Appeals court rules Trump violated First Amendment by blocking Twitter users

[Zippyjuan]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/appeals-court-rules-trump-violated-first-amendment-by-blocking-twitter-users


A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that President Trump is not allowed to block people on Twitter over statements he does not like, affirming a lower court’s decision that declared the president’s account a “public forum.”

In a Tuesday decision, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals noted that because Trump uses Twitter to communicate with the public about his administration, and his account is open to the public for people to comment on his posts, it warrants constitutional free speech protection under the First Amendment.

“We do conclude,” the opinion said, “that the First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise‐open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees.”

According to court documents, Trump admitted that he blocked the plaintiffs in the case in 2017 after they posted tweets that “criticized him or his policies.” Once they were blocked, they were no longer able to view Trump’s tweets while logged in, and no longer had access to reply to tweets or view comment threads on Trump’s Twitter page.

The First Amendment prohibits government discrimination against a person’s free speech based on their viewpoint. Trump claimed that his Twitter account is private, so the First Amendment should not apply.

The court said that Trump’s account was indeed private before he became president, but that changed once he took office and used it for official business, as it now displays “all the trappings of an official, state‐run account." The court said that once Trump leaves office, his account will be considered private again.

The 2nd Circuit opinion concluded by pointing out that in the current political climate, more debate is good, even if it can be “unpleasant” at times.

“The irony in all of this is that we write at a time in the history of this nation when the conduct of our government and its officials is subject to wide‐open, robust debate,” the court said.

“This debate encompasses an extraordinarily broad range of ideas and viewpoints and generates a level of passion and intensity the likes of which have rarely been seen. This debate, as uncomfortable and as unpleasant as it frequently may be, is nonetheless a good thing. In resolving this appeal, we remind the litigants and the public that 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.”

[PAF]

I’ll be. Trump, the same guy who authorized and implemented on October 03, 2018 a “Presidential Alert” via FEMA to all privately owned cell phones in the United States, without my permission.

He really does not understand the Bill of Rights, and the difference between public and private. And yet he is president.

[PAF]

Didn’t Obama do something along those lines, when he changed the White House Petition site from something like 25,000 to 100,000?

https://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/white-house-raises-petition-signature-requirement-100-000-140741862--politics.html

[Zippyjuan]

Didn’t Obama do something along those lines, when he changed the White House Petition site from something like 25,000 to 100,000?

https://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/white-house-raises-petition-signature-requirement-100-000-140741862--politics.html

The petition site is a joke anyways- it gives the illusion of participation. Name one issue which came about via a White House Petition. Actually the first minimum was only 5,000 signatures. In 2017 Trump said he would shut it down and replace it with something amazing. Didn't happen.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2013/01/15/why-we-re-raising-signature-threshold-we-people


Why We’re Raising the Signature Threshold for We the People


When we launched We the People, none of us knew how popular it would be, but it's exceeded our wildest expectations. Through the past year, interest in We the People exploded and we're closing in on 10 million signatures.

When we first raised the threshold — from 5,000 to 25,000 — we called it "a good problem to have." Turns out that "good problem" is only getting better, so we're making another adjustment to ensure we’re able to continue to give the most popular ideas the time they deserve.

Starting today, as we move into a second term, petitions must receive 100,000 signatures in 30 days in order to receive an official response from the Obama Administration. This new threshold applies only to petitions created from this point forward and is not retroactively applied to ones that already exist.

In the last two months of 2012, use of We the People more than doubled. In just that time roughly 2.4 million new users joined the system, 73,000 petitions were created and 4.9 million signatures were registered.

As we’ve seen overall use skyrocket, more petitions are crossing the threshold — and doing so much more quickly.

In the first 10 months of 2012, it took an average of 18 days for a new petition to cross the 25,000-signature threshold. In the last two months of the year, that average time was cut in half to just 9 days, and most petitions that crossed the threshold collected 25,000 signatures within five days of their creation. More than 60 percent of the petitions to cross threshold in all of 2012 did so in the last two months of the year.

[PAF]

The petition site is a joke anyways- it gives the illusion of participation. Name one issue which came about via a White House Petition. Actually the first minimum was only 5,000 signatures. In 2017 Trump said he would shut it down and replace it with something amazing. Didn't happen.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2013/01/15/why-we-re-raising-signature-threshold-we-people


:seenoevil: :hearnoevil: :speaknoevil:

[UWDude]

now everyone that has been banned by twitter has had their first amendment right violated, because twitter has denied them access to communicate with the president of the United States.

[PAF]

now everyone that has been banned by twitter has had their first amendment right violated, because twitter has denied them access to communicate with the president of the United States.

