The Verge reports.
[The court wrote that] Twitter’s “interactive space,” where users can interact with Trump’s tweets, qualifies as a public forum, and that blocking users unconstitutionally restricts their speech. The decision rejected arguments from the president’s team that President Trump’s own First Amendment rights would be violated if he could not block users....
The court, while not going so far as to enter an order against the president and social media director Dan Scavino specifically, ruled more generally that public officials violated users’ rights when blocking them on the platform. The decision says such action is “viewpoint discrimination,” and that “no government official — including the President — is above the law, and all government officials are presumed to follow the law as has been declared.”...
Notably, the decision distinguished between Twitter’s block and mute functions, and the judge found the argument that the two functions were equivalent “unpersuasive.” ...
ADDED:
Here's Eugene Volokh's reaction:
[According to the court,t]he Tweets themselves aren't a forum, because they are the President's own speech; but the space for public replies is a forum. The court's concern is that replies are a valuable means for the repliers to speak to fellow members of the public. The court recognizes that there's no right to speak to the President in a way that the President is obliged to read; the President remains free, for instance, to use Twitter's "mute" function, which would keep him from seeing the user's replies when he reviews his own feed.
Volokh thinks that part is relatively easy, but this the question whether the President is acting as a private citizen or a government official:
[E]ven when the President is giving a public speech, he is understood at least in part as expressing his own views... [C]onsider a related issue under another First Amendment provision, the Establishment Clause—even Supreme Court justices who believe that the government may not endorse religion think that it's fine for government officials to express religious views in their speeches.
Posts
136 comments:
You can read anybody's twitter account just by going to https://twitter.com/accountname as a normal site.
That's not blocked no matter what the guy does.
All public officials? Does this mean that Howard Dean and Keith Ellison, who blocked me for low-level Grade C snark, have to immediately undo it to? Or does this only apply to politicians the media doesn't like?
Twitter itself can block anyone it wants to block for their viewpoint. If Twitter is a "public forum" it's time to regulate the Hell out of it.
This is an attempt to silence Trump.
It's a constitutional right to a heckler's veto.
The left has completely lost it.
I've read the ruling judge doesn't have a Twitter account. Should she be forced to have one?
You don't have the right to knock on his door and scream in his face ...or do you?
So it's OK for Twitter to prevent you from posting on Trump's account but Trump can't? If Twitter blocks you or bans you, your "right" to post on Trump's account has been taken away.
Imagine a world where Althouse is forced to allow she who cannot be named to post on her blog.
Such silliness.............
If Trump or any President gives a speech at a private venue, such as a sports arena, the venue owners are under no constitutional obligation to admit demonstrators or those who would disrupt the event. They can and do eject such people. Twitter's owners will be surprised to learn that they don't own the "venue" they operate for profit. They can and do eject people for violations of their nebulous and ever-shifting body of rules.
Trump isn't above the law, neither is he below it. This ruling will be overturned.
Is this going to go to the SCOTUS too?
How can Twitter be a "public space" covered by the 1st Amendment AND a private business that mute, block or ban anyone?
Obviously this is just another left-wing Justice making up crap. When are peeps going to stop the Judicial Tyranny?
It’s easy to see that this is just a ruse to shut down Trump’s tweeting.
I thought the blocking on Twitter meant that the person blocked couldn't respond. Can't spam the poster (Trump's) twitter account with spam and obnoxious comments.
Anyone can look at Trump's account. But Trump can't block obnoxious assholes???
By that ruling Althouse cannot erase comments from ANY commenters including Mary? We MUST allow anyone and everyone, even people promoting their personal products, porn sites, who are threatening or profane?
By these rules a loud heckler at any event cannot be told to shut up or be removed from the audience??
If Trump is subject to these rules, then so is everyone.
CHAOS. Of course that is the purpose of this ruling. To make the ability of Trump, or anyone else that the maddened mob disagrees with.
“Imagine a world where Althouse is forced to allow she who cannot be named to post on her blog.”
Were Althouse still working for the State of Wisconsin, this would be closely analogous.
“Imagine a world where Althouse is forced to allow she who cannot be named to post on her blog.”
Were Althouse still working for the State of Wisconsin, this would be closely analogous.
