Trump Violates First Amendment by Blocking Twitter Users From Feed, Judge Says

[timosman]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/23/b...ter-block.html

May 23, 2018

[IMG]https://static01.********/images/2018/05/24/business/24TRUMPBLOCK/merlin_138565563_0a1b39aa-f5c0-4be0-b0ce-1b8c2a28488d-jumbo.jpg[/IMG]
^{President Trump has 52.2 million followers on Twitter. Several Twitter users said they had been blocked by the @realDonaldTrump account after they criticized the president.}

President Trump’s practice of blocking Twitter users who are critical of him from seeing his posts on the social media platform violates the First Amendment, a federal judge in Manhattan ruled on Wednesday.

The ruling came in a case brought by seven Twitter users who had been blocked by the @realDonaldTrump account, which has 52.5 million followers, after they criticized the president.

The plaintiffs, who were joined in the suit by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, claimed that Mr. Trump’s Twitter feed is an official government account and that blocking users from following it was a violation of their First Amendment rights.

In her ruling, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, who was appointed to the federal bench in 1999 by President Bill Clinton, wrote of the plaintiffs that “the speech in which they seek to engage is protected by the First Amendment” and that Mr. Trump and Dan Scavino, the White House social media director, “exert governmental control over certain aspects of the @realDonaldTrump account.”

“The viewpoint-based exclusion of the individual plaintiffs from that designated public forum is proscribed by the First Amendment and cannot be justified by the president’s personal First Amendment interests,” Judge Buchwald wrote.

[Swordsmyth]

LOL

[Brian4Liberty]

Any decision yet on whether Twitter is a monopoly?

So Twitter can ban and shadowban conservatives, but leftists are "constitutionally" protected and the regular functions of Twitter can not be applied them?

[phill4paul]

Any decision yet on whether Twitter is a monopoly?

So Twitter can ban and shadowban conservatives, but leftists are "constitutionally" protected and the regular functions of Twitter can not be applied them?

No idea. But, since I don't use their service, and am not forced to use their service, I don't care.

[Zippyjuan]

https://www.wired.com/story/donald-t...onstitutional/

ON WEDNESDAY, A federal judge ruled that President Donald Trump’s practice of blocking his critics on Twitter violates the First Amendment. The practice is unconstitutional, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald wrote in her 75-page decision, because the @realdonaldtrump Twitter account is a public forum operated by the government, meaning viewpoint discrimination is strictly prohibited.

While the case has drawn attention for its ties to the Tweeter-in-chief, legal scholars say it has far-reaching implications, protecting all Americans' rights to communicate with elected leaders and government entities online.

“This is a really important contribution,” says Danielle Citron, a law professor at the University of Maryland and author of the book Hate Crimes in Cyberspace.

Judge Buchwald's decision explains how the case hinges on two crucial questions: Whether a public official can block people on Twitter in response to their political views without violating their First Amendment rights, and whether it matters when the person doing the blocking is the President.

“The answer to both questions is no,” Buchwald wrote. “No government official—including the President—is above the law,” she continued.

The ruling crucially distinguishes between the President’s Twitter account—which, like public parks, is under government control—and private citizens’ accounts. While ordinary Twitter users can block and follow other Twitter users they do or don’t agree with, the judge found that @realdonaldtrump is essentially a space operated by the government for government business, and therefore, cannot curb speech based on people’s viewpoints.

The suit was filed by the Knight First Amendment Institute on behalf of seven citizens who have been blocked by President Trump after speaking critically of him on Twitter. Among the plaintiffs are Philip Cohen, a professor at the University of Maryland, who was blocked for tweeting a photo at the president that called him a “corrupt incompetent authoritarian,” as well as Rebecca Buckwalter, a legal analyst blocked for sending Trump a tweet saying that Russia had won him the White House.

“We’re pleased with the court’s decision, which reflects a careful application of core First Amendment principles to government censorship on a new communications platform,” said Jameel Jaffer, the Knight Institute’s executive director in a statement. “The President’s practice of blocking critics on Twitter is pernicious and unconstitutional, and we hope this ruling will bring it to an end.”

“We respectfully disagree with the court’s decision and are considering our next steps," Department of Justice spokesperson Kerri Kupec said in a statement. The White House did not have a statement and deferred to the DOJ.

