9 ms·

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" t

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
  - sp332 8y ago
    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.
    - jdoliner 8y ago
      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.
      - danhon 8y ago
        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.
      - sp332 8y ago
        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.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - jimmyhmiller 8y ago
    Isn't this case about North Carolina (the government) banning sex offenders from social media?
  - danhon 8y ago
    I Am A Former Lawyer: cursory reading of that judgment shows it as a case of the State of North Carolina passing a law asking it illegal for someone to use a commercial social network service. Presumably Facebook are banning a user in response to a state’s law enforcement request under State law. The Suorene Court is most likely ruling that the state law was in violation of the first amendment.
- ikeyany 8y ago
  If your account gets banned, you're unable to communicate with the government (since it is established that Twitter is the president's official communication medium). Wouldn't it thus be a violation of the first amendment?
  - ryanoshea 8y ago
    Haven't read the full decision, but here's how I see it. Governmental agencies do not instruct users to get in touch via Twitter. There are dedicated phone lines, email addresses, offices, and websites that serve that purpose in an official capacity. Agencies who do conduct business in response to inquiries on Twitter do so as an added convenience on top of the other readily available public channels. When Trump uses Twitter as his primary method of addressing citizens and announcing administration policies, then selectively prevents citizens from viewing those communications, he's doing something much different (in my mind) than a private company restricting the access of a person to a service whose terms of use they have violated. The equivalence you drew doesn't seem valid — US citizens have no expectation or right to send communications to the Office of the President and have them read or acted upon. They do have that expectation/right to have equal access to public communications by the President.
  - acdha 8y ago
    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.
    - ikeyany 8y ago
      Being banned still prevents you from interacting in more ways. Trump retweets and tags people/organizations all the time.
      - larkeith 8y ago
        The key here is that the Twitter is under no responsibility to facilitate your first amendment rights. The government, solely and exclusively, cannot limit your free speech; Twitter can do whatever they want, and are under no legal obligation to provide any service whatsoever to you.
- SilasX 8y ago
  The parent wasn't saying that it does. The parent was pointing out why the logic is dubious, using a reductio: if you consider Twitter[1] a public square (as the court does), and thus you can't stop people from "petitioning the government" through it, then it's a double-edged sword: they must also protect the same speech that would be protected in a public square. It seems a more sane resolution is to treat Twitter like a private venue where an official addresses some members of the public, like the room for the Correspondents Dinner: they have no obligation to let any specific person in (esp. after they're deemed abusive). It's just that Twitter is a private venue with a much higher capacity. The right to petition the government is not the right to petition it in every possible venue. US Citizenship or personhood does not mean you can e.g. ask questions at a press room briefing; there are filters they can apply. [1] technically, the subset of it involving interaction with government officials
  - abritinthebay 8y ago
    > The parent wasn't saying that it does. Yes they were. The first amendment does not apply to Twitter. It applies to Trump. Absolutely nothing Twitter does is even capable of being a 1st Amendment issue. Not true of Trump.
    - SilasX 8y ago
      >> The parent wasn't saying that it does. >Yes they were. Where? >Absolutely nothing Twitter does is even capable of being a 1st Amendment issue. I agreed with that: >>if you consider Twitter[1] a public square (as the court does), and thus you can't stop people from "petitioning the government" through it, then it's a double-edged sword: they must also protect the same speech that would be protected in a public square. Do you understand the difference between "A implies B" and "A is true"? I was saying the former. I agree with you that the latter is false (where A="The first amendment applies to Twitter). Can you help me to find the part of my original comment that made the above unclear?
      - abritinthebay 8y ago
        > Where? Here: "that must mean that Twitter banning people is also a violation of the first amendment" That's... pretty darn clear. > Can you help me to find the part of my original comment that made the above unclear? The first two lines of your comment frame your response as counter to the position of the person you are replying to. That would be counter to you new claim that you agree it's not a 1st Amendment issue. Disagreement with a claim followed by an argument is generally taken by readers as an argument as to why the claim is wrong, not right. Just so you know for future writing.
- Viliam1234 8y ago
  > The first amendment doesn't apply to Twitter (the company). It applies to governments. So, hypothetically speaking... if Trump would move to a social network owned by his friend... then Trump would not be allowed to block anyone, but it would be okay if the friend would take a hint and ban the person from the whole platform?
icebraining 8y ago
Nope, Twitter is not a governmental organization, therefore they're not subject to the same restrictions as Trump, who is a public official.
- zerostar07 8y ago
  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.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    No, those conditions only apply to public officials.
  - lmkg 8y ago
    The First Amendment only blocks the government from restricting speech, not anyone else. A private company can limit speech. The government cannot cause or compel that private company to limit speech. Also it's not clear to me that Twitter has to do anything with Trump's account. The judgement is against Trump, not against Twitter. Trump isn't allowed to use the block button, but Twitter is not under any obligation to prevent him from using it illegally. Just the same that Twitter is not under any obligation to implement extra safeguards for twitter accounts owned by people whose conditions of parole restrict their use of social media--that's the user's issue, not Twitter's.