When she began the blocking and deleting, she was.
Howza bout "It's unconstitutional for a sitting President to turn the intelligence community loose on the campaign of a Presidential candidate from the opposing party"?..
Do you think that any of these little weasels in black dresses will come to that conclusion?
In a New York minute if Bush had done that to Kerry. Not so much if Obama and his minions did that to Trump.
How can Twitter be a "public space" covered by the 1st Amendment AND a private business that mute, block or ban anyone?
Don’t be silly, Twitter is a wholly owned subsidiary of Leftism Inc, and itself will never be subjected any kind of “fairness doctrine”
“When she began the blocking and deleting, she was.”
Yeah, but you can’t apply a new law retroactively unless it has to do with reparations.
Althouse.doesn’t mention the name of the judge, as if that is insignificant. Look up Naomi Reice Buchwald and tell me whether you think she is insignificant to the decision. Rule: if it’s a Dem judge and if it’s a political case the ruler of law means nothing. That should bother Althouse and every other fair thinking person.
This started with Clinton and “The Magnificent Seven.”
Althouse has to be careful or Amazon will stop her payment stream. Like Legal Insurrection.
Why can't the judiciary move past rulings like this & do something that places their profession in a better light?
You know, like donkey shows.
What happened with Legal Insurrection?
So here is Paragraph 3 of 42 US Code Section 1985:
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.
So does this mean that when Twitter, or any other social media platform, sets up an algorithm or allows its internal Committees of Public Safety to conspire to limit the access of conservatives or anybody else, in a way that is not viewpoint neutral, thereby preventing from giving their advocacy in a legal manner for the election of a given lawfully qualified elector for a presidential or vice presidential election, that they are committing a federal crime?
I bet these libtard chuckleheads think they won the case.
I expect that four members of the US Supreme Court will vote to uphold this ruling.
Left-wingers aren't going to like it when they figure out that it applies to them, too. Let's go full Alinsky on them and make them live up to their own rules. They'll hate that like a vampire hates sunlight.
So the 1st amendment includes a right to troll. But only if you can prove you’re not a robot, or a Russian.
Only a law professor or a federal judge would be this foolish.
Trump not only will continue to block people on Twitter, he’s going to block this judge’s ruling.
Trump’s twitter feed is no more a public forum — designated, limited or whatever other low-grade bullshit judges and law professors come up with — than this judge’s living room.
Obama had a healthy disrespect for federal judges and Trump has the same amount.
Time to call out da judge in a tweet.
The leftists are going to wake up some morning and say “what the f... were we thinking.”
It appears they want to fall a bit farther first.
If public officials can't block people on Twitter, that means ALL public officials, including government employees.
"By that ruling Althouse cannot erase comments from ANY commenters including Mary?"
-- Only if she is a government employee or official.
The judiciary has gone hog-wild with inventing rights willy-nilly. Why NOT a right to troll?
The problem here is that it will only be applied against Trump & other Republicans. If this is going to be the new rule, then someone should be a true patriot and flood Democrat politicians' official twitter and other feeds & web pages with genuinely obnoxious trolling, & sue for big $$$ when they're banned.
This ruling, which has no order attached, is an incredible GIFT to Trump.
Trump can train an entire army of PURPLE ELEPHANTS to march out of this one ruling. It's an easy thing to mock. Trump is the worst politician for judges because he will make fun of the Clinton appointee.
The law doesn't matter in this situation because the point is rallying voters to the Trump sigil.
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the plaintiff should have had to establish some standing.
More evidence that a legal education interferes with one's ability to think straight.
indiana118: If this is going to be the new rule, then someone should be a true patriot and flood Democrat politicians' official twitter and other feeds & web pages with genuinely obnoxious trolling, & sue for big $$$ when they're banned.
Guess it's time to break down and get a twitter account.
Public officials, not private citizen bloggers.
It's not worth a fight. Trump loses nothing by giving in quietly to the Judge's silly decision. Every one of his tweets gets thousands of replies within minutes. He doesn't interact directly with followers. Why bother with the blocking anyway.
At least Hope Hicks and Sarah Sanders got off.
"Public officials, not private citizen bloggers."
-- No. This isn't just about public officials. This is any interactive space where a public official operates in. If Trump comments on your blog?
