18 ms·

Judge Rules Trump Can’t Block People on Twitter

291 points by lumisota 8y ago

pacifika 8y ago
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?
- oddevan 8y ago
  I would imagine it’s analogous to blocking phone numbers on the White House switchboard: freedom of speech in this context means that the President cannot artificially limit who speaks to him through publicly-available means.
  - sgnelson 8y ago
    Yes, he doesn't have to listen to the callers, but he has to allow people to be able to contact him.
- rovek 8y ago
  Blocking on Twitter also prevents the blocked user from view the blocker's timeline, which means Trump would be preventing US citizens from viewing his "public statements" Edit: Is this being downvoted because of some inferred snark? None was intended.
  - sp332 8y ago
    You can kind of get around this by viewing the site while logged out. But I don't know if that kind of thing is supported in any of the apps, so it's a big hoop to jump through.
    - rovek 8y ago
      Oh this is definitely true of the Twitter website but I would assume any barrier implemented is illegal, however ineffectual.
  - Andre_Wanglin 8y ago
    You are being downvoted because you are wrong. Blocked users can log out and read to their hearts' content.
    - spookthesunset 8y ago
      > Blocked users can log out and read to their hearts' content. So private citizens now have to work around a block from President of the United States in order to read official communication? Is that the kind of country you want to live in? You know for sure as shit that homeboy was blocking more then Rolex watch spammers and markov chain bots. He was blocking the accounts of journalists, dissenters, and other private citizens. That is a fucked up thing for somebody who is a public official. What kind of dangerous precedent does allowing that kind of behavior set?
      - Andre_Wanglin 8y ago
        How is logging out of Twitter a workaround? The blocking doesn't prevent anyone from reading the communications anymore than not being allowed into the Brady Room prevents anyone from seeing White House press conferences.
      - jexah 8y ago
        Not arguing one way or the other with regards to the original topic, but you are jumping to conclusions with no basis. "Private citizens" as a set naturally do not have to work around anything, as being a private citizen does not imply that one has a Twitter account. Entities (private citizens, corporations, or whatever else) that own a Twitter account, have done something that Trump believes warrants blocking, and are logged in, are prevented from viewing his tweets while logged into that specific account. The argument that anybody is prevented specifically from "reading" official communication is paper thin. The problem was that the government was effectively blocking private citizens' ability to reply and share under their preferred (potentially verified) identity.
    - Marysville 8y ago
      That would be akin to saying you can access your President by giving up your passport. I can't believe people are defending this.
- evan_ 8y ago
  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 to the text of a presidential speech- obviously unconstitutional. (not a perfect comparison because twitter users who are blocked can and do get around it by screenshotting or just linking to the tweet even though they can't reply to it) I think the more interesting part of this is the ruling that the president's "personal" twitter account is an official government instrument.
  - badlucklottery 8y ago
    >I think the more interesting part of this is the ruling that the president's "personal" twitter account is an official government instrument. Didn't the administration state that Trump's tweets are official statements a while back? That might be a big reason why. Edit: Yup, they did. https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/06/politics/trump-tweets-official-statements/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/06/politics/trump-tweets-officia...
    - some_random 8y ago
      Ah, that changes things significantly. While I'm still concerned about the potential application of this case onto others, the ruling is far more reasonable imo.
      - ubernostrum 8y ago
        The ruling basically seems to come down to: * If you are a government official, and * If you have an account on a social-media network, and * If you use that account to make official statements in your official capacity as a government official, then * You must follow the rules government officials are subject to with respect to channels for official communications in their official capacities. Among those rules are: you have to let the general public see what you're saying, and give them the opportunity to reply and comment, and cannot prevent them from seeing, replying or commenting simply because you don't like their opinions. This should be completely unsurprising, but apparently a lot of people on HN are surprised at this. (another fun and as-yet-undecided-by-a-court question is whether it's legal for him to delete tweets, since there are also record-keeping laws which typically require official communications to be preserved, and apparently HN is surprised at that too, judging from some of the other subthreads here)
- DavideNL 8y ago
  I'm not sure if replies to a tweet from someone who blocked you are associated with the tweet you replied to. If not, the followers would not see the reply in that thread/ conversation.
- Ajedi32 8y ago
  Pretty sure you can't directly reply to the Tweets of people who blocked you. So if Trump blocks someone on Twitter, they're no longer able to participate in conversations resulting from his tweets. (Unless they just make a new account, of course.)
jordan801 8y ago
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", and you use your social media as a medium, are you entitled to privacy in the same way a standard citizen is? Or does that medium become public property? It's probably best that "public servants" don't use their private materials in an official capacity. [edit] switched public capacity to official.
- Retric 8y ago
  The ruling revolves around how he is using the account. If the had been just giving cooking tips then it would not have been considered a 'government' account which seem reasonable.
  - jordan801 8y ago
    That's exactly what I am saying. Since he's using it in an official capacity, it becomes questionable. I agree with the ruling, as it pertains to his usage.
- posterboy 8y ago
  I fully agree, just as movie stars enter into contracts to limit their public appearance, because image is everything. Trump is nothing much more, in my view.
- BryantD 8y ago
