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

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

#71

Post by jdoliner » Wed, May 23, 2018, 6:53 PM UTC

sp332 wrote: post #60

jdoliner wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ahh, right you are. That is an important distinction. Still, it seems a little odd to me that it results in the same thing and is treated differently. What if a government asked Facebook to ban someone and they complied, is that Facebook doing it or the government.

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

#72

Post by danhon » Wed, May 23, 2018, 6:53 PM UTC

jdoliner wrote: post #58

icebraining wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sa…

See above comments. The case doesn’t say what you think it says - it’s government that isn’t allowed to foreclose access, so the underlying cause here is Carolina’s violating legislation.

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

#73

Post by ikeyany » Wed, May 23, 2018, 6:54 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.

If your account gets banned, you're unable to communicate with the government (since it is established that Twitter is the president's official communication medium). Wouldn't it thus be a violation of the first amendment?

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

#74

Post by appliestogvmt » Wed, May 23, 2018, 6:54 PM UTC

jdoliner wrote: post #58

icebraining wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sa…

You posted a link to a case involving a law in North Carolina. Facebook was not party to the case.

Would you please quote (from the link you posted) where it says that Facebook banned said user?

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

#75

Post by freedomben » Wed, May 23, 2018, 6:54 PM UTC

0xcafecafe wrote: post #63

Isn't there a caveat? The article (unlike the headline) says "blocking people based on political speech" is forbidden. However, he is still free to block trolls right?

Even if true, that's a totally subjective standard that can't be applied consistently. One person's "political speech" is another person's "troll."

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

#76

Post by jsutton » Wed, May 23, 2018, 6:54 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…

Trump cannot claim that his personal twitter account is solely his personal opinions and thus can do whatever he wants with it, whilst at the same time using it as a platform for public policy announcements and political speech.

If instead he had two accounts, one in the capacity of the POTUS and another as his own, then you may have a point. But that isn't the case.

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

#77

Post by mieseratte » Wed, May 23, 2018, 6:54 PM UTC

frockington wrote: post #55

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

> Drumpf

On a tangent, what is the deal with the "Drumpf" thing? It was his family name some time ago, so is this just the other sides' "Barack Hussein Obama" or is there more to it?

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

#78

Post by orf » Wed, May 23, 2018, 6:55 PM UTC

frockington wrote: post #55

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

The realization that those tweets are not really aimed at him might shock you.

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

#79

Post by perl4ever » Wed, May 23, 2018, 6:55 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…

There are all sorts of sticky issues that come up with no good solution when you use a private account for official business. I remember many years ago, when this was a major issue in a long-forgotten US presidential election.

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

#80

Post by rhacker » Wed, May 23, 2018, 6:55 PM UTC

lmkg wrote: post #35

zerostar07 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the conditions of the ruling still apply though:"is a public forum and that blocking users on the basis of political speech is a violation of their free-speech rights under the First Amendment". Any american user should have access to that forum without obstruction, no? It's funny how this would elevate his twitter account to unprecedented status, which means twitter will have to implement some bizarre measures.

The First Amendment only blocks the government from restricting speech, not anyone else. A private company can limit speech. The government cannot cause or compel that private company to limit speech. Also it's not clear to me that Twitter has to do anything with Trump's account. The judgement is against Trump, not against Twitter. Trump isn't allowed to use the block button, but Twitter is not under any obligation t…

If that's the case, it is likely he can just continue to block people, I don't think he's going to unblock people suddenly because of this. If he is basically immune to most lawsuits (in general - I'm sure at some point something will break that line) then why would one judge's ruling have him change his behavior. He's pretty critical of judges already.

On the other hand, if the judge wanted to see this change, requiring Twitter to both remove (his) block button and unblock all existing users (from his account only) would more likely happen.