You're no longer allowed to ban people, according to this ruling. If you're a library, you can't block people who want to use your public computers for legal porn any more, since that is a legal expression of first amendment rights.
Repeat of the PURPLE ELEPHANTS explanation:
When somebody tells another not to imagine a thing (like, say, a common object with an unusual color) the listener's mind immediately pictures the thing that was forbade. It's nearly impossible to avoid thinking of the thing for a moment.
So, Trump types "tapp" and more people see the tweet and focus on the message than could ever have happened had he played it straight. The Left wants to focus on the misspelling and they tell people to ignore the message. But as soon as the message is the thing we're supposed to avoid, the message pops into our head for consideration.
The messages after this ruling will be easy to project in this method:
1. Judges are ruling over us but we are citizens not subjects.
2. I am treated differently than everybody else. Treat people the same.
3. Twitter can censor and that is wrong.
4. Monopolies in the tech industry have unjustifiable power.
5. Judges and monopolies must be checked.
Those are 'populist' messages.
This seemed relatively straightforward to me. It doesn't affect Trump's ability to speak while allowing others to respond.
A public official can not block users who call them racial epitaphs as that is disgusting, but free, speech. Female public officials can be degraded and insulted on Twitter with no legal means of blocking sexual harassment.
Thanks judge.
"This seemed relatively straightforward to me. It doesn't affect Trump's ability to speak while allowing others to respond."
-- This isn't just Trump. This is -all- public officials. Your local police department? It can't ban the guy who continues to post things like "fry all pigs." Your local school board officer can't block students who tweet perfectly legal porn to her. As long as it is free, legal speech, government officials, organizations and employees can no longer protect their social media from people.
"President Trump sometimes uses the account to announce matters related to official government business before those matters are announced to the public through other official channels.”
-- He sometimes uses media briefings to do the same, and he is freely allowed to eject or admit members into that. Am I now allowed to push into the White House press room? This decision implies that yes, I am.
“As a result of the President’s blocking of the Individual Plaintiffs from @realDonaldTrump, the Individual Plaintiffs cannot view the President’s tweets; directly reply to these tweets; or use the @realDonaldTrump webpage to view the comment threads associated with the President’s tweets while they are logged in to their verified accounts.”
-- ... This is factually wrong. The plaintiffs can view the tweets through another browser or through another account, even when logged in to their verified accounts, if they... now, I'm going to blow your mind: Use an incognito browser as well or tab. Yes. The great, earth shattering technology of MULTIPLE TABS defeats the president's block.
Yes, they can't directly reply to them on that account, but you do not have a right to directly reply to the president's tweets.
I think it is possible to distinguish personal and political reasonably easily. If Trump had just posted cat videos on his account I doubt that there would be any issue here. Instead he is using it as a political tool. He is not a King, but a public servant. We get to speak back.
Oh, wait, the opinion gets around to acknowledging it was lying to us: "Additionally, “[s]ome of the Individual Plaintiffs have established second accounts so that they can view the President’s tweets.”
So... where's the harm? "Blocking does not completely eliminate the individual plaintiffs’ ability to interact with the President’s tweets."
Even the judge's opinion shows there's no harm being done!
"Instead he is using it as a political tool. He is not a King, but a public servant. We get to speak back."
-- That's just stupid. Those people can still look up his tweets and comment on them. This is no different than ejecting a loud demonstrator from a public event for disrupting the event.
Matthew Sablan said...
He sometimes uses media briefings to do the same, and he is freely allowed to eject or admit members into that.
This is actually deeply wrong. The president, or any politician, should be accountable to all members of the press and the public.
If I didn't have a Twitter account, then I couldn't reply to Donald Trump's tweets. Are my First Amendment rights being trampled? Are people like the Amish who don't use technology losing First Amendment rights by being unable to respond to Trump's tweets?
"This is actually deeply wrong. The president, or any politician, should be accountable to all members of the press and the public."
-- It is not wrong. He can deny press credentials if he wants to, or if he holds a meeting in a room not big enough to fit everyone, he or security may assert a head count limit. Every person claiming press credentials cannot force their way into a briefing, just because.
He can be held accountable without people being able to reply to his tweets.
