5 ms·

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,

by 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)
tim333 8y ago
I've noticed there are a lot of rude replies under most of Trumps tweets. I'd think it would be normal to block that kind of thing but I guess it's an odd situation - Twitter wasn't really designed for the president of the US. For example - just the most recent https://twitter.com/ronrobiins/status/999283009957318656 https://twitter.com/ronrobiins/status/999283009957318656 - presidential ain't what it used to be.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > rude replies under most of Trumps tweets He tweets many rude things, so I don't think they can cite any standard of behavior.
- evan_ 8y ago
  he can still mute people if his feelings get hurt also this is not the first president to whom people have said rude things. If the definition of "presidential" has changed it's not because of people calling Trump a "parasite".
- vaishaksuresh 8y ago
  To be fair, no president was this rude. at least, not in public.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
    - abiox 8y ago
      they aren't exclusive notions. and everyone is learning just how much "honesty" is a red herring.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      Nobody is.
    - vaishaksuresh 8y ago
      He is many things, but honest isn't one of them.
spookthesunset 8y ago
> I agree that it's kind of a questionable decision I don't see what is questionable about it. Seems pretty straightforward, actually. He is an elected official who is held accountable by the public. He is widely known to make official policy statements using twitter. He can't just block citizens from reading his policy statements. That isn't how US democracy works. > I think the more interesting part of this is the ruling that the president's "personal" twitter account is an official government instrument. Well, considering how his "personal" twitter account is being used to make official policy statements... seems that it is no longer "personal" anymore, eh? He kinda brought that on himself, eh? If all he was using Twitter for was posting pictures of his house-cats or something and not using it to conducting official government business, then you might have something to question.
- evan_ 8y ago
  > He can't just block citizens from reading his policy statements. That isn't how US democracy works. if that was the crux of the issue, the ruling would be "stop making policy statements on twitter." The vast majority of US citizens don't use twitter and a sizable portion don't even have access to a twitter-capable device.
  - abiox 8y ago
    > if that was the crux of the issue, the ruling would be "stop making policy statements on twitter." i don't think that sort of thing is within the purview of the court. > The vast majority of US citizens don't use twitter and a sizable portion don't even have access to a twitter-capable device. afaik there isn't a way to make statements in a manner that will reach all citizens.
    - Grimm665 8y ago
      > afaik there isn't a way to make statements in a manner that will reach all citizens. I don't think Clinton and all the presidents before him had trouble making statements without the use of Twitter.
SilasX 8y ago
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.

by evan_ 8y ago

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)

tim333 8y ago

I've noticed there are a lot of rude replies under most of Trumps tweets. I'd think it would be normal to block that kind of thing but I guess it's an odd situation - Twitter wasn't really designed for the president of the US. For example - just the most recent https://twitter.com/ronrobiins/status/999283009957318656 https://twitter.com/ronrobiins/status/999283009957318656 - presidential ain't what it used to be.

forapurpose 8y ago
> rude replies under most of Trumps tweets He tweets many rude things, so I don't think they can cite any standard of behavior.
evan_ 8y ago
he can still mute people if his feelings get hurt also this is not the first president to whom people have said rude things. If the definition of "presidential" has changed it's not because of people calling Trump a "parasite".
vaishaksuresh 8y ago
To be fair, no president was this rude. at least, not in public.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
  - abiox 8y ago
    they aren't exclusive notions. and everyone is learning just how much "honesty" is a red herring.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    Nobody is.
  - vaishaksuresh 8y ago
    He is many things, but honest isn't one of them.

spookthesunset 8y ago

> I agree that it's kind of a questionable decision I don't see what is questionable about it. Seems pretty straightforward, actually. He is an elected official who is held accountable by the public. He is widely known to make official policy statements using twitter. He can't just block citizens from reading his policy statements. That isn't how US democracy works. > I think the more interesting part of this is the ruling that the president's "personal" twitter account is an official government instrument. Well, considering how his "personal" twitter account is being used to make official policy statements... seems that it is no longer "personal" anymore, eh? He kinda brought that on himself, eh? If all he was using Twitter for was posting pictures of his house-cats or something and not using it to conducting official government business, then you might have something to question.

evan_ 8y ago
> He can't just block citizens from reading his policy statements. That isn't how US democracy works. if that was the crux of the issue, the ruling would be "stop making policy statements on twitter." The vast majority of US citizens don't use twitter and a sizable portion don't even have access to a twitter-capable device.
- abiox 8y ago
  > if that was the crux of the issue, the ruling would be "stop making policy statements on twitter." i don't think that sort of thing is within the purview of the court. > The vast majority of US citizens don't use twitter and a sizable portion don't even have access to a twitter-capable device. afaik there isn't a way to make statements in a manner that will reach all citizens.
  - Grimm665 8y ago
    > afaik there isn't a way to make statements in a manner that will reach all citizens. I don't think Clinton and all the presidents before him had trouble making statements without the use of Twitter.

SilasX 8y ago

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.