    - rhacker 8y ago
      If that's the case, it is likely he can just continue to block people, I don't think he's going to unblock people suddenly because of this. If he is basically immune to most lawsuits (in general - I'm sure at some point something will break that line) then why would one judge's ruling have him change his behavior. He's pretty critical of judges already. On the other hand, if the judge wanted to see this change, requiring Twitter to both remove (his) block button and unblock all existing users (from his account only) would more likely happen.
jamescostian 8y ago
1st isn't the right to hearing, it's the right to speech (but not specifically speaking on Twitter)
- briandear 8y ago
  It’s actually the right for government not to ban speech. It doesn’t apply to private entities.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - jamescostian 8y ago
    You're right, and both of the things we said argue that the comment I was replying to was misunderstanding the 1st amendment. I just thought it would be a short and simple way of explaining the error to the person I was responding 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
- sp332 8y ago
  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.
  - jdoliner 8y ago
    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.
    - danhon 8y ago
      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.
    - sp332 8y ago
      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.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- jimmyhmiller 8y ago
  Isn't this case about North Carolina (the government) banning sex offenders from social media?
- danhon 8y ago
  I Am A Former Lawyer: cursory reading of that judgment shows it as a case of the State of North Carolina passing a law asking it illegal for someone to use a commercial social network service. Presumably Facebook are banning a user in response to a state’s law enforcement request under State law. The Suorene Court is most likely ruling that the state law was in violation of the first amendment.
ikeyany 8y ago
If your account gets banned, you're unable to communicate with the government (since it is established that Twitter is the president's official communication medium). Wouldn't it thus be a violation of the first amendment?
- ryanoshea 8y ago
  Haven't read the full decision, but here's how I see it. Governmental agencies do not instruct users to get in touch via Twitter. There are dedicated phone lines, email addresses, offices, and websites that serve that purpose in an official capacity. Agencies who do conduct business in response to inquiries on Twitter do so as an added convenience on top of the other readily available public channels. When Trump uses Twitter as his primary method of addressing citizens and announcing administration policies, then selectively prevents citizens from viewing those communications, he's doing something much different (in my mind) than a private company restricting the access of a person to a service whose terms of use they have violated. The equivalence you drew doesn't seem valid — US citizens have no expectation or right to send communications to the Office of the President and have them read or acted upon. They do have that expectation/right to have equal access to public communications by the President.
- acdha 8y ago
  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.
  - ikeyany 8y ago
    Being banned still prevents you from interacting in more ways. Trump retweets and tags people/organizations all the time.
    - larkeith 8y ago
      The key here is that the Twitter is under no responsibility to facilitate your first amendment rights. The government, solely and exclusively, cannot limit your free speech; Twitter can do whatever they want, and are under no legal obligation to provide any service whatsoever to you.
SilasX 8y ago
The parent wasn't saying that it does. The parent was pointing out why the logic is dubious, using a reductio: if you consider Twitter[1] a public square (as the court does), and thus you can't stop people from "petitioning the government" through it, then it's a double-edged sword: they must also protect the same speech that would be protected in a public square. It seems a more sane resolution is to treat Twitter like a private venue where an official addresses some members of the public, like the room for the Correspondents Dinner: they have no obligation to let any specific person in (esp. after they're deemed abusive). It's just that Twitter is a private venue with a much higher capacity. The right to petition the government is not the right to petition it in every possible venue. US Citizenship or personhood does not mean you can e.g. ask questions at a press room briefing; there are filters they can apply. [1] technically, the subset of it involving interaction with government officials
- abritinthebay 8y ago
  > The parent wasn't saying that it does. Yes they were. The first amendment does not apply to Twitter. It applies to Trump. Absolutely nothing Twitter does is even capable of being a 1st Amendment issue. Not true of Trump.
  - SilasX 8y ago
    >> The parent wasn't saying that it does. >Yes they were. Where? >Absolutely nothing Twitter does is even capable of being a 1st Amendment issue. I agreed with that: >>if you consider Twitter[1] a public square (as the court does), and thus you can't stop people from "petitioning the government" through it, then it's a double-edged sword: they must also protect the same speech that would be protected in a public square. Do you understand the difference between "A implies B" and "A is true"? I was saying the former. I agree with you that the latter is false (where A="The first amendment applies to Twitter). Can you help me to find the part of my original comment that made the above unclear?
    - abritinthebay 8y ago
      > Where? Here: "that must mean that Twitter banning people is also a violation of the first amendment" That's... pretty darn clear. > Can you help me to find the part of my original comment that made the above unclear? The first two lines of your comment frame your response as counter to the position of the person you are replying to. That would be counter to you new claim that you agree it's not a 1st Amendment issue. Disagreement with a claim followed by an argument is generally taken by readers as an argument as to why the claim is wrong, not right. Just so you know for future writing.
Viliam1234 8y ago
> The first amendment doesn't apply to Twitter (the company). It applies to governments. So, hypothetically speaking... if Trump would move to a social network owned by his friend... then Trump would not be allowed to block anyone, but it would be okay if the friend would take a hint and ban the person from the whole platform?