Is my First Amendment right trampled because I can't see the State of the Union in person and have to take onerous steps like live streaming it or watching it on television?
According to the reasoning this judge used on Twitter, *yes, yes it is.*
"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."
In which ARM advocates Russia Today and the NORK press must be given a seat in the WH Briefing Room.
ARM comments are poorly conceived.
Right. So, you agree then that all Congress people, national, state and local government employees, officials and institutions must no longer block, ban or moderate comments on their personal or public pages? Because that's the logical conclusion to this.
This is a manifestly stupid ruling.
So, does the government own Twitter's space, or does Twitter? Because, this ruling just said that Twitter cannot control their content any more. Also, if you comment on or receive a comment from, a public entity, you can no longer block people, because your social media page is now a government fora.
If, of course, this decision is meant to be taken to logical conclusions, and not just poke Trump in the eye because the judge is stupid and vindictive.
The leftists are actually defending this decision.
I am actually astonished. I thought nobody would be able to humiliate themselves in such a degrading way.
You are just really fucking stupid people.
“Because no government official is above the law and because all government officials are presumed to follow the law once the judiciary has said what the law is, we must assume that the President and Scavino will remedy the blocking we have held to be unconstitutional,” Buchwald wrote.
"...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 essentially penumbra strikes again.
This means Twitter cannot ban people.
Twitter bots are not particularly difficult pieces of code.
This will end badly.
But leftists can't be accused of thinking through the consequences of their actions.
Matthew Sablan said...
personal or public pages
Did you actually read the post above?
"As a threshold matter, for a space to be susceptible to forum analysis, it must be owned or controlled by the government."
-- The government doesn't own or control Twitter. As we've seen, Twitter has shadowbanned people for political opinions. For example, Twitter has also banned election ads from certain candidates. For example, racist speech, though something I dislike, is protected speech. You can say racist things. Twitter, however, banned a congressman for a racist tweet. Twitter can no longer do that, if this judgment stands, as that space is actually owned or controlled by the government, and even racist views have First Amendment protections.
An even basic understanding of Twitter shows that this isn't a government forum. It fails the test.
The freak flags will fly on Trump's account.
And every Moby one of them will be used to disparage the president.
Guilt by association seems like the play for the Leftist Collectivists.
Trump will conjure PURPLE ELEPHANTS.
The Left will wonder at the power lost by its allies.
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
“Because no government official is above the law and because all government officials are presumed to follow the law once the judiciary has said what the law is, we must assume that the President and Scavino will remedy the blocking we have held to be unconstitutional,” Buchwald wrote.
When a single facepalm just doesn't cut it.
I did. And it is stupid. It is saying that Trump discussing his administration is enough to turn a personal page into a government owned page.
I don't use Twitter and have never used Twitter, but I'll assume that it is possible to have discussions on it, like here. And if that is the case then all it takes is one person to post thousands of stupid, short, meaningless comments, or whatever number is appropriate in that context, before basically everyone ignores that thread or whatever, and that discussion and dialog is essentially killed.
On the other hand, it would be nice if this ruling meant twitter can't exclude people for having political views they disapprove of, as in fact, they actually are doing.
But somehow I suspect this ruling is really meant to only apply to Trump and not anyone else.
For example, if Trump mentions that he can't make dinner because he has a state function on his personal email -- is that now a government fora? The ridiculous threshold ARM and the decision lay out say, yes.
Birkel said...
The freak flags will fly on Trump's account.
And every Moby one of them will be used to disparage the president.
Guilt by association seems like the play for the Leftist Collectivists.
Every single democrat politician has a twitter account. Comey Obama Clapper Brennan Clinton Clinton Clinton Bush Bush Romney Pelosi Ryan Schumer.
This will include every public employee. She didn't even distinguish between Federal, State, County, City. "Government official" is the exact term used.
"Government Official"
This is going to be glorious.
If it were @USPresident and Twitter assigned it to each president then there might be an argument. That's not the case here.
“[T]he ‘First Amendment does not guarantee access to property simply because it is owned or controlled by the government.’”
-- The decision undermines itself left and right, and then just says, "Pretend we didn't say that." Anyway, look at the thin reed of "government control" this rests on.
