweets by comparing them to the President's fireside chats.
4
@Chris And it only took 2 and a half years!
2