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

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

#281

Post by cryptonector » Wed, May 23, 2018, 10:01 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #278

cryptonector wrote: post #270

Careful there. A judge calling Twitter a "public square" might ultimately lead to an extension of Marsh v. Alabama whereby social media platforms will not be able to censor political views they dislike. Slippery slopes and all that.

> Careful there. A judge calling Twitter a "public square" might ultimately lead to an extension of Marsh v. Alabama whereby social media platforms will not be able to censor political views they dislike. The judge didn't call Twitter a “public square”, they called the space created by the @realDonaldTrump account a “public forum”; that's a critical difference.

It's still a slippery slope.

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

#282

Post by ubernostrum » Wed, May 23, 2018, 10:05 PM UTC

paulddraper wrote: post #44

icebraining wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL, but yes, I think that's OK, because it's not blocking based on the content of the speech, which is the crucial part.

How is the content the crucial part? Free speech is about free speech, not discriminating on content. It is both illegal for the government to shut down leftist newspapers, and illegal for the government to shut down all newspapers. The idiocy of this is making shutting down a newspaper equivalent to twitter blocking, but if you draw the analogy, that's what you wind up with.

The government can publish official communications in video form, and say "please direct comments to " rather than using the particular publishing platform's commenting system.

The thing the government cannot do is simultaneously use the publishing platform's comment system and block certain people, based on the content or viewpoint of their comments, from using that system.

This is how Trump got in hot water: he allowed some people to see and reply to his official communications (his administration has admitted that they see his Twitter account as an official communications channel used to make statements in his official capacity as the President) through Twitter's built-in mechanism, but not other people, and appeared to be making the choice based on the content or viewpoint of those people's comments.

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

#283

Post by derefr » Wed, May 23, 2018, 10:13 PM UTC

btreecat wrote: post #128

mal10c wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A mouthpiece yes, but an official way to "make policy" no. Policy is still created through official means like signing executive orders, etc.

They count as official statements by the POTUS. No different if he were to go on TV, Radio, etc and make an announcement/proclamation. These statements can have legal power behind them such as declassifying documents.

Is there a way to make a public statement as the POTUS that doesn't have legal force? Can the person who is the POTUS speak "as the man" rather than speaking "as the role"?

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

#284

Post by SilasX » Wed, May 23, 2018, 10:13 PM UTC

evan_ wrote: post #6

pacifika wrote: post #2

Don’t understand this. Blocking a person does not prevent the followers of said person to see the conversation , thus it’s not a public forum?

I agree that it's kind of a questionable decision but my understanding of it is, people can normally post public replies to tweets- but if the user blocks you, you can't post your public reply. OK (and desirable) for most people, not ok for the government to do. There's not necessarily a perfect offline equivalent but it would sort of be like if the president tried to forbid a newspaper from running an editorial next…

I think a better offline analogy would be if the president mailed out copies of his official statements a few days after he made them (to the general public), and included a random sample of letters to the editor about the statement. Then one day he starts filtering out letters from those he considers troublemakers.

I'm not sure there's any law requiring him to include anyone's letter; it seems he'd have unlimited discretion on whose letters he wants to bundle. I don't see how 1st Amendment rights would ever require the president to let someone use that venue for speaking.

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

#285

Post by acdha » Wed, May 23, 2018, 10:15 PM UTC

PurpleBoxDragon wrote: post #174

acdha wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can still communicate with the government using official channels and you can still view his tweets. His account is basically write-only so you’re only losing your ability to send messages which won’t be read.

So you are saying the judge's ruling is wrong then. Because you can't defend twitter banning someone making them unable to respond to Trump's tweets while saying that people have the right to respond to Trump's tweets.

The text of the ruling is out now and it shows the actual rationale:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/files/2018/0...

It focuses on the impact to the blocked user’s ability to interact with those tweets and the ensuing public discussion but does not assume any obligation on Trump to read replies.

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

#286

Post by freeone3000 » Wed, May 23, 2018, 10:20 PM UTC

3pt14159 wrote: post #159

spookthesunset wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And given that blocking is part and parcel to the app, it would seem like everyone is buying into the terms of the environment when they start using it That isn't how this works. Just because Twitter allows people to block stuff, doesn't mean Trump gets to block stuff. In a "normal" government, they'd pick a vendor with software that would let them make official policy statements in a way that complied with the law…

Oh common. Spam and a harassment is a problem. Let the people he blocks make a new account to follow him or open an incognito window.

We have the right to petition our government to redress grievances. As a public official, the bar for harassment is higher - for the President, I don't believe anything sent over twitter could be harassment.

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

#287

Post by cryptonector » Wed, May 23, 2018, 10:21 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…

Being blocked doesn't prevent you from reading it.

Nor does being blocked prevent you from petitioning the government, since twitter isn't how you petition the government.

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

#288

Post by ravitation » Wed, May 23, 2018, 10:24 PM UTC

derefr wrote: post #283

btreecat wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They count as official statements by the POTUS. No different if he were to go on TV, Radio, etc and make an announcement/proclamation. These statements can have legal power behind them such as declassifying documents.

Is there a way to make a public statement as the POTUS that doesn't have legal force? Can the person who is the POTUS speak "as the man" rather than speaking "as the role"?

As far as I can tell, that's how President Obama used his personal Twitter account vs. the @POTUS twitter account. One was personal and the other official. The Trump administration has explicitly chosen not to draw that line (for whatever reason), which is what leads inevitably to decisions like this.

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

#289

Post by morganvachon » Wed, May 23, 2018, 10:30 PM UTC

craftyguy wrote: post #276

JasonFruit wrote: post #215

Wait, any public official? So the elected school board members in my town can't block me on Twitter if I go on crazy racist tirades, as long as they're political in nature? How about the dogcatcher? He can't block PETA animal rights screed accounts? And doesn't being forced to let cranks interact with prominent accounts increase those cranks' visibility? Is that forcing the prominent person to promote speech with whi…

Are dog catchers public officials? Here they are contracted by the city. That's a pretty big difference.

It depends on the local government structure. I've lived in places where the "head dog catcher" was indeed an elected post.

In other places it is an appointment by the local board of commissioners or mayor, making it a public position. In still others, like your example, it's a contract position the local government bids on like any other contractor.

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

#290

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, May 23, 2018, 10:32 PM UTC

cryptonector wrote: post #281

dragonwriter wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Careful there. A judge calling Twitter a "public square" might ultimately lead to an extension of Marsh v. Alabama whereby social media platforms will not be able to censor political views they dislike. The judge didn't call Twitter a “public square”, they called the space created by the @realDonaldTrump account a “public forum”; that's a critical difference.

It's still a slippery slope.

In the sense of the fallacy, yes.