"While their control does not extend to the content of a retweet or reply when made -- “[n]o other Twitter user can alter the content of any retweet or reply, either before or after it is posted” and a user “cannot prescreen tweets, replies, likes, or mentions that reference their tweets or accounts,” Stip. ¶ 26 -- it nonetheless extends to controlling who has the power to retweet or reply in the first instance. "
-- So, yes. Any government official's personal or public social media can no longer moderate legal speech.
"ARM comments are poorly conceived.
I would say that they are barely conceived.
This has nothing to do with the First Amendment. No one is being censored. It is about whether public officials (i.e., Trump) are required to listen to trolls.
It is my choice whether to read the bullshit that ARM, Chuck, Inga and Ritmo spew. So, if I am a public official, I have to read their crap? Ridiculous!
"The President and Scavino’s control over the @realDonaldTrump account is also governmental."
-- This is... stupid too. @realDonaldTrump existed before he was president. The opinion even acknowledged that! The only remote reason you might think it is governmental is that Scavino sometimes tweets from it. Fine. Have Trump remove Scavino's access, problem solved. I suppose if someone on Trump's staff calls Melania to let her know Trump will be late, that's a public fora too, and anyone should be allowed to interrupt. Because that's the logic of this decision.
Fun question: If a government official edits Wikipedia, that page? Now a government fora, and Wiki cannot stop people from editing it or commenting on it *or reverting those edits*.
If we take this decision to its logical conclusion.
... Wait. Wait. Wait. The opinion says that @realDonaldTrump has appointed officials... so, does the judge actually know HOW Twitter and the government work?
Now, Professor Tribe can make his assassination threats directly on the President's Twitter account.
My God, yes.
The judge actually thinks if Trump tweets out: "I pardon Bill Clinton for his rapes," that it is done. My God.
When a university limits a speaker on public safety concerns the rending of garments here is something to see. In this case, there is no conceivable public safety concern. It is just a bunch of aimless nitwits sitting around in their pajamas watching Fox and Friends, occasionally emitting a brief electronic discharge.
Trump should play hardball and, until this is heard at the Supreme Court, instruct the closing of all social media, public and personal, of all government officials, as the government simply doesn't have the manpower to properly monitor it all.
Matthew Sablan said...
My God, yes.
The judge actually thinks if Trump tweets out: "I pardon Bill Clinton for his rapes," that it is done. My God.
And this holds for every mayor, governor, city councilman, dog catcher, police chief and DMV employee in the country.
This is going to be so awesome.
It really is amazing the judge keeps saying that the account is used for government functions. I really, honestly, feel like the judge thinks if Trump writes something in a tweet, it is legally binding.
This precedent is going to get really awkward, really fast for every incumbent running for re-election who can no longer eject disruptive protesters from Town Halls and the like.
"Based on the government speech doctrine, we reject out of hand any contention that the content of the President’s tweets are susceptible to forum analysis. It is not so susceptible because the content is government speech: the record establishes that the President, sometimes “[w]ith the assistance of Mr. Scavino,” uses the content of his tweets “to announce, describe, and defend his policies; to promote his Administration’s legislative agenda; to announce official decisions; to engage with foreign political leaders; to publicize state visits; to challenge media organizations whose coverage of his Administration he believes to be unfair; and for other statements, including on occasion statements unrelated to official government business.”
-- Using that logic, when a government official goes on CNN, CNN no longer owns their airwaves. It is the government's now, and CNN cannot control who comes on or off their show, cannot screen callers, etc.
"Don't tase me, bro!"
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
When a university limits a speaker on public safety concerns the rending of garments here is something to see. In this case, there is no conceivable public safety concern. It is just a bunch of aimless nitwits sitting around in their pajamas watching Fox and Friends, occasionally emitting a brief electronic discharge.
I guess it is time to go cause some public safety concerns at some leftist speeches and see if ARM really supports that.
I am just kidding of course. Unlike ARM and his fellow leftists I don't believe we should send out mobs of people to assault people we don't agree with.
We know you don't believe a single thing you say. It would be really awful if you guys pulled off your coup and killed or removed Trump and we could get this over with.
I mean, I know the judge attempts to say, "replying to a government owned communication isn't the same as the government saying it," but, rationally, you can't create that firewall on a digital medium. Either the government owns and operates the speech completely, or it doesn't.