You can blame me. Perhaps I was the tipping point when I sent him this:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?477303-Donald-Trump-On-The-Record

[TheCount]

now everyone that has been banned by twitter has had their first amendment right violated, because twitter has denied them access to communicate with the president of the United States.

I found the guy who can't tell the difference between regulating the President and regulating Twitter.

[Superfluous Man]

Sorry, but the idea that he is obligated not to block people from his personal Twitter account is stupid and unconscionable.

[Brian4Liberty]

I’ll be. Trump, the same guy who authorized and implemented on October 03, 2018 a “Presidential Alert” via FEMA to all privately owned cell phones in the United States, without my permission.

He really does not understand the Bill of Rights, and the difference between public and private. And yet he is president.

Now that Pandora’s box is open, where is this bright, well defined line between public and private? How about a Senator’s account? Any member of Congress? Cabinet members? Staff? Any government employee? Any sub-contracted government employee?


I found the guy who can't tell the difference between regulating the President and regulating Twitter.

And they are sitting in judgment on Federal Courts.


The court said that Trump’s account was indeed private before he became president, but that changed once he took office and used it for official business, as it now displays “all the trappings of an official, state‐run account."

What they have just created is a situation where Twitter is nothing more than a tool being used for official government purposes, just like the phone that Trump is tweeting from. If Twitter impedes this “open online dialogue”, they do so as an instrument of government.

Example: If Trump had some kind of cozy relationship with Jack over at Twitter, and Twitter banned anyone critical of Trump, are they not doing the bidding of the President? Have they not silenced free speech?

[timosman]

Example: If Trump had some kind of cozy relationship with Jack over at Twitter, and Twitter banned anyone critical of Trump, are they not doing the bidding of the President? Have they not silenced free speech?

They are a private company. They can do whatever they want. :tears:

[PAF]

Now that Pandora’s box is open, where is this bright, well defined line between public and private? How about a Senator’s account? Any member of Congress? Cabinet members? Staff? Any government employee? Any sub-contracted government employee?



And they are sitting in judgment on Federal Courts.



What they have just created is a situation where Twitter is nothing more than a tool being used for official government purposes, just like the phone that Trump is tweeting from. If Twitter impedes this “open online dialogue”, they do so as an instrument of government.

Example: If Trump had some kind of cozy relationship with Jack over at Twitter, and Twitter banned anyone critical of Trump, are they not doing the bidding of the President? Have they not silenced free speech?


Exactly.

For the readers here, I am not the one "establishing intent of use".


I used to drive drag car some years back. I built the car so that I could still drive it on public roads. Cops never bothered me, until I pulled the plates off of the exhaust. When I finally got pulled over he wanted to ticket me. I told him that the car was built to drive on public roads, but also for the drag strip. He told me once I removed the plates, the "intent" was no longer applicable for public use. Keep in mind that I never sunk a penny into removing the plates or other modifications, I merely took them off.

The same way some chick drives her personal car around, until she puts Avon stickers all over it and crosses state lines selling product out of it.

I have no clue what private contract Trump, as President of the United States of America, did or did not sign with Twitter. Trump did say that something "amazing" was coming, it is well known that in this day and age Twitter is the en vogue. If the intent was to utilize that as a public method of communication for the American people, he should have would have could have obtained a different phone or personal computer for that particular use, if not his own personal device. As for Twitter, what was the contract that was signed with Trump (or not), because I am not privy to that?

Establishment of Intent on Trumps part, as a public servant, would certainly apply.

Perhaps Public Servant Trump should have a disclaimer of some sort, out of courtesy at the bottom of his tweets, if he so wishes?

[Matt Collins]

Public officials cannot block people on social media.


This is old news:



https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/internet-speech/court-rules-public-officials-cant-block-critics-facebook

[Brian4Liberty]

Public officials cannot block people on social media.


This is old news:



https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/internet-speech/court-rules-public-officials-cant-block-critics-facebook

Interesting.


The case arose after the chair of a local board of supervisors in Virginia, Phyllis Randall, briefly blocked a critic from her official Facebook page and deleted a comment he made about her colleagues’ management of public funds.

The critic, Brian Davison, represented by the Knight First Amendment Institute, filed a lawsuit arguing that Randall had violated his First Amendment rights by removing him from a public forum — space the government makes available for people’s expressive activity — because she disagreed with his views.

So local officials too.

Not sure that Facebook would agree that users “make available” or own space on their platform.

Once again, this is sloppy. If Facebook and Twitter are truly public forums with 1st Amendment protection, then their banning of conservatives and libertarians must also be a violation. A banned person can not comment.

[ATruepatriot]

now everyone that has been banned by twitter has had their first amendment right violated, because twitter has denied them access to communicate with the president of the United States.

