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

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

#81

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

Packingham v. North Carolina [0] was about the constitutionality of the state banning users from social media - not on social networks issuing their own bans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packingham_v._North_Carolina

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

#82

Post by cm2012 » Wed, May 23, 2018, 6:56 PM UTC

aksss wrote: post #64

This seems wrong on the face of it. The judge asks the rhetorical question of whether the logic changes based on whether he's president or not, and he answers his question with a "No". So this is saying that no public official can block others on Twitter. That seems like it's in the "suicide pact" column of rights defense, but then I'm not one that cares about Twitter personally. Just seems that plenty of other forum…

Most politicians don't use their Twitter feed to make policy, like Trump does. If you run a widget business, and Trump makes a tweet that says, "I ban all widgets, especially widget company x", you should have the right to see that from the source.

That's the distinction the judge made - Trump uses his feed as an official government policy mouthpiece.

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

#83

Post by jdoliner » Wed, May 23, 2018, 6:57 PM UTC

snerbles wrote: post #81

jdoliner wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Packingham v. North Carolina [0] was about the constitutionality of the state banning users from social media - not on social networks issuing their own bans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packingham_v._North_Carolina

Yup, corrected above.

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

#84

Post by FireBeyond » Wed, May 23, 2018, 6:58 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…

He forced that on himself. His administration even announced they considered his Twitter statements "official statements":

https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/06/politics/trump-tweets-officia...

So no-one to blame but himself. He'd rather use his personal Twitter than @potus, because it's all about his "brand" to him.

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

#85

Post by danhon » Wed, May 23, 2018, 6:58 PM UTC

jdoliner wrote: post #71

sp332 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Government is doing it. If Facebook is doing it at the direction of a government entity and would otherwise not do it (and this is where I would expect case law to get into the contextual details of implicit/explicit direction etc) then government is acting in violation of the first amendment.

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

#86

Post by sp332 » Wed, May 23, 2018, 6:59 PM UTC

jdoliner wrote: post #71

sp332 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It doesn't result in the same thing. If Facebook bans someone, they can't log in. If the state bans someone, they can be fined or jailed. And in this particular case, he was banned from all social media and a bunch of other websites.

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

#87

Post by AckSyn » Wed, May 23, 2018, 6:59 PM UTC

mieseratte wrote: post #77

frockington wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> 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?

Yup, that's the crux of it.

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

#88

Post by [deleted] » Wed, May 23, 2018, 6:59 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…

[deleted]

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

#89

Post by rhacker » Wed, May 23, 2018, 6:59 PM UTC

rtkwe wrote: post #36

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 crucial part is who is doing the blocking. Twitter as a private company can block, Trump as a member of the government on an official government channel cannot. Companies do not have a constitutional obligation in the first the government does.

Oh there's definitely some path of legal wrangling that may end up compelling Twitter to do something here. In the end whether that's true or not will simply come down to a Judge and if Twitter wishes to fight further (eventually to the top court) or stop and give in. It doesn't have to be written in the constitution for someone to be compelled to do something wacky in this country.

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

#90

Post by Karishma1234 » Wed, May 23, 2018, 6:59 PM UTC

I am not legal expert but it makes perfect sense that any government official must not deny access to information to any citizen which is easily available to another.

Blocking means other person can not see trump's tweets. I believe Trump can always mute other people.

Let us consider the following scenarios :

- Trump blocks only black people on Twitter. - Hawaii's missile alert systems issues a real missile alert on their Twitter but Mr X does not get it because he was blocked by them. - Mr. Joe goes to local DMV to get a driving manual. DMV clerk closes the window on his face and refused to give him the manual.

How is twitter scenario different here ?