  There's some interesting stuff around Nikki Haley's personal Twitter account in the same vein. This is a specific State Department policy, but she's not supposed to make official announcements on her private Twitter account because it's increasing the value of her personal property using her governmental status. See https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/20/nikki-haley-personal-twitter-account-597279 https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/20/nikki-haley-person... for more. Trump is obviously doing the same thing, but since there's no official policy about it...
pcunite 8y ago
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 exercise your rights to drop my comment to the bottom.
- hrktb 8y ago
  I guess the issue would be what happens when these comments are said face to face. If they are punishable, they should be, wether done on twitter or face to face. I they are not, they shouldn’t be banned, as you wouldn’t ban them from the public place IRL. Note that anyone can still mute them, just as you can ignore people IRL.
- sdhgaiojfsa 8y ago
  Free speech rights apply to more than just those words one would say face to face.
- modbait 8y ago
  This is the key. If no one is allowed to moderate this stuff, legitimate replies will simply be drowned in a sea of garbage. (Not that I personally care, since I've already dumped Twitter.)
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > 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. Wouldn't many say the same about Trump's comments? I don't meant that to be provocative, but to point out that standards of behavior get complicated. At the same time, I'm happy that craziness isn't on HN!
- middleclick 8y ago
  That's not how it works. Who gets to say what is crazy?
itg 8y ago
Will this apply to all government officials on twitter? Can twitter still ban a user if they deem the content to be harassment/etc?
- Taniwha 8y ago
  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
  - brownell 8y ago
    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?
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      I believe it's the former.
    - Taniwha 8y ago
      it's the former, you can also 'mute' someone which is the latter
- sp332 8y ago
  This is covered in the quote in the 4th paragraph. It applies to all government officials, but it only covers reactions to political statements. Harassment is still a valid reason to block someone. If they like a sports team the official doesn't, that's probably valid too.
  - xienze 8y ago
    > It applies to all government officials, but it only covers reactions to political statements. Harassment is still a valid reason to block someone. And if the reaction to every single Trump tweet is “you’re scum I hope you die REEEEEE!”, does that person get a ban? Probably if the official’s anyone other than Trump, I’d guess. Seriously, you folks should look at the people banned, it’s a bunch of losers that would auto post some variant of “you’re an asshole” ten seconds after every Tweet, and they would rocket to the top of the reply list. In a sane world that would be considered harassment and not a valid reaction to a political statement, but whatever.
jdoliner 8y ago
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.
- zerostar07 8y ago
  they ll probably implement something like "you are banned from all twitter except trump"
  - izzydata 8y ago
    That seems like cruel and unusual punishment.
    - zerostar07 8y ago
      but it's an easy way to deal with the trolls who will go after twitter for "blocking their access to the president"
- sp332 8y ago
  The first amendment doesn't apply to Twitter (the company). It applies to governments.
  - jdoliner 8y ago
    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 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1194_08l1.pdf
    - 8y ago
Jeremy1026 8y ago
"The judge declined to issue an order forcing Trump to unblock the users, saying her ruling should be sufficient to force a change in behavior." Because Trump is the master of sub-text and will pick up that he should unblock them.
- Consultant32452 8y ago
  Can you imagine a court appointed official sitting next to Trump watching him unblock everyone, one by one? What a stupid situation. Hopefully Twitter will throw him a bone and offer to mute everyone that was blocked on the back-end.
  - spookthesunset 8y ago
    Or better, make it public which accounts he blocked... (assuming this list hasn't already entered public record by way of this judgement)
pcunite 8y ago
So, would it be okay for Trump's YouTube channel to prevent any comment from being made? That's a feature of YouTube. Might need to enable that for Twitter.
- icebraining 8y ago
  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.
  - paulddraper 8y ago
    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.
    - function_seven 8y ago
      Disabling all comments on a video just makes it akin to a regular broadcast. I see no 1st Amendment issue with broadcasting a video.
    - icebraining 8y ago
      Content-based restrictions must pass strict scrutiny (my layman understanding is essentially: there must be a very good reason to restrict, and the law doesn't restrict any more than it absolutely has to), and it rarely passes the bar. Other kinds of restrictions can be illegal too, but the level of scrutiny is lower.
    - ubernostrum 8y ago
      The government can publish official communications in video form, and say "please direct comments to <insert communications channel here>" 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.
zerostar07 8y ago
This is funny. it sounds like it will be more work for twitter than it will be for Trump
- icebraining 8y ago
  Twitter doesn't have to do anything.
  - theandrewbailey 8y ago
    And technically, since the court didn't order anything, neither does Trump.
    - icebraining 8y ago
      A court doesn't have to order anything; the law does. The court just clarified what the law means.
ChuckMcM 8y ago
An interesting ruling, here is my prediction on the effect of the ruling: This will enable the twitterati to get Trump off Twitter. Without the ability to block users, he will be hounded with notifications from adversaries using trigger phrases designed to irritate and harass him.
- striking 8y ago
  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.
  - forapurpose 8y ago
    > 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.
    - txcwpalpha 8y ago
      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.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      There's nothing saying that a government has to listen to you.
cwkoss 8y ago
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.
- some_random 8y ago
  I'd imagine so, the right to free speech doesn't mean the government has to listen, right?
- frockington 8y ago
  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
