Judge Rules Trump Can’t Block People on Twitter • Hacker News Board

Re: Judge Rules Trump Can’t Block People on Twitter

#51

Post by forapurpose » Wed, May 23, 2018, 6:33 PM UTC

jordan801 wrote: post #4

I feel pretty conflicted on this. The way Trump is using his Twitter, it almost becomes public property. I mean he's making huge announcements, almost solely on Twitter. So, at that point, it's almost like denying public access to the State of the Union. But, on the other hand, it's his damn Twitter and he should be able to do whatever he wants with it. I guess it begs the question, when you're a "public servant", an…

> when you're a "public servant", and you use your social media as a medium, are you entitled to privacy in the same way a standard citizen is?

Public figures have different standards of privacy. For example, the standard for what a news publication can report about you are different; thresholds for slander are higher.

What is a public figure? AFAIK, it's someone who voluntarily puts themself forward as one. For example, a movie star, someone who makes public speeches, etc. Running for President of the U.S. is volunteering to be the most public figure in the world, and arguably Trump seeks publicity beyond any other president.

Re: Judge Rules Trump Can’t Block People on Twitter

#52

Post by Taniwha » Wed, May 23, 2018, 6:34 PM UTC

itg wrote: post #9

Will this apply to all government officials on twitter? Can twitter still ban a user if they deem the content to be harassment/etc?

I think this is a 1st amendment issue - which doesn't say you have the right to say anything, it actually says that the government (and the president) cannot stop you from saying things - Trump blocking people on Twitter is exactly this

Re: Judge Rules Trump Can’t Block People on Twitter

#53

Post by some_random » Wed, May 23, 2018, 6:35 PM UTC

cwkoss wrote: post #46

So Trump could still mute people, right? Seems like the reason he can't block people is because it prevents them from replying to his posts and engaging in the public conversation. Title seems a bit misleading, almost makes it sound like he has to read all of his twitter replies.

I'd imagine so, the right to free speech doesn't mean the government has to listen, right?

Re: Judge Rules Trump Can’t Block People on Twitter

#54

Post by txcwpalpha » Wed, May 23, 2018, 6:39 PM UTC

forapurpose wrote: post #47

striking wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a Mute button. It's like Block but much simpler, in that it doesn't prevent other people from following him or reading his tweets. He just won't see what they say back.

> There's a Mute button. It's like Block but much simpler, in that it doesn't prevent other people from following him or reading his tweets. He just won't see what they say back. The First Amendment concerns speech, not listening. It protects citizen's right to speak to government, not to hear what government says (not a highly sought-after civil right!). I wonder if Mute is legal.

I haven't read the full text of the decision yet, but from the parts I have read, it appears as though the judge is saying she doesn't see any issue with Trump muting people, and only is saying blocking is not allowed.

It confused me at first, because it seems like if the First Amendment would be applied to this, it would be to make sure that Twitter users can communicate to Trump, not to make sure that Twitter users can see Trump's tweets. But after understanding it a bit more, the actual issue at question here is that blocking prevents the blocked user from doing things like retweeting the blocking user's tweets, which the judge apparently sees as artificially restricting what the blocked user is able to say.

Re: Judge Rules Trump Can’t Block People on Twitter

#55

Post by frockington » Wed, May 23, 2018, 6:39 PM UTC

cwkoss wrote: post #46

So Trump could still mute people, right? Seems like the reason he can't block people is because it prevents them from replying to his posts and engaging in the public conversation. Title seems a bit misleading, almost makes it sound like he has to read all of his twitter replies.

Don't tell this to the hundreds of people who reply "Drumpf will be impeached #RESIST" to every single one of his tweets. The realization that he has never read a single one of their tweets might be enough cause a heart attack

Re: Judge Rules Trump Can’t Block People on Twitter

#56

Post by brownell » Wed, May 23, 2018, 6:41 PM UTC

Taniwha wrote: post #52

itg wrote: post #9

Will this apply to all government officials on twitter? Can twitter still ban a user if they deem the content to be harassment/etc?

I think this is a 1st amendment issue - which doesn't say you have the right to say anything, it actually says that the government (and the president) cannot stop you from saying things - Trump blocking people on Twitter is exactly this

Excuse my ignorance... You're saying that if someone blocks you on Twitter you're no longer allowed to post something with their @handle? Or that they, as the blocker, just won't see it?

If it's the former, then I would agree with you. If it's the latter, and you're not actually blocked from posting (saying) anything, then where exactly is the violation?

Re: Judge Rules Trump Can’t Block People on Twitter

#57

Post by jdoliner » Wed, May 23, 2018, 6:41 PM UTC

sp332 wrote: post #24

jdoliner wrote: post #11

Surely that must mean that Twitter banning people is also a violation of the first amendment, since that prevents them from accessing the same "public square" this ruling is protecting their access to.

The first amendment doesn't apply to Twitter (the company). It applies to governments.

Case law would disagree. Here's a case where the Supreme court ruled that Facebook banning someone was a violation of their first amendment rights. [0] Salient quote: "Foreclosing access to social media altogether thus prevents users from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights"

Edit: as pointed out, this ruling doesn't actually disagree with what the previous comment said. It does seem similar enough to me to be relevant though so leaving it up.

[0] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1194_08l1.pdf

Re: Judge Rules Trump Can’t Block People on Twitter

#58

Post by jdoliner » Wed, May 23, 2018, 6:42 PM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #25

jdoliner wrote: post #11

Surely that must mean that Twitter banning people is also a violation of the first amendment, since that prevents them from accessing the same "public square" this ruling is protecting their access to.

Nope, Twitter is not a governmental organization, therefore they're not subject to the same restrictions as Trump, who is a public official.

Commented above as well:

Case law would disagree. Here's a case where the Supreme court ruled that Facebook banning someone was a violation of their first amendment rights. [0] Salient quote: "Foreclosing access to social media altogether thus prevents users from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights"

Edit: as pointed out, this ruling doesn't actually disagree with what the previous comment said. It does seem similar enough to me to be relevant though so leaving it up. [0] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1194_08l1.pdf

Re: Judge Rules Trump Can’t Block People on Twitter

#59

Post by middleclick » Wed, May 23, 2018, 6:45 PM UTC

pcunite wrote: post #8

Has the judge read some of the comments being made? Absolute craziness in there. Some accounts should absolutely be blocked, they are repeatedly spamming and saying things you would never say in a meeting face to face. -EDIT- Funny that my comment is being down-voted. Seen everyone wants to moderate comments. If someone says something you don't like on your personal page, you should be able to stop that. You've just…

That's not how it works. Who gets to say what is crazy?

Re: Judge Rules Trump Can’t Block People on Twitter

#60

Post by sp332 » Wed, May 23, 2018, 6:48 PM UTC

jdoliner wrote: post #57

sp332 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first amendment doesn't apply to Twitter (the company). It applies to governments.

Case law would disagree. Here's a case where the Supreme court ruled that Facebook banning someone was a violation of their first amendment rights. [0] Salient quote: "Foreclosing access to social media altogether thus prevents users from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights" Edit: as pointed out, this ruling doesn't actually disagree with what the previous comment said. It does seem similar…

That is a restriction on lawmakers, not a restriction on Facebook. The law was found unconstitutional. Facebook didn't have to do anything here. As far as I can tell, he was never blocked or banned on Facebook's platform to begin with.