Donald Trump Blocking Accounts on Twitter 'violates US Constitution'
independent.co.uk
Donald Trump Blocking Accounts on Twitter 'violates US Constitution'
1–9 of 9 posts
Re: Donald Trump Blocking Accounts on Twitter 'violates US Constitution'
#2bush league psych out shit. laughable man.
Re: Donald Trump Blocking Accounts on Twitter 'violates US Constitution'
#3I don't use twitter can anyone explain this? When the article says he blocked users, that just means he blocked them from writing on his page? Those people are still free to create their own tweets on their page, correct?
I don't see how that violates free speech. Using the article's "town hall" metaphor, if he asked to have someone removed from the town hall meeting aren't they still free to protest outside on the street corner? If someone is disturbing a town hall meeting (which is entirely subjective), they can be removed, which doesn't violate their free speech.
If he goes around & starts forcing Twitter to ban anyone who tweets negative comments on their own page that is violating free speech. I don't think the 2nd amendment guarantees my right to tag the president in social media posts, unless I'm not understanding.
Re: Donald Trump Blocking Accounts on Twitter 'violates US Constitution'
#4Twitter is comparable to a modern form of town hall meeting?
Re: Donald Trump Blocking Accounts on Twitter 'violates US Constitution'
#5I don't use twitter can anyone explain this? When the article says he blocked users, that just means he blocked them from writing on his page? Those people are still free to create their own tweets on their page, correct? I don't see how that violates free speech. Using the article's "town hall" metaphor, if he asked to have someone removed from the town hall meeting aren't they still free to protest outside on the s…
I’ve just skimmed the news on this, but from what I gather they’re asking for a reversal of that xkcd cartoon (the link for which someone will supply shortly): you can say whatever you want, but “free speech” does not guarantee you an audience. The plaintiff, AFAICT, is saying they have a Constitutional right to an audience (audience in this case being D. Trump). Or maybe the audience is supposed to be Trump’s Twitter followers, and they’re asking that their tweets show up on Trump’s feed so that they get that audience. Either seems to be quite a stretch to my IANAL mind.
Re: Donald Trump Blocking Accounts on Twitter 'violates US Constitution'
#6One thing to note here is that this isn't an out-of-the-blue abstract argument, but applies reasoning in recent cases addressing government officials use of social media outlets and the First Amendment. Obviously, Trump is higher profile than any of the officials in previous cases, but this is a potentially significant, developing area of law in the intersection of government and technology that reaches more than just Trump's Twitter account.
Original letter (with citations to legal precedent): https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3859469-White-House-...
Original Knight Institute release: https://knightcolumbia.org/news/knight-institute-demands-pre...
Additional legal analysis on the issue (written before and independently of the Knight Institute letter, but updated in light of it): http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2017/06/articles/attorney/...
Re: Donald Trump Blocking Accounts on Twitter 'violates US Constitution'
#7I don't use twitter can anyone explain this? When the article says he blocked users, that just means he blocked them from writing on his page? Those people are still free to create their own tweets on their page, correct? I don't see how that violates free speech. Using the article's "town hall" metaphor, if he asked to have someone removed from the town hall meeting aren't they still free to protest outside on the s…
> I don't use twitter can anyone explain this?
The short version is that there are a line of existing federal First Amendment cases which are united by the principle that social media forums used by government officials in their official capacity are, in that context, “limited public forums”, and that restrictions (particularly content- or viewpoint-based ones) on participation instituted by government officials (including the one controlling the relevant social media account) in that context are generally in contravention of the First Amendment.
I've linked sources which address both the original letter (which make its own legal argument with citations to relevant precedent) and a separate analysis addressing the same general issue (again, with references to relevant legal precedent) in another comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14509298
Re: Donald Trump Blocking Accounts on Twitter 'violates US Constitution'
#8The way I see it, the implication of what they are claiming is that Twitter is a utility.
Re: Donald Trump Blocking Accounts on Twitter 'violates US Constitution'
#9The way I see it, the implication of what they are claiming is that Twitter is a utility.
No, they are claiming that the @realDonaldTrump feed, specifically, is a limited public forum as that term has been established in First Amendment case law.
This has no bearing on Twitter's ability to control content, or non-government-officials using Twitter to block users, unlike what would be the case of this was about Twitter's status rather than a particular government official's feed's status.