The plaintiffs accused President Trump, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, director of social media Dan Scavino, and former White House communications director Hope Hicks of violating their First Amendment rights by blocking their access to the “public forum” that is the President’s Twitter feed. In public forums, like parks and sidewalks, the First Amendment protects the freedom of speech, regardless of a person’s viewpoint. The plaintiffs argued that being blocked not only limits their ability to communicate with the President via Twitter, but it prevents them from participating in the lengthy reply threads that accompany Presidential tweets. Moreover, they argued they’d been blocked specifically because of their critical viewpoints.

The Department of Justice attorney Michael Baer, meanwhile, contended that @realdonaldtrump is distinct from @POTUS or @WhiteHouse, which are both linked to the office of the presidency. Because @realdonaldtrump started as a personal account on a private platform, it does not constitute a public forum, he argued.

In the end, Judge Buchwald sided with the plaintiffs, issuing a decision that is both narrow enough so as not to declare the entire internet a free speech zone and broad enough to create new protections for all Americans. The ruling largely builds on past cases, where courts have ruled that public forums are more than just physical locations.

"We went beyond sidewalks a long time ago," says David Greene, a senior staff attorney and civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "It's not new at all to apply the public forum doctrine beyond real property."

Though the judge dismissed the case against both Sanders and Hicks, she found that the President and Scavino are directly responsible for controlling the account. And while @realdonaldtrump may have started out as the personal account of a private citizen on a private platform, it’s since morphed into a communication channel controlled by the President and Scavino, who use it to promote new policies, announce official decisions, and engage with foreign political leaders, among other things. It is, in other words, an interactive space under government control, and is therefore subject to the laws concerning public forums.

“He’s acting like the president on it. It’s not a personal account anymore,” Citron says.

[Swordsmyth]

It isn't a public forum operated by the government.

The ruling will not stand.

[nikcers]

How did this become a thing? This is how they destroy things like the first amendment and make it seem like its not a big deal. This is the scariest part about political polarization, it always leads to these extreme opposite emotional reactions that beg for political solutions.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I would be proud if Donald Trump took the time to block my twitter account. I've gotten about 15 politicians to block me so far. I guess they're all breaking the law. I should sue for hurting my feels!

[johnwk]

LOL

For the text of the absurd ruling see: KNIGHT FIRST AMENDMENT INSTITUTE AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY vs DONALD J. TRUMP


JWK

[johnwk]

.

This Fifth Column judge, NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD, rests here opinion on the “public forum” doctrine set forth by the Supreme Court, which in itself is an invention of the Court unknown to our founders --- an invention not in harmony with intentions for which the First Amendment, along with nine others, was adopted. In fact, the First Amendment, along with nine other Amendments, were intentionally adopted to preclude and forbid federal force to be used to meddle in America’s free market system and dictate rules by which We the People communicate.

Now, with regard to the “Bill of Rights” , which includes the First Amendment, we find the founders expressed intentions in the Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added .

And Madison, speaking on the very issue regarding these amendments to the Constitution indicates they were to preserve and protect “federalism” our Constitution’s plan, which reserves to the States all powers not delegated to Congress. He says:

“It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism” ___See :Madison, June 8th, 1789, Amendments to the Constitution

Finally, it is important to read the Federalist Papers in which federalism is summarized as follows:


“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. __ Federalist Paper No. 45

The bottom line is, the first ten amendments were adopted as a written protection to keep the freaken federal government’s nose out of the people’s affairs, including how they communicate with each other. In fact, they (the First Ten Amendments] were never intended to allow Fifth Column judges and Justices to interpret their meaning in a manner allowing them to impose their personal whims and fancies as the rule of law!

This freaken judge needs to be punished for imposing her will as the rule of law and ignoring the intentions for which the First Amendment, along with nine others, were adopted.

JWK

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

.

This Fifth Column judge, NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD, rests here opinion on the “public forum” doctrine set forth by the Supreme Court, which in itself is an invention of the Court unknown to our founders --- an invention not in harmony with intentions for which the First Amendment, along with nine others, was adopted. In fact, the First Amendment, along with nine other Amendments, were intentionally adopted to preclude and forbid federal force to be used to meddle in America’s free market system and dictate rules by which We the People communicate.

Now, with regard to the “Bill of Rights” , which includes the First Amendment, we find the founders expressed intentions in the Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added .

