Trump blocks Twitter accounts that disagree with him

[robkelk]

Out in the Open: 'I was blocked by the President of the United States on Twitter'

If Trump was a private citizen, this wouldn't matter. But he isn't a private citizen. He's currently the POTUS.

Some folks have called foul, citing the First Amendment. Thing is, the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law", and Congress is the Legislature, not the Executive. Does the First Amendment apply?

[Spoilsport]

I think there is an unresolved legal question as to whether Trump's Twitter (which has been used for policy announcements) qualifies as "official communication from the office of the president". I'm sure there's a group of lawyers still figuring out how to take that one to a court for a ruling. Not that Trump will recognize the authority of the judge to preside ("too Mexican", "too female", something.)

Trump has his exposure to the world heavily filtered, it doesn't surprise me that he cuts off the "negative waves" (i.e., the truth) when it isn't telling him positive, affirming things about his the-best-ever, everybody-loves-him, yugeness.

[robkelk]

The legal question has been resolved. Link to out-of-USA copy of judge's ruling on KNIGHT FIRST AMENDMENT INSTITUTE AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, REBECCA BUCKWALTER, PHILIP COHEN, HOLLY FIGUEROA, EUGENE GU, BRANDON NEELY, JOSEPH PAPP, and NICHOLAS PAPPAS,  vs. DONALD J. TRUMP, HOPE HICKS, SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS, and DANIEL SCAVINO (17 Civ. 5205 (NRB)).

Analysis on The Register: President Trump broke US Constitution with Twitter bans – judge

While it may seem like a trivial matter, the judge goes to some lengths to explain her reasoning.

"This case requires us to consider whether a public official may, consistent with the First Amendment, 'block' a person from his Twitter account in response to the political views that person has expressed, and whether the analysis differs because that public official is the President of the United States. The answer to both questions is no," she begins her 75-page judgment.

And while there is an unnerving number of references to legal battles that Richard Nixon fought while president, there is a much larger precedent in play: whether any public official can block citizens on social media.

No surprise that Trump is being compared to Nixon. I've made that comparison myself elsewhere in this forum.

[SilverFang01]

Here is another good analysis of the case

No, Twitter still isn’t subject to the First Amendment — even if a judge said Trump’s account is

What did the judge's ruling say?

Trump cannot legally block his Twitter followers for political reasons, the judge ruled, because that would amount to “viewpoint discrimination” by a government official in a public forum.

That's a lot to unpack. But the essential idea is that Trump's use of Twitter in an official capacity — by writing “45th President of the United States of America” in his Twitter bio, for example, or issuing statements on matters of public policy and so on — subjects him to constitutional obligations that aren't imposed on average Americans or even private celebrities.

Does this ruling mean that all of Twitter is a public forum under the law? Is Twitter subject to the First Amendment now?

No. The ruling pointedly does not rule on Twitter as a whole, nor even the entirety of Trump's Twitter account. It only looks at portions of his account: “The content of the tweets sent, the timeline comprised of those tweets, the comment threads initiated by each of those tweets, and the 'interactive space' associated with each tweet in which other users may directly interact with the content of the tweets by, for example, replying to, retweeting, or liking the tweet.”

The court did not find that Twitter is beholden to the First Amendment. It affirmed the principle that the Constitution applies only to the government and not private individuals. So under Buchwald's ruling, Twitter remains free to block users from its platform, on its own terms, without running afoul of the First Amendment.

[robkelk]

Well, of course - the question of whether this would apply to all of Twitter hadn't come up previously. (And I said in the first post of the thread "If Trump was a private citizen, this wouldn't matter.")

This is about whether the government can stop its citizens from speaking to it, not whether Twitter has to become a free-for-all.

[hazard]

It also means that public officials would do well to maintain a separation between their job persona and their private persona, as mixing those two up can cause the private account to run afoul of this ruling. You could note being a president or a senator or similar official on your bio I would expect, with no consequence so long as you make clear that the 'job' account is the one for official business and while you might offer limited comment on policy and government action as a private citizen the job account is the one that matters.

But that really would be a separate ruling I think.

[SilverFang01]

I think the clarification is important because thru ignorance or malice, a lot of US citizens misinterpret the scope of the First Amendment.

Also, the ruling doesn't cover all of his tweets, just those he has made since he put the "45 President of the US" in his bio.

[Epsilon]

It also means that public officials would do well to maintain a separation between their job persona and their private persona,

Actually you should maintain a very thorough separation between your private self and your job self on all social media. I don't mention my clients, despite them being some of the biggest companies in Canada, specifically because I don't want anything I say online to be associated with them. And I post in most place with my full real name.

[LynnInDenver]

It also means that public officials would do well to maintain a separation between their job persona and their private persona,

Actually you should maintain a very thorough separation between your private self and your job self on all social media. I don't mention my clients, despite them being some of the biggest companies in Canada, specifically because I don't want anything I say online to be associated with them. And I post in most place with my full real name.

That's one of the reasons I've seen the EFF quote for why online anonymity needs to be allowed - for those who need to participate in enthusiast and other forums, when they're either an executive officer of a company, or an organization's public "face", or any other reason that it might be difficult for them to post somewhere for fun when they have restrictions of what they can say online under their real name.

The other reasons tend to be "looking into information that can help them that others find horrendous but which harms no one", such as LGBT information when one lives in an area that being outed in any way can eliminate the difficulty cheat code of "appears to be straight and cis".

Regarding the main topic, if Trump wanted to be able to block people from interacting with him on Twitter, he shouldn't have even run for President. So if he wants to not see communications from those people now, he needs to stop using Twitter.

[Inquisitive Raven]

Honestly, he should maintain a clear separation between @potus and @realdonaldtrump. If he could actually manage that, I wouldn't have a problem with him being able to block people on @realdonaldtrump, but not on @potus. As things stand though, Twittler doesn't seem able to maintain any such separation.

[LynnInDenver]

Honestly, he should maintain a clear separation between @potus and @realdonaldtrump. If he could actually manage that, I wouldn't have a problem with him being able to block people on @realdonaldtrump, but not on @potus. As things stand though, Twittler doesn't seem able to maintain any such separation.

I'm really not sure that having a second, separate account designated as "this is me the private citizen" would actually qualify as clear enough separation given the political office he took up. See again the whole "public face" thing. He is the public face of our country right now, there really isn't a good separation to be had with that. I could argue that is the case with any sort of public office, elected or not.