  - mieseratte 8y ago
    > 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?
    - AckSyn 8y ago
      > 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.
    - mschuster91 8y ago
      > It was his family name some time ago, so is this just the other sides' "Barack Hussein Obama" or is there more to it? No, it's not the same thing. The Hussein thing is that the Alt-Right uses it to imply Obama being a Muslim (which he is not) and thus, by extension, a terrorist supporter/enabler. The Drumpf thing, however, is nothing more than highlighting the family origin (which Trump actually even stated himself, per https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-drumpf/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-drumpf/).
0xcafecafe 8y ago
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?
- freedomben 8y ago
  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."
  - droopybuns 8y ago
    By that reasoning, this Judge’s ruling must be totally subjective. https://www.engadget.com/2017/03/17/fbi-apprehends-troll-for-seizure-inducing-twitter-attack/ https://www.engadget.com/2017/03/17/fbi-apprehends-troll-for...
    - freedomben 8y ago
      That case isn't about "trolling," it's about causing physical harm to someone through electronic means. It's more equivalent to electronic warfare. I don't equate trolling (which is annoying, and irritating) with electronic warfare (which could literally kill you). And if it isn't subjective, then what is the objective measure that you use to determine if something is "trolling" or not?
- jcranmer 8y ago
  US First Amendment law is quite complex, and there's a lot of annoying little details to consider. Essentially, designating a public forum means that the only restrictions are "time, place, and manner", and restrictions must be content-neutral. Furthermore, even the time/place/manner restrictions have to follow some level of reasonableness, with the exact level dependent on mildly arcane details, and I don't know the exact details here. The safest thing to do is say that he can't block trolls, because it's always easiest to default to assume that blocking speech is unconstitutional. First Amendment rights are surprisingly far-ranging--it's unconstitutional for a city to deny neo-Nazis the right to march in a neighborhood of Holocaust survivors.
aksss 8y ago
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 forums and even avenues on Twitter for expression remain after blockage from one person's feed. 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. Curious how this shakes out to other mediums.
- cm2012 8y ago
  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.
  - mal10c 8y ago
    A mouthpiece yes, but an official way to "make policy" no. Policy is still created through official means like signing executive orders, etc.
    - spookthesunset 8y ago
      > A mouthpiece yes, but an official way to "make policy" no Sorry but you are wrong. Trump's administration has stated that his tweets are official statements. Meaning, he can't block people who reply to his tweets. https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/06/politics/trump-tweets-official-statements/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/06/politics/trump-tweets-officia...
      - mal10c 8y ago
        Huh, I stand corrected. Good find.
davebryand 8y ago
This is not a good sign.
patrickg_zill 8y ago
So, can Twitter block people?
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  Sure. Twitter isn't POTUS.
Karishma1234 8y ago
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 ?
- mal10c 8y ago
  Because Twitter is not a government owned entity, the government should have no right to force the use or means of use of a private tool. Now if the tool was a government utility, it would be a different story.
  - cmiles74 8y ago
    Nobody is forcing Trump to use Twitter. They are saying that if he uses Twitter, he must leave his tweets open to all the public and not a subset. President Trump could always choose to close his account if he finds this requirement to be too onerous.
    - paulddraper 8y ago
      Do his Gmail emails need to be open to all the public? His Slack messages? His Facebook posts? I don't see how anyone, president or otherwise, can't chose whom they send messages to.
      - acdha 8y ago
        His official communications are in fact required to comply with federal records law. Obviously that’s not the same as being public now but they would need to be given to the National Archives at the end of his term and eventually released following the standard process for handling secrecy concerns.
briandear 8y ago
Funny, the principal of the Parkland school has blocked parents of victims. I wonder if this ruling affects him as well.
V-2 8y ago
People are not blocked. Only accounts are blocked. It's not the same thing at all. It's trivial (and free) to create another account; in other words, the ban is not tied to you as a person, only to certain account. Besides, you can still read all tweets of whoever blocked you; all it takes is logging out of your blocked account, or not logging in in the first place. They can't comment anymore, true. But by this line of reasoning, is Trump (or any president / public official, for that matter) obliged to take phone calls from everyone?
koolba 8y ago
> The judge said the comment section of Trump’s personal account, @realDonaldTrump, 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. If this applied to @potus I might agree with it but applying it to his personal account is rubbish. You could easily extend that same logic to say that any elected official, at any level of government, can't block communications from anyone on their personal accounts. Trump using his personal account to comment on "work" (i.e. being President) doesn't de facto make it a work account no more than me complaining about my job on my personal email turns it into a work email.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- giarc 8y ago
  But is it his personal account anymore? It's a verified account with the description of "45th President of the United States of America". When he speaks (tweets) he speaks as the POTUS. Doesn't matter if it's from the @potus account or @realdonaldtrump account.
  - koolba 8y ago
    > But is it his personal account anymore? Yes. For example one of his tweets from earlier today isn't a matter of public policy, it's his opinion on the current state of affairs: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/999282325316866048 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/99928232531686604... > It's a verified account with the description of "45th President of the United States of America". Many people on Twitter have "Works @company" or "$TITLE as Company" on their verified accounts. That doesn't make their account the property of their employer. It's purely a declarative, factual, statement. > When he speaks (tweets) he speaks as the POTUS. Doesn't matter if it's from the @potus account or @realdonaldtrump account. I'm saying it does. Whether it's in a personal capacity or public capacity matters. In this case there's a clear separation too as he's got access to the @potus and he seems to use that for official business.