icebraining 8y ago

Nope, Twitter is not a governmental organization, therefore they're not subject to the same restrictions as Trump, who is a public official.

zerostar07 8y ago
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.
- icebraining 8y ago
  No, those conditions only apply to public officials.
- lmkg 8y ago
  The First Amendment only blocks the government from restricting speech, not anyone else. A private company can limit speech. The government cannot cause or compel that private company to limit speech. Also it's not clear to me that Twitter has to do anything with Trump's account. The judgement is against Trump, not against Twitter. Trump isn't allowed to use the block button, but Twitter is not under any obligation to prevent him from using it illegally. Just the same that Twitter is not under any obligation to implement extra safeguards for twitter accounts owned by people whose conditions of parole restrict their use of social media--that's the user's issue, not Twitter's.
  - rhacker 8y ago
    If that's the case, it is likely he can just continue to block people, I don't think he's going to unblock people suddenly because of this. If he is basically immune to most lawsuits (in general - I'm sure at some point something will break that line) then why would one judge's ruling have him change his behavior. He's pretty critical of judges already. On the other hand, if the judge wanted to see this change, requiring Twitter to both remove (his) block button and unblock all existing users (from his account only) would more likely happen.

jamescostian 8y ago

1st isn't the right to hearing, it's the right to speech (but not specifically speaking on Twitter)

briandear 8y ago
It’s actually the right for government not to ban speech. It doesn’t apply to private entities.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- jamescostian 8y ago
  You're right, and both of the things we said argue that the comment I was replying to was misunderstanding the 1st amendment. I just thought it would be a short and simple way of explaining the error to the person I was responding to