As other commenters have pointed out, Twitter has unfettered discretion to ban users and engages in viewpoint discrimination, by banning people for certain "offensive" but legal statements. Why do those people who Twitter allows to use its service have greater First Amendment rights -- to directly respond to Trump's tweets in Trump's timeline -- than those that the service has discriminated against? Does everyone now have a First Amendment right to a Twitter account so that we all have an equal opportunity to respond to Trump?
Volokh skips over that part of the analysis, and I think it removes this case from any type of "public forum" analysis.
Yeah. The logical conclusion: If a user is harmed by having to circumvent the block, that their First Amendment right is infringed, then yes. I can demand the government deliver me Trump's tweets through a non-Twitter means if I do not have a Twitter account, because I am harmed by being unable to interact with the tweet as a normal user does, even though I could take an action to view the tweet, it doesn't matter.
If the President wrote an editorial in a newspaper, then people could respond to the paper. The paper might not print the replies of 99% of these.
Is the paper wrong, and should they publish every reply? I think that would not be freedom of the press. The freedom to print what they want, not what others want.
Can social media claim the rights of newspapers?
In any case, I think the President is wrong in using social media. He should direct everything through his media people.
I think history will be critical of elected government officials using social media. They will be seen as deviants 20 years from now.
Twitter could choose to ban Trump tomorrow.
"Twitter could choose to ban Trump tomorrow."
-- Eh, at this point, Trump should give them exactly what they want. There will be an uproar when every congressional staffer, elected representative, NASA, the Smithsonian, NPR, etc. all have to go social media dark while the government undergoes a blue ribbon panel to determine how to handle this new ruling.
Birkel said...
Twitter could choose to ban Trump tomorrow.
And Gab.io would replace twitter overnight.
I kinda hope it happens.
Imagine telling all the deployed troops they can't block edgy anti-war protesters telling them they hope they die on social media if they mention that they serve in the Armed Forces, since Trump mentioning he was president was enough to make the space a government forum.
Which is a STUPID DECISION, but the logical result of taking this decision all the way through.
Matthew Sablan said...
-- Eh, at this point, Trump should give them exactly what they want. There will be an uproar when every congressional staffer, elected representative, NASA, the Smithsonian, NPR, etc. all have to go social media dark while the government undergoes a blue ribbon panel to determine how to handle this new ruling.
The leftists will be begging the SCOTUS to overturn this act of stupidity as quickly as possible. The judge was made absolutely stupid by her hatred for Trump. ;)
I think the legal argument is pretty easy. Does it poke Trump in the eye? If yes, then that is what the law requires. No one should take federal court rulings seriously, it's just kids throwing tantrums.
NASA should be allowed to block flat earthers.
If public officials can't block people on Twitter, that means ALL public officials, including government employees.
Indeed, and as many others have pointed out, if Twitter is indeed a public forum, whether designated, as the judgement holds, or limited, as Volokh prefers, that would mean that Twitter could not engage in content (“designated”) or viewpoint (“limited”) based discrimination either, or it would be illegal for public officials to use the medium at all. Which is not a problem if Twitter were considered a private forum.
Now, I would actually welcome such a ruling if it holds up, not because of the case for Trump, but for what it would mean for the Northern California companies that run all our technological social platforms. I prefer a world where they can no longer engage in content or viewpoint discrimination and effectively drop a foot on the scale of acceptable public discourse.
The other funny thing about the ruling is that it seems to be based around the right to petition, however allows for Trump to “ignore” anyone he likes. Go figure.
id government accounts ever ban or block anti-global warming people?
That was trampling their free speech.
Matthew is an excitable little fellow.
I wonder if it shames Ms. Althouse to see those who she used to consider professionals, mentors, and colleagues demean the law which she swore to uphold.
I mean, granted, the legal profession, more than smarmy horny chain smoking Parisian professors, helped invent postmodernism to gin up the billing cycles, but still, are there no depths that Democrat judges will reduce themselves to?
I mean, it's not like THEY are getting hourly.
Oh...it's a female judge. Well, that explains quite a bit.
Amazon demonetizes conservative website
Naomi Reice Buchwald
I love her Sarah Palin comment!