    - 8y ago
masters3d 8y ago
Twitter will respond with deprecation for Blocking in favor of a new feature. Ignore. which will only be available for celebrities.
- chipperyman573 8y ago
  They already have this, it just doesn't block accounts from seeing what you've posted https://help.twitter.com/en/using-twitter/twitter-mute https://help.twitter.com/en/using-twitter/twitter-mute
mnm1 8y ago
I want to know how this court plans to enforce this ruling. Or are we just going to accept that the president is above the law when he declines to follow the ruling and keeps blocking people? I bet it'll be the latter.
megaman22 8y ago
Trump has multiple twitter accounts. His primary one is @realDonaldTrump, which he's been using since 2009, long before he was a government figure. This is his private citizen Twitter account, as far as I'm concerned, and he can do whatever he damn well pleases there. If he were to block people from his @POTUS President Donald Trump account, then I might take issue with that.
- ryan-c 8y ago
  Has he ever used the POTUS account? From its recent activity it appears to be run by a PR team and only retweets things. As far as Twitter is concerned, his "personal account" is an official government account, exempt from being banned for posting content that otherwise would violate Twitter's ToS.
- eghad 8y ago
  The President of the United States actively chooses to use @realDonaldTrump as in the same manner as a government official would in any other public forum, as such he must comply with the rules governing them as enshrined in the Constitution, features of that forum notwithstanding. The moment he began using it in a official capacity, was the moment it stopped being personal. Imagine if he was in a physical town hall, the placard in front of him doesn't change the fact that he's a government official.
- lightbyte 8y ago
  >This is his private citizen Twitter account, as far as I'm concerned, and he can do whatever he damn well pleases there. @realDonaldTrump is his official account, as per whitehouse.gov [1] [1] http://web.archive.org/web/20180523194453/https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-trump-administration/ http://web.archive.org/web/20180523194453/https://www.whiteh...
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  No. @realDonaldTrump ceased being a personal account when he started using it for official business.
danso 8y ago
FWIW, whitehouse.gov lists @realdonaldtrump (as opposed to @POTUS) as the President's official Twitter account: http://web.archive.org/web/20180523194453/https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-trump-administration/ http://web.archive.org/web/20180523194453/https://www.whiteh...
Andre_Wanglin 8y ago
Now let her enforce it.
droopybuns 8y ago
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Hard to grasp the logic here.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
jonny_eh 8y ago
So is Twitter going to comply and prevent Trump, as well as other public officials, from blocking people?
jeffdavis 8y ago
Traditionally, the publisher exercises control (and has responsibility for) content. So who are the publishers here? What parts of twitter are the public forum? Twitter itself, or individual accounts as well?
JasonFruit 8y ago
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 which they disagree? I think there's a lot of nuance this opinion doesn't address.
- DeepYogurt 8y ago
  Maybe this will lead to the end of twitter use by public officials :)
- dnautics 8y ago
  > this opinion do you mean techcrunch article's opinion or the judicial opinion?
  - JasonFruit 8y ago
    The judicial opinion, from the excerpts I found, didn't look inclined to address any of these questions.
- Buttons840 8y ago
  They could create there own webpage capable of displaying hundreds of bytes worth of text and post messages there to get around this, right?
- zamalek 8y ago
  I'm not sure about the school board; having to consider (or at least read) all public feedback doesn't extend far "below" governor AFAIK. > can't block me on Twitter if I go on crazy racist tirades If they did have to read it (again, not sure), they wouldn't be forced to retweet it. So some poor soul would have to read that vitriol but you wouldn't be defacing their profile.
- alistairSH 8y ago
  IANAL... would this apply to government officials who maintain a private account and use a government account for work? In Trump's case (and Haley, and many others), he uses his personal account for business. And the President could be an edge case, and simply unable to separate private and business messages. The local dog catcher should be able to maintain that separation.
cryptonector 8y ago
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.
- jrs95 8y ago
  It logically should. It either is or isn’t the public square.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > 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.
  - cryptonector 8y ago
    It's still a slippery slope.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      In the sense of the fallacy, yes.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago
From the wikipedia page about the decision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Reice_Buchwald#Knight_First_Amendment_Institute_v._Donald_J._Trump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Reice_Buchwald#Knight_Fi... >Buchwald declined, however, to issue an injunction against the President, and instead issued a declaration with the statement that "we must assume that the President and [Daniel] Scavino will remedy the blocking we have held to be unconstitutional." So for now, Trump really doesn't have to change anything.
smsm42 8y ago
Looks like the judge just decided "oh, it's against Trump? I hate Trump, so whatever it is I am on the plaintiff's side". We should expect better from judges. 1st amendment has nothing to do with being able to annoy Trump via his personal Twitter account. And it is fascinating how Twitter, Facebook etc. are private companies with no obligations when it is convenient to censor, but suddenly turn into "public forum" when other convenience demands it.
breakyerself 8y ago
There are police departments all over the US illegally censoring critical sentiment on Facebook. The only way to stop them is to sue each one that does it. Makes me angry. Pasco PD gets away with murder. Literally and figuratively.