Yep, there you go. Plain and simple. If Trump can't by law block then Twitter by law cannot block. Cops are not above the law either...

[ATruepatriot]

They are a private company. They can do whatever they want. :tears:

The United States of America is a corporation. Every state, county and city is an incorporated business entity. They are private companies. They can do whatever they want... ?

At some point there is a moral line that is crossed that makes actions criminal... private / (public municipality corporations) or not... Fraud, Misrepresentation, Embezzlement, Etc.

[Swordsmyth]

The United States of America is a corporation. Every state, county and city is an incorporated business entity. They are private companies. They can do whatever they want... ?

At some point there is a moral line that is crossed that makes actions criminal... private / (public municipality corporations) or not... Fraud, Misrepresentation, Embezzlement, Etc.

And at some point "private" corporations are sufficiently entangled with government that they are no longer "private".

[ATruepatriot]

And at some point "private" corporations are sufficiently entangled with government that they are no longer "private".

Yep, The official classification is socialist (crony) capitalism. Both sides are right about this to hate the marriage of ideals here, but it depends on who the corporation happens to be whether it is advantageous for society or not.

[fcreature]

One of the more ridiculous rulings as of late.

Does anyone take the courts seriously anymore? When does it become time to just ignore?

[PAF]

One of the more ridiculous rulings as of late.

Does anyone take the courts seriously anymore? When does it become time to just ignore?

Are you calling for Civil Disobedience? I'm on board!

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

It never fails to entertain me how retarded people are with technology. All you gotta do is log out of twitter and you can see their tweets lol

Also what happened to "Muh private companies can do whatever they want, they are totally justified in banning conservatives, it's private"

[fedupinmo]

Funny, but I can't recall where the First Amendment mentions The President. The President is not Congress. He passes no law by blocking Twatterers, either.

[Brian4Liberty]

It never fails to entertain me how retarded people are with technology. All you gotta do is log out of twitter and you can see their tweets lol

Also what happened to "Muh private companies can do whatever they want, they are totally justified in banning conservatives, it's private"

Seems that the courts understand this. They know that anyone can read a tweet, and anyone (who has not been banned) can post. What they are demanding is that anyone who wants to should be able to comment (respond) on the thread created by a Trump tweet. They are demanding the right to post a direct reply to a Trump tweet. Of course this “public square, free speech right” is denied to anyone who is banned by Twitter.

And they refuse to address the obvious ramification that Twitter could collude with a public official (or a Party, or any type of group) to ban all dissent.

TPTB want it both ways. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal.

[Brian4Liberty]

This topic is similar to the controversy over reporters in White House press conferences. They demand that a hostile reporter like Jim Acosta has a “right” to ask questions.

Sorry, if that is a right, when do other people get to ask Trump a question at a press conference?

[Zippyjuan]

This topic is similar to the controversy over reporters in White House press conferences. They demand that a hostile reporter like Jim Acosta has a “right” to ask questions.

Sorry, if that is a right, when do other people get to ask Trump a question at a press conference?

I thought he quit having press conferences so people can't ask him questions on things.

[Swordsmyth]

I thought he quit having press conferences so people can't ask him questions on things.
Because of idiocy like what Brian was talking about.

[fcreature]

I thought he quit having press conferences so people can't ask him questions on things.

He does pressers nearly every day. Just not in the same format.

[Superfluous Man]

One of the more ridiculous rulings as of late.

Does anyone take the courts seriously anymore? When does it become time to just ignore?

It has always been time.

Paying attention to the make believe laws made up by politicians and courts should only ever be treated as a utilitarian matter, and never done out of a sense of duty that assumes these made up laws have any real authority except inasmuch as they redundantly reiterate what was already demanded by justice itself, which has authority on its own and doesn't need politicians and courts to grant it.

[kpitcher]

I thought he quit having press conferences so people can't ask him questions on things.

Even his people don't know what to say about his inane comments, better to just ignore press conferences so people can't ask about all the stupid crap.
There's the standard lies... like the recent air quality is better now than ever before, which you could almost forgive for standard political grandstanding.

But then you get to Trump saying something like windmill noise causes cancer. That really deserves a followup question.

[Brian4Liberty]

Lol. Who could have seen this coming? What comes around goes around.


Joseph Saladino, a Republican congressional candidate in New York’s 11th district, is suing Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) after she blocked him on Twitter, in response to a recent ruling by a judge stating that President Donald Trump is not allowed to block people on the platform.
...
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/07/10/republican-candidate-sues-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-for-blocking-him-on-twitter/

Ever notice that laws that restrict government must be fought individually each and every time all the way through the court system? Could you imagine being able to battle every single traffic ticket, and it will never be enforced until it goes all the way to the Supreme Court?