5 ms·

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 h

by 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.
      - ubernostrum 8y ago
        See also @RealPressSecBot, which hammers home the point: https://twitter.com/RealPressSecBot https://twitter.com/RealPressSecBot For those who don't want to click, it collects Trump's tweets in real-ish time, and reframes them into images of official-looking messages. The latest one as of the time I post this comment begins: THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 23, 2018 Statement by the President And then puts the text of Trump's tweet immediately below.
        chris_wot 8y ago
        This has to be my favourite: https://twitter.com/RealPressSecBot/status/999284068696047616 https://twitter.com/RealPressSecBot/status/99928406869604761...
  - btreecat 8y ago
    They count as official statements by the POTUS. No different if he were to go on TV, Radio, etc and make an announcement/proclamation. These statements can have legal power behind them such as declassifying documents.
    - derefr 8y ago
      Is there a way to make a public statement as the POTUS that doesn't have legal force? Can the person who is the POTUS speak "as the man" rather than speaking "as the role"?
      - ravitation 8y ago
        As far as I can tell, that's how President Obama used his personal Twitter account vs. the @POTUS twitter account. One was personal and the other official. The Trump administration has explicitly chosen not to draw that line (for whatever reason), which is what leads inevitably to decisions like this.
dragonwriter 8y ago
The limitations on government speech restrictions in public forums (including private venues used by government as such) are not new to this case [0], nor is it the first case (though it is by far the highest profile one) finding that those restrictions on government behavior apply to social media accounts controlled by government officials and agencies. [1] [0] https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/criminal/what-s-a-public-forum-for-free-speech.html https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/criminal/what-s-a-public-... [1] http://amp.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/07/28/federal_court_rules_public_officials_cannot_block_social_media_users.html http://amp.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/07/28/federal_c...
spookthesunset 8y ago
> And given that blocking is part and parcel to the app, it would seem like everyone is buying into the terms of the environment when they start using it That isn't how this works. Just because Twitter allows people to block stuff, doesn't mean Trump gets to block stuff. In a "normal" government, they'd pick a vendor with software that would let them make official policy statements in a way that complied with the laws around people having the right to reach out to their government officials. Just 'cause twitter's software lets him do something doesn't make actually doing that thing legal, moral, or ethical. This judgement makes perfect sense and is completely reasonable when you remember that technology is a mere tool designed to serve humans. Just cause you can do something in a tool doesn't make it right.
- chimeracoder 8y ago
  > This judgement makes perfect sense and is completely reasonable when you remember that technology is a mere tool designed to serve humans. Just cause you can do something in a tool doesn't make it right. Put more plainly: The judgement makes perfect sense once you understand that government officials' actions are regulated in ways that private citizens' actions are not. If a government official uses a tool designed for private citizens, his actions may still be restricted compared to what private citizens can legally do.
- 3pt14159 8y ago
  Oh common. Spam and a harassment is a problem. Let the people he blocks make a new account to follow him or open an incognito window.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Spam and a harassment is a problem. To the extent that's true, they aren't problems that require viewpoint censorship to combat.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    No. He can mute them. But they should not be any more inconvenienced than anyone else who follows him.
xienze 8y ago
> 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 Well, the important part is that the judge stuck it to Trump. That’s really all that matters to some people.
- drivingmenuts 8y ago
  > That seems like it's in the "suicide pact" column of rights defense Not if you consider the nature of a public official. It's not that Trump is The President, he's A President - one of many in a line stretching back to George Washington and hopefully, stretching forward for millennia to come. There's nothing singular or unique about his occupation of that office (well, hopefully you get my meaning there). As such, he should be expected to behave by the laws governing the office, not the laws governing the individual in the office. It would be different if he were a king, whose rights and powers supposedly descend from God (at least in European tradition). First, he would be making the laws up, possibly from the whole cloth, and second, a king, by divine right, is answerable to none but himself and God.
- cyansmoker 8y ago
  Let's forget about how polarizing he is for one minute: I would make the argument that he is the one who made his Twitter feed a public forum when he encouraged people to follow him to get information. It follows that public discourse is now taking place where the tools allow people to respond.