291 points by lumisota 8y ago

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?

oddevan 8y ago
I would imagine it’s analogous to blocking phone numbers on the White House switchboard: freedom of speech in this context means that the President cannot artificially limit who speaks to him through publicly-available means.
- sgnelson 8y ago
  Yes, he doesn't have to listen to the callers, but he has to allow people to be able to contact him.
rovek 8y ago
Blocking on Twitter also prevents the blocked user from view the blocker's timeline, which means Trump would be preventing US citizens from viewing his "public statements" Edit: Is this being downvoted because of some inferred snark? None was intended.
- sp332 8y ago
  You can kind of get around this by viewing the site while logged out. But I don't know if that kind of thing is supported in any of the apps, so it's a big hoop to jump through.
  - rovek 8y ago
    Oh this is definitely true of the Twitter website but I would assume any barrier implemented is illegal, however ineffectual.
- Andre_Wanglin 8y ago
  You are being downvoted because you are wrong. Blocked users can log out and read to their hearts' content.
  - spookthesunset 8y ago
    > Blocked users can log out and read to their hearts' content. So private citizens now have to work around a block from President of the United States in order to read official communication? Is that the kind of country you want to live in? You know for sure as shit that homeboy was blocking more then Rolex watch spammers and markov chain bots. He was blocking the accounts of journalists, dissenters, and other private citizens. That is a fucked up thing for somebody who is a public official. What kind of dangerous precedent does allowing that kind of behavior set?
    - Andre_Wanglin 8y ago
      How is logging out of Twitter a workaround? The blocking doesn't prevent anyone from reading the communications anymore than not being allowed into the Brady Room prevents anyone from seeing White House press conferences.
    - jexah 8y ago
      Not arguing one way or the other with regards to the original topic, but you are jumping to conclusions with no basis. "Private citizens" as a set naturally do not have to work around anything, as being a private citizen does not imply that one has a Twitter account. Entities (private citizens, corporations, or whatever else) that own a Twitter account, have done something that Trump believes warrants blocking, and are logged in, are prevented from viewing his tweets while logged into that specific account. The argument that anybody is prevented specifically from "reading" official communication is paper thin. The problem was that the government was effectively blocking private citizens' ability to reply and share under their preferred (potentially verified) identity.
  - Marysville 8y ago
    That would be akin to saying you can access your President by giving up your passport. I can't believe people are defending this.
evan_ 8y ago
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 to the text of a presidential speech- obviously unconstitutional. (not a perfect comparison because twitter users who are blocked can and do get around it by screenshotting or just linking to the tweet even though they can't reply to it) I think the more interesting part of this is the ruling that the president's "personal" twitter account is an official government instrument.
- badlucklottery 8y ago
  >I think the more interesting part of this is the ruling that the president's "personal" twitter account is an official government instrument. Didn't the administration state that Trump's tweets are official statements a while back? That might be a big reason why. Edit: Yup, they did. https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/06/politics/trump-tweets-official-statements/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/06/politics/trump-tweets-officia...
  - some_random 8y ago
    Ah, that changes things significantly. While I'm still concerned about the potential application of this case onto others, the ruling is far more reasonable imo.
    - ubernostrum 8y ago
      The ruling basically seems to come down to: * If you are a government official, and * If you have an account on a social-media network, and * If you use that account to make official statements in your official capacity as a government official, then * You must follow the rules government officials are subject to with respect to channels for official communications in their official capacities. Among those rules are: you have to let the general public see what you're saying, and give them the opportunity to reply and comment, and cannot prevent them from seeing, replying or commenting simply because you don't like their opinions. This should be completely unsurprising, but apparently a lot of people on HN are surprised at this. (another fun and as-yet-undecided-by-a-court question is whether it's legal for him to delete tweets, since there are also record-keeping laws which typically require official communications to be preserved, and apparently HN is surprised at that too, judging from some of the other subthreads here)
DavideNL 8y ago
I'm not sure if replies to a tweet from someone who blocked you are associated with the tweet you replied to. If not, the followers would not see the reply in that thread/ conversation.
Ajedi32 8y ago
Pretty sure you can't directly reply to the Tweets of people who blocked you. So if Trump blocks someone on Twitter, they're no longer able to participate in conversations resulting from his tweets. (Unless they just make a new account, of course.)

jordan801 8y ago

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", and you use your social media as a medium, are you entitled to privacy in the same way a standard citizen is? Or does that medium become public property? It's probably best that "public servants" don't use their private materials in an official capacity. [edit] switched public capacity to official.