And Madison, speaking on the very issue regarding these amendments to the Constitution indicates they were to preserve and protect “federalism” our Constitution’s plan, which reserves to the States all powers not delegated to Congress. He says:

“It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism” ___See :Madison, June 8th, 1789, Amendments to the Constitution

Finally, it is important to read the Federalist Papers in which federalism is summarized as follows:


“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. __ Federalist Paper No. 45

The bottom line is, the first ten amendments were adopted as a written protection to keep the freaken federal government’s nose out of the people’s affairs, including how they communicate with each other. In fact, they (the First Ten Amendments] were never intended to allow Fifth Column judges and Justices to interpret their meaning in a manner allowing them to impose their personal whims and fancies as the rule of law!

This freaken judge needs to be punished for imposing her will as the rule of law and ignoring the intentions for which the First Amendment, along with nine others, were adopted.

JWK

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

Yeah I don't understand why all these judges are now the constituion

[johnwk]

Yeah I don't understand why all these judges are now the constituion

Seems from their actions they believe they are a sitting constitutional convention, in addition to a ratification body i.e., judge, jury and hangman.


JWK


The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

[johnwk]

This nitwit judge, U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is alleging the First Amendment forbids President Trump to block critics on his personal Twitter account. Keep in mind the complainants in the case did not assert being blocked on any official government accounts, e.g., @WhiteHouse. The account in question has been in use by Trump several years before running for president, and lately is used by Trump to call out Fake News, Russia-gate, and comment on other political issues of the day. It is not used for official government purposes as is, e.g., @potuS is used for official government business.

As pointed out in an article titled: Is It Really Illegal for Trump to Block People on Twitter Now?

”The judge's logic turns the traditional way of viewing the First Amendment on its head: Your right to free speech doesn't extend to a right to make someone else, even a politician you have good reason to loathe, listen to you. The Supreme Court expanded on this in a 1984 case, ruling that a "person's right to speak is not infringed when government simply ignores that person while listening to others."

In this case, MINNESOTA BD. FOR COMMUNITY COLLEGES v. KNIGHT, (1984), JUSTICE O'CONNOR wrote:

” Appellees have no constitutional right to force the government to listen to their views. They have no such right as members of the public, as government employees, or as instructors in an institution of higher education.

I

The Constitution does not grant to members of the public generally a right to be heard by public bodies making decisions of policy. In Bi-Metallic Investment Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 239 U.S. 441 (1915), this Court rejected a claim to such a right founded on the Due Process [465 U.S. 271, 284] Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. “


In the instant case the complainants are free to setup a Twitter account and complain all they want about President Trump and likewise free to block opposing points of view, and our Constitution prohibits interfering with this fundamental right ___ a right which even extends to President Trump, as much as he is hated by our nitwit “Never Trump Crowd”.

U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald needs to take her dog-and-pony show elsewhere, perhaps to Cuba or Venezuela where dictators will embrace her with open arms.


JWK



Without a Fifth Column Media, Yellow Journalism, Hollywood, and a corrupted FBI, Loretta Lynch, Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama, would be making license tags in a federal penitentiary

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

only the insane, psychopathic, pathological left would try to impeach trump for blocking people on twitter lol

[enhanced_deficit]

It isn't a public forum operated by the government.

But it is being regularly used as a platform to announce official US government policies by a tax payers funded public official.

Can a tax payers funded public official selectively refuse to listen/ban critical comments/questions only on the grounds that he is announcing official US policies that effect all tax payers at a privately owned restaurant building?

[Jamesiv1]

only the insane, psychopathic, pathalogical left would try to impeach trump for blocking people ontwitter lol

They are deeply committed, that's why they are going to lose bigly in the mid-terms.

^Let it be known that Jamesiv1 predicted it here first.

[Swordsmyth]

But it is being regularly used as a platform to announce official US government policies by a tax payers funded public official.

Can a tax payers funded public official selectively refuse to listen/ban critical comments/questions only on the grounds that he is announcing official US policies that effect all tax payers at a privately owned restaurant building?

Yes.
At a private venue he can do anything he wants.

[enhanced_deficit]

Yes.
At a private venue he can do anything he wants.

Even if tax payers were paying for his visit to the restaurant/meal? Phone used for tweets is tax payers funded. Or you think he's using private phone to announce official US policies?

[Swordsmyth]

Even if tax payers were paying for his visit to the restaurant/meal? Phone used for tweets is tax payers funded. Or you think he's using private phone to announce official US policies?

Yes, the fact that the president has his private car etc. paid for doesn't change anything.

[Danke]

They are deeply committed, that's why they are going to lose bigly in the mid-terms.