by aksss 8y ago

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.
    - ubernostrum 8y ago
      See also @RealPressSecBot, which hammers home the point: https://twitter.com/RealPressSecBot https://twitter.com/RealPressSecBot For those who don't want to click, it collects Trump's tweets in real-ish time, and reframes them into images of official-looking messages. The latest one as of the time I post this comment begins: THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 23, 2018 Statement by the President And then puts the text of Trump's tweet immediately below.
      - chris_wot 8y ago
        This has to be my favourite: https://twitter.com/RealPressSecBot/status/999284068696047616 https://twitter.com/RealPressSecBot/status/99928406869604761...
- btreecat 8y ago
  They count as official statements by the POTUS. No different if he were to go on TV, Radio, etc and make an announcement/proclamation. These statements can have legal power behind them such as declassifying documents.
  - derefr 8y ago
    Is there a way to make a public statement as the POTUS that doesn't have legal force? Can the person who is the POTUS speak "as the man" rather than speaking "as the role"?
    - ravitation 8y ago
      As far as I can tell, that's how President Obama used his personal Twitter account vs. the @POTUS twitter account. One was personal and the other official. The Trump administration has explicitly chosen not to draw that line (for whatever reason), which is what leads inevitably to decisions like this.

dragonwriter 8y ago

The limitations on government speech restrictions in public forums (including private venues used by government as such) are not new to this case [0], nor is it the first case (though it is by far the highest profile one) finding that those restrictions on government behavior apply to social media accounts controlled by government officials and agencies. [1] [0] https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/criminal/what-s-a-public-forum-for-free-speech.html https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/criminal/what-s-a-public-... [1] http://amp.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/07/28/federal_court_rules_public_officials_cannot_block_social_media_users.html http://amp.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/07/28/federal_c...

spookthesunset 8y ago

> And given that blocking is part and parcel to the app, it would seem like everyone is buying into the terms of the environment when they start using it That isn't how this works. Just because Twitter allows people to block stuff, doesn't mean Trump gets to block stuff. In a "normal" government, they'd pick a vendor with software that would let them make official policy statements in a way that complied with the laws around people having the right to reach out to their government officials. Just 'cause twitter's software lets him do something doesn't make actually doing that thing legal, moral, or ethical. This judgement makes perfect sense and is completely reasonable when you remember that technology is a mere tool designed to serve humans. Just cause you can do something in a tool doesn't make it right.

chimeracoder 8y ago
> This judgement makes perfect sense and is completely reasonable when you remember that technology is a mere tool designed to serve humans. Just cause you can do something in a tool doesn't make it right. Put more plainly: The judgement makes perfect sense once you understand that government officials' actions are regulated in ways that private citizens' actions are not. If a government official uses a tool designed for private citizens, his actions may still be restricted compared to what private citizens can legally do.
3pt14159 8y ago
Oh common. Spam and a harassment is a problem. Let the people he blocks make a new account to follow him or open an incognito window.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Spam and a harassment is a problem. To the extent that's true, they aren't problems that require viewpoint censorship to combat.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  No. He can mute them. But they should not be any more inconvenienced than anyone else who follows him.

xienze 8y ago

> 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 Well, the important part is that the judge stuck it to Trump. That’s really all that matters to some people.

drivingmenuts 8y ago
> That seems like it's in the "suicide pact" column of rights defense Not if you consider the nature of a public official. It's not that Trump is The President, he's A President - one of many in a line stretching back to George Washington and hopefully, stretching forward for millennia to come. There's nothing singular or unique about his occupation of that office (well, hopefully you get my meaning there). As such, he should be expected to behave by the laws governing the office, not the laws governing the individual in the office. It would be different if he were a king, whose rights and powers supposedly descend from God (at least in European tradition). First, he would be making the laws up, possibly from the whole cloth, and second, a king, by divine right, is answerable to none but himself and God.
cyansmoker 8y ago
Let's forget about how polarizing he is for one minute: I would make the argument that he is the one who made his Twitter feed a public forum when he encouraged people to follow him to get information. It follows that public discourse is now taking place where the tools allow people to respond.