Retric 8y ago
The ruling revolves around how he is using the account. If the had been just giving cooking tips then it would not have been considered a 'government' account which seem reasonable.
- jordan801 8y ago
  That's exactly what I am saying. Since he's using it in an official capacity, it becomes questionable. I agree with the ruling, as it pertains to his usage.
posterboy 8y ago
I fully agree, just as movie stars enter into contracts to limit their public appearance, because image is everything. Trump is nothing much more, in my view.
BryantD 8y ago
There's some interesting stuff around Nikki Haley's personal Twitter account in the same vein. This is a specific State Department policy, but she's not supposed to make official announcements on her private Twitter account because it's increasing the value of her personal property using her governmental status. See https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/20/nikki-haley-personal-twitter-account-597279 https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/20/nikki-haley-person... for more. Trump is obviously doing the same thing, but since there's no official policy about it...

pcunite 8y ago

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 exercise your rights to drop my comment to the bottom.

hrktb 8y ago
I guess the issue would be what happens when these comments are said face to face. If they are punishable, they should be, wether done on twitter or face to face. I they are not, they shouldn’t be banned, as you wouldn’t ban them from the public place IRL. Note that anyone can still mute them, just as you can ignore people IRL.
sdhgaiojfsa 8y ago
Free speech rights apply to more than just those words one would say face to face.
modbait 8y ago
This is the key. If no one is allowed to moderate this stuff, legitimate replies will simply be drowned in a sea of garbage. (Not that I personally care, since I've already dumped Twitter.)
forapurpose 8y ago
> 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. Wouldn't many say the same about Trump's comments? I don't meant that to be provocative, but to point out that standards of behavior get complicated. At the same time, I'm happy that craziness isn't on HN!
middleclick 8y ago
That's not how it works. Who gets to say what is crazy?

itg 8y ago

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

Taniwha 8y ago
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
- brownell 8y ago
  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?
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    I believe it's the former.
  - Taniwha 8y ago
    it's the former, you can also 'mute' someone which is the latter
sp332 8y ago
This is covered in the quote in the 4th paragraph. It applies to all government officials, but it only covers reactions to political statements. Harassment is still a valid reason to block someone. If they like a sports team the official doesn't, that's probably valid too.
- xienze 8y ago
  > It applies to all government officials, but it only covers reactions to political statements. Harassment is still a valid reason to block someone. And if the reaction to every single Trump tweet is “you’re scum I hope you die REEEEEE!”, does that person get a ban? Probably if the official’s anyone other than Trump, I’d guess. Seriously, you folks should look at the people banned, it’s a bunch of losers that would auto post some variant of “you’re an asshole” ten seconds after every Tweet, and they would rocket to the top of the reply list. In a sane world that would be considered harassment and not a valid reaction to a political statement, but whatever.

jdoliner 8y ago

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.

zerostar07 8y ago
they ll probably implement something like "you are banned from all twitter except trump"
- izzydata 8y ago
  That seems like cruel and unusual punishment.
  - zerostar07 8y ago
    but it's an easy way to deal with the trolls who will go after twitter for "blocking their access to the president"
sp332 8y ago
The first amendment doesn't apply to Twitter (the company). It applies to governments.
- jdoliner 8y ago
  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 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1194_08l1.pdf
  - 8y ago

Jeremy1026 8y ago

"The judge declined to issue an order forcing Trump to unblock the users, saying her ruling should be sufficient to force a change in behavior." Because Trump is the master of sub-text and will pick up that he should unblock them.

Consultant32452 8y ago
Can you imagine a court appointed official sitting next to Trump watching him unblock everyone, one by one? What a stupid situation. Hopefully Twitter will throw him a bone and offer to mute everyone that was blocked on the back-end.
- spookthesunset 8y ago
  Or better, make it public which accounts he blocked... (assuming this list hasn't already entered public record by way of this judgement)

pcunite 8y ago

So, would it be okay for Trump's YouTube channel to prevent any comment from being made? That's a feature of YouTube. Might need to enable that for Twitter.

icebraining 8y ago
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.
- paulddraper 8y ago
  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.
  - function_seven 8y ago
    Disabling all comments on a video just makes it akin to a regular broadcast. I see no 1st Amendment issue with broadcasting a video.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    Content-based restrictions must pass strict scrutiny (my layman understanding is essentially: there must be a very good reason to restrict, and the law doesn't restrict any more than it absolutely has to), and it rarely passes the bar. Other kinds of restrictions can be illegal too, but the level of scrutiny is lower.
  - ubernostrum 8y ago
    The government can publish official communications in video form, and say "please direct comments to <insert communications channel here>" 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.

zerostar07 8y ago

This is funny. it sounds like it will be more work for twitter than it will be for Trump

icebraining 8y ago
Twitter doesn't have to do anything.
- theandrewbailey 8y ago
  And technically, since the court didn't order anything, neither does Trump.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    A court doesn't have to order anything; the law does. The court just clarified what the law means.

ChuckMcM 8y ago

An interesting ruling, here is my prediction on the effect of the ruling: This will enable the twitterati to get Trump off Twitter. Without the ability to block users, he will be hounded with notifications from adversaries using trigger phrases designed to irritate and harass him.

striking 8y ago
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.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > 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.
  - txcwpalpha 8y ago
    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.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    There's nothing saying that a government has to listen to you.

cwkoss 8y ago

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.

some_random 8y ago
I'd imagine so, the right to free speech doesn't mean the government has to listen, right?
frockington 8y ago
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
- mieseratte 8y ago
  > 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?
  - AckSyn 8y ago
    > 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.
  - mschuster91 8y ago
    > It was his family name some time ago, so is this just the other sides' "Barack Hussein Obama" or is there more to it? No, it's not the same thing. The Hussein thing is that the Alt-Right uses it to imply Obama being a Muslim (which he is not) and thus, by extension, a terrorist supporter/enabler. The Drumpf thing, however, is nothing more than highlighting the family origin (which Trump actually even stated himself, per https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-drumpf/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-drumpf/).