The first comment is wrong. If you're logged in to Twitter, Trump has blocked you, and you go to his page you won't be able to see his tweets. There are easy ways around that, but the more important issue is you can't reply to Trump and have your reply appear on his page. You can still include his name in a tweet and some might see it, but those viewing the reply page can't. That gives some users more pull with the POTUS than others.
The much, much more important issue is that Twitter "auto blocks" people by censoring their replies. Eg, about 40% of the replies to @AjitPaiFCC are censored and, as you can guess, most are from liberals. Twiter's censorship is actually quite non-partisan, despite what some would have you believe.
See these reports showing the specific tweets that were censored to dozens of govt officials and others. Want to fight that? Get someone with a megaphone to cover it and we'll put Twitter in a world of hurt.
This is actually deeply wrong. The president, or any politician, should be accountable to all members of the press and the public.
Oh? And how does that work? Will he have a press conference with 230 million people in the room?
There's nothing special about people who work at legacy media outlets.
Twiter's censorship is actually quite non-partisan, despite what some would have you believe.
This is clearly wrong, and it's not hard to see that if you see who gets censored.
This ruling says that you have to have access to any public official who posts on Twitter anything related to their official capacity or it's a 1A violation. This ruling then means that no one may be banned from Twitter or blocked by any public official. Good to know!
"Dangerous time when our country is led by those who will lie about anything, backed by those who will believe anything, based on information from media sources that will say anything. Americans must break out of that bubble and seek truth."
Guess who just tweeted this.
This case has standing for whom? What are they standing on?
Hillary Rodham?
This will only apply to Republicans, you just know it. If I were Trump, I would ignore this ruling.
And, really, are you telling me he can't block spam on his feed? Seriously, the Left is fucking losing whatever marbles they had left after November 2016.
Comey.
That’s quite a volte face for Comey. What made him turn?
That's not the way I'd put it.
I think he's unstable.
That tweet is his defense.
Serious, man!
Board members flagged Figaro’s frequent appearances on Fox News praising Trump. She has said on the network as recently as the end of April that the president’s critics mostly don’t like that he’s shaking up the system. And last year she said immigrants are “coming into the country and getting benefits that Americans do not get,” and getting away with crimes while African-Americans go to prison.
“It’s a red flag,” said founding board member Catalina Velasquez. “If I know someone is inflammatory, using hate speech at a time when all oppressed people need to come together, it puts me in a very difficult position.”
PowerLine LINK to article
ARM bloviated,"This is actually deeply wrong. The president, or any politician, should be accountable to all members of the press and the public".
Excpet if it's a democrat or fellow fascist right, buddy?
“How can Twitter be a "public space" covered by the 1st Amendment AND a private business that mute, block or ban anyone?”
This must be repeated, as rcocean stated.
While there is supposed to be a nuanced instance that this is an ‘official’, it is a private space. To me, this is simply a ruling that they don’t want to ban Trump, because that would have serious political fallout, so they bend and twist words to find ways to denigrate.
Fun fact. The Holocaust museum can no longer block Nazis and Holocaust deniers.
Klansmen can now tweet hate to government officials and there is no recourse so long as they don't step into any actual illegal speech. Thanks judge.
One last thought experiment.
Let's say President Trump used his own private funds to make a completely legal X-rated movie. All the legalities are taken care; there is nothing illegal about this.
And he tweets: "As President, I am reminding you, certain kind of smut films are perfectly legal," and then embeds the video clip.
Can Twitter remove the video as being indecent, despite it being legal? Given the judge's opinion, no. No they cannot. It is a government fora, and therefore the government has operation and control.
If Twitter CAN remove the video, then the government doesn't control the forum.
So, if you agree with this judge, then you're saying the President can post X-rated smut to Twitter and people HAVE to be able to watch it, no matter what Twitter's rules say.
So does the mean elected officials can't bar protestors from speeches? What about the Congressional gallery?
I guess They are hoping that blocking tweets is grounds for impeachment.
IMHO, where the judge gets it wrong is that the first amendment guarantees a right to free speech, but not a forum.