^Let it be known that Jamesiv1 predicted it here first.

you have the best predictions.

[Jamesiv1]

you have the best predictions.

MPGA

Making Predictions Great Again

[johnwk]

But it is being regularly used as a platform to announce official US government policies by a tax payers funded public official.

This nitwit judge, U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is alleging the First Amendment forbids President Trump to block critics on his personal Twitter account. Keep in mind the complainants in the case did not assert being blocked on any official government accounts, e.g., @WhiteHouse. The account in question has been in use by Trump several years before running for president, and lately is used by Trump to call out Fake News, Russia-gate, and comment on other political issues of the day. It is not used for official government purposes as is, e.g., @potuS is used for official government business.

JWK

[enhanced_deficit]

Is this the account being discussed? If so, don't think he will be able to block public critics because it is used for official policy announcements using tax payers funded phone.



Trump's latest tweet takes down Amazon stock and the Nasdaq
by David Goldman April 3, 2018
http://money.cnn.com/2018/04/03/news...ock/index.html

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

That amazon comment is so true tho lol

[Swordsmyth]

Is this the account being discussed? If so, don't think he will be able to block public critics because it is used for official policy announcements using tax payers funded phone.



Trump's latest tweet takes down Amazon stock and the Nasdaq
by David Goldman April 3, 2018
http://money.cnn.com/2018/04/03/news...ock/index.html

That is an opinion NOT an official announcement.

[Madison320]

But it is being regularly used as a platform to announce official US government policies by a tax payers funded public official.

Can a tax payers funded public official selectively refuse to listen/ban critical comments/questions only on the grounds that he is announcing official US policies that effect all tax payers at a privately owned restaurant building?

That would be a helluva stretch, but either way it has nothing to do with the 1st amendment. The 1st amendment prevents government from banning private speech. Not to force government to allow all government speech. If anything this is freedom of information act kind of thing. And even that's a reach.

[johnwk]

Is this the account being discussed? If so, don't think he will be able to block public critics because it is used for official policy announcements using tax payers funded phone.



Trump's latest tweet takes down Amazon stock and the Nasdaq
by David Goldman April 3, 2018
http://money.cnn.com/2018/04/03/news...ock/index.html

He was commenting on political happenings of the day, which is protected under the 1st Amendment. He did not surrender this right when taking office. Official business is carried out on @potuS, @PressSec, and @WhiteHouse.


@realDonaldTrump is his private account which has been in existence long before he became president, and he uses that account to call out Fake News, Russia-gate, and comment on other political issues of the day. It is not used for official government purposes as is, the other accounts I mentioned.


JWK

[enhanced_deficit]

He was commenting on political happenings of the day, which is protected under the 1st Amendment. He did not surrender this right when taking office. Official business is carried out on @potuS, @PressSec, and @WhiteHouse.


@realDonaldTrump is his private account which has been in existence long before he became president, and he uses that account to call out Fake News, Russia-gate, and comment on other political issues of the day. It is not used for official government purposes as is, the other accounts I mentioned.


JWK

That is an opinion NOT an official announcement.

So you guys think this is private business being announced here?

I standby by earlier ruling opinion on this. When lines are merged like this by a powerful public official, it's hard to claim private status.

It's almost like if White House official Ivanka visited China, won Trade Marks for personal business from Chinese gummit couple of days before her dad tweeted about saving Chinese ZTE jobs and then anti-nepotism champion claimed that she was on a private trip to China.




Case is hereby rested.

[johnwk]

So you guys think this is private business being announced here?

I standby by earlier ruling opinion on this. When lines are merged like this by a powerful public official, it's hard to claim private status.

It's almost like if White House official Ivanka visited China, won Trade Marks for personal business from Chinese gummit couple of days before her dad tweeted about saving Chinese ZTE jobs and then anti-nepotism champion claimed that she was on a private trip to China.




Case is hereby rested.

He is commenting on political happenings. He did not surrender this right when taking office.

[Swordsmyth]

So you guys think this is private business being announced here?

I standby by earlier ruling opinion on this. When lines are merged like this by a powerful public official, it's hard to claim private status.

It's almost like if White House official Ivanka visited China, won Trade Marks for personal business from Chinese gummit couple of days before her dad tweeted about saving Chinese ZTE jobs and then anti-nepotism champion claimed that she was on a private trip to China.




Case is hereby rested.

That was a personal statement, notice that he said the official demand would come the next day.