0xcafecafe 8y ago

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?

freedomben 8y ago
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."
- droopybuns 8y ago
  By that reasoning, this Judge’s ruling must be totally subjective. https://www.engadget.com/2017/03/17/fbi-apprehends-troll-for-seizure-inducing-twitter-attack/ https://www.engadget.com/2017/03/17/fbi-apprehends-troll-for...
  - freedomben 8y ago
    That case isn't about "trolling," it's about causing physical harm to someone through electronic means. It's more equivalent to electronic warfare. I don't equate trolling (which is annoying, and irritating) with electronic warfare (which could literally kill you). And if it isn't subjective, then what is the objective measure that you use to determine if something is "trolling" or not?
jcranmer 8y ago
US First Amendment law is quite complex, and there's a lot of annoying little details to consider. Essentially, designating a public forum means that the only restrictions are "time, place, and manner", and restrictions must be content-neutral. Furthermore, even the time/place/manner restrictions have to follow some level of reasonableness, with the exact level dependent on mildly arcane details, and I don't know the exact details here. The safest thing to do is say that he can't block trolls, because it's always easiest to default to assume that blocking speech is unconstitutional. First Amendment rights are surprisingly far-ranging--it's unconstitutional for a city to deny neo-Nazis the right to march in a neighborhood of Holocaust survivors.

aksss 8y ago

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 forums and even avenues on Twitter for expression remain after blockage from one person's feed. 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. Curious how this shakes out to other mediums.

cm2012 8y ago
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.
- mal10c 8y ago
  A mouthpiece yes, but an official way to "make policy" no. Policy is still created through official means like signing executive orders, etc.
  - spookthesunset 8y ago
    > A mouthpiece yes, but an official way to "make policy" no Sorry but you are wrong. Trump's administration has stated that his tweets are official statements. Meaning, he can't block people who reply to his tweets. https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/06/politics/trump-tweets-official-statements/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/06/politics/trump-tweets-officia...
    - mal10c 8y ago
      Huh, I stand corrected. Good find.

davebryand 8y ago

This is not a good sign.

patrickg_zill 8y ago

So, can Twitter block people?

s73v3r_ 8y ago
Sure. Twitter isn't POTUS.

Karishma1234 8y ago

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 ?

mal10c 8y ago
Because Twitter is not a government owned entity, the government should have no right to force the use or means of use of a private tool. Now if the tool was a government utility, it would be a different story.
- cmiles74 8y ago
  Nobody is forcing Trump to use Twitter. They are saying that if he uses Twitter, he must leave his tweets open to all the public and not a subset. President Trump could always choose to close his account if he finds this requirement to be too onerous.
  - paulddraper 8y ago
    Do his Gmail emails need to be open to all the public? His Slack messages? His Facebook posts? I don't see how anyone, president or otherwise, can't chose whom they send messages to.
    - acdha 8y ago
      His official communications are in fact required to comply with federal records law. Obviously that’s not the same as being public now but they would need to be given to the National Archives at the end of his term and eventually released following the standard process for handling secrecy concerns.

briandear 8y ago

Funny, the principal of the Parkland school has blocked parents of victims. I wonder if this ruling affects him as well.

V-2 8y ago

People are not blocked. Only accounts are blocked. It's not the same thing at all. It's trivial (and free) to create another account; in other words, the ban is not tied to you as a person, only to certain account. Besides, you can still read all tweets of whoever blocked you; all it takes is logging out of your blocked account, or not logging in in the first place. They can't comment anymore, true. But by this line of reasoning, is Trump (or any president / public official, for that matter) obliged to take phone calls from everyone?

koolba 8y ago

> The judge said the comment section of Trump’s personal account, @realDonaldTrump, 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. If this applied to @potus I might agree with it but applying it to his personal account is rubbish. You could easily extend that same logic to say that any elected official, at any level of government, can't block communications from anyone on their personal accounts. Trump using his personal account to comment on "work" (i.e. being President) doesn't de facto make it a work account no more than me complaining about my job on my personal email turns it into a work email.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
giarc 8y ago
But is it his personal account anymore? It's a verified account with the description of "45th President of the United States of America". When he speaks (tweets) he speaks as the POTUS. Doesn't matter if it's from the @potus account or @realdonaldtrump account.
- koolba 8y ago
  > But is it his personal account anymore? Yes. For example one of his tweets from earlier today isn't a matter of public policy, it's his opinion on the current state of affairs: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/999282325316866048 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/99928232531686604... > It's a verified account with the description of "45th President of the United States of America". Many people on Twitter have "Works @company" or "$TITLE as Company" on their verified accounts. That doesn't make their account the property of their employer. It's purely a declarative, factual, statement. > When he speaks (tweets) he speaks as the POTUS. Doesn't matter if it's from the @potus account or @realdonaldtrump account. I'm saying it does. Whether it's in a personal capacity or public capacity matters. In this case there's a clear separation too as he's got access to the @potus and he seems to use that for official business.
  - 8y ago

masters3d 8y ago

Twitter will respond with deprecation for Blocking in favor of a new feature. Ignore. which will only be available for celebrities.