So, you want to reply to Trump's tweet, but he blocked you. OMG! Does this mean you can't comment? No. No, not at all You can comment using any or all of the following options:
1. Use your own Twitter account to express your opinion. Unless, of course, you're Voxday or someone similar and Twitter has banned you. (Seems to me the judges ruling carried to it's logical extreme doesn't allow Twitter to ban people because then they can't comment....)
2. Make comments on your blog about Trump's tweet.
2a. Make comments on someone else's blog, let's say althouse.blogspot.com about Trump's tweets.
3. Email your friends, acquaintances, government officials- and Trump - about Trump's tweets.
4. Send text messages to everyone on your contact list about Trump's tweets.
5. Actually sit down and write a letter and send it. To whomever you want. About Trump's tweets.
6. Write your diatribe on Trump's tweets, print out a thousand copies, and hand them out on street corners.
To say that someone's first amendment rights are being violated because they can't comment on a particular platform because they're blocked is absurd on it's face. My local newspaper has printed several letters to the editor from me- and not printed others. They're not obligated to print anyone's letters to the editor, but they do. And they pick and choose. Creating winners and losers. No one's first amendment rights are violated by not being among the chosen.
And what do we do with the fact that it is not the government's or Trump's Twitter account, it is Twitter's Twitter account?
Gospace: IMHO, where the judge gets it wrong is that the first amendment guarantees a right to free speech, but not a forum.
It's got nothing to do with free speech.
What the judge said was that the 1st Amendment guarantees a right to petition the government, and that once the government (ie, Trump) opens a particular venue for public communication, they cannot arbitrarily prevent some citizens from using it.
"What the judge said was that the 1st Amendment guarantees a right to petition the government, and that once the government (ie, Trump) opens a particular venue for public communication, they cannot arbitrarily prevent some citizens from using it."
-- Great. Let's all go sit in the next press conference since they cannot arbitrarily prevent citizens from using it. At the next State of the Union, I hope they save me a seat and don't arbitrarily prevent some citizens from using it.
The entirety of Twitter is open to "petition the government" for redress of grievances. Petitioning on Twitter is probably less useful than the email campaigns Facebook appeals I get that say "add your name to this petition".
In the early days of email, when few had it, congresscritters paid close attention to their email.Now- they don't. If you don't send a letter you're not actually ignored, but no at best you'll get a form reply saying your congresscritter received the email. Won't even say the issue it was on.
Matthew Sablan: Great. Let's all go sit in the next press conference since they cannot arbitrarily prevent citizens from using it. At the next State of the Union, I hope they save me a seat and don't arbitrarily prevent some citizens from using it.
Playing devil's advocate here - the press conference is, by its nature, limited in room. Restricting access to only certain people is not arbitrary, it is by necessity. There is no comparable necessity to restrict Twitter.
As Achilles said above - The Left has completely lost it.
I mean this is destruction on an existential scale - the Left's psyches as well as their power structures are being destroyed.
It's our job to salt the ruins so nothing dangerous ever grows there again.
Trump isn't above the law, neither is he below it. This ruling will be overturned.
Well, it's unenforceable, too.
I wish this particular judge had a Twitter account ... just so Trump could block it.
Because he would.
This seemed relatively straightforward to me. It doesn't affect Trump's ability to speak while allowing others to respond.
I swear, you people have lost your freakin' minds.
Nobody has a right to force someone to listen to them being an asshole. Even if it's the President.
What in the hell is wrong with you?
We get to speak back.
Jesus.
Speak all you want. But nobody is required to listen to your stupidity.
Nobody.
Bob Loblaw confuses high-profile cases of r/w entertainers getting blocked and r/w solipsism with reality. My reports (see the link in my first comment) clearly show that Twitter is heavily shadowbanning both libs and cons. For examples, see the @MarshaBlackburn and @AjitPaiFCC reports for dozens of examples of tweets from libs being shadowbanned.
Because cons have falsely pretended that they're being shadowbanned and libs rarely are, every time I talk to someone about this I have to stress right at the start that this isn't just a con issue. Cons have poisoned the well and in effect helped Twitter by shrinking the tent.
The app that produced the reports is open source and an easy install on Windows. If anyone thinks it's just cons who are getting shadowbanned, then download it and try to prove your own reality.
Alternatively, help with a big tent opposition to what Twitter is doing.
Post a Comment