chipperyman573 8y ago
They already have this, it just doesn't block accounts from seeing what you've posted https://help.twitter.com/en/using-twitter/twitter-mute https://help.twitter.com/en/using-twitter/twitter-mute

mnm1 8y ago

I want to know how this court plans to enforce this ruling. Or are we just going to accept that the president is above the law when he declines to follow the ruling and keeps blocking people? I bet it'll be the latter.

megaman22 8y ago

Trump has multiple twitter accounts. His primary one is @realDonaldTrump, which he's been using since 2009, long before he was a government figure. This is his private citizen Twitter account, as far as I'm concerned, and he can do whatever he damn well pleases there. If he were to block people from his @POTUS President Donald Trump account, then I might take issue with that.

ryan-c 8y ago
Has he ever used the POTUS account? From its recent activity it appears to be run by a PR team and only retweets things. As far as Twitter is concerned, his "personal account" is an official government account, exempt from being banned for posting content that otherwise would violate Twitter's ToS.
eghad 8y ago
The President of the United States actively chooses to use @realDonaldTrump as in the same manner as a government official would in any other public forum, as such he must comply with the rules governing them as enshrined in the Constitution, features of that forum notwithstanding. The moment he began using it in a official capacity, was the moment it stopped being personal. Imagine if he was in a physical town hall, the placard in front of him doesn't change the fact that he's a government official.
lightbyte 8y ago
>This is his private citizen Twitter account, as far as I'm concerned, and he can do whatever he damn well pleases there. @realDonaldTrump is his official account, as per whitehouse.gov [1] [1] http://web.archive.org/web/20180523194453/https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-trump-administration/ http://web.archive.org/web/20180523194453/https://www.whiteh...
s73v3r_ 8y ago
No. @realDonaldTrump ceased being a personal account when he started using it for official business.

danso 8y ago

FWIW, whitehouse.gov lists @realdonaldtrump (as opposed to @POTUS) as the President's official Twitter account: http://web.archive.org/web/20180523194453/https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-trump-administration/ http://web.archive.org/web/20180523194453/https://www.whiteh...

Andre_Wanglin 8y ago

Now let her enforce it.

droopybuns 8y ago

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Hard to grasp the logic here.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

jonny_eh 8y ago

So is Twitter going to comply and prevent Trump, as well as other public officials, from blocking people?

jeffdavis 8y ago

Traditionally, the publisher exercises control (and has responsibility for) content. So who are the publishers here? What parts of twitter are the public forum? Twitter itself, or individual accounts as well?

JasonFruit 8y ago

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 which they disagree? I think there's a lot of nuance this opinion doesn't address.

DeepYogurt 8y ago
Maybe this will lead to the end of twitter use by public officials :)
dnautics 8y ago
> this opinion do you mean techcrunch article's opinion or the judicial opinion?
- JasonFruit 8y ago
  The judicial opinion, from the excerpts I found, didn't look inclined to address any of these questions.
Buttons840 8y ago
They could create there own webpage capable of displaying hundreds of bytes worth of text and post messages there to get around this, right?
zamalek 8y ago
I'm not sure about the school board; having to consider (or at least read) all public feedback doesn't extend far "below" governor AFAIK. > can't block me on Twitter if I go on crazy racist tirades If they did have to read it (again, not sure), they wouldn't be forced to retweet it. So some poor soul would have to read that vitriol but you wouldn't be defacing their profile.
alistairSH 8y ago
IANAL... would this apply to government officials who maintain a private account and use a government account for work? In Trump's case (and Haley, and many others), he uses his personal account for business. And the President could be an edge case, and simply unable to separate private and business messages. The local dog catcher should be able to maintain that separation.

cryptonector 8y ago

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.

jrs95 8y ago
It logically should. It either is or isn’t the public square.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> 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.
- cryptonector 8y ago
  It's still a slippery slope.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    In the sense of the fallacy, yes.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago

From the wikipedia page about the decision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Reice_Buchwald#Knight_First_Amendment_Institute_v._Donald_J._Trump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Reice_Buchwald#Knight_Fi... >Buchwald declined, however, to issue an injunction against the President, and instead issued a declaration with the statement that "we must assume that the President and [Daniel] Scavino will remedy the blocking we have held to be unconstitutional." So for now, Trump really doesn't have to change anything.

smsm42 8y ago

Looks like the judge just decided "oh, it's against Trump? I hate Trump, so whatever it is I am on the plaintiff's side". We should expect better from judges. 1st amendment has nothing to do with being able to annoy Trump via his personal Twitter account. And it is fascinating how Twitter, Facebook etc. are private companies with no obligations when it is convenient to censor, but suddenly turn into "public forum" when other convenience demands it.

breakyerself 8y ago

There are police departments all over the US illegally censoring critical sentiment on Facebook. The only way to stop them is to sue each one that does it. Makes me angry. Pasco PD gets away with murder. Literally and figuratively.