8 ms·

Trump’s Twitter blocks violate First Amendment rights, appeals court affirms

89 points by jackalo 7y ago

xenospn 7y ago
Yeah. Good luck with that.
bognition 7y ago
I hope this signals that the US Federal Government is finally catching up on how laws and rules should be applied to technology.
- moate 7y ago
  BWA HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Probably not. It feels more like they're solving 2010 problems 9 years later, which has always been the case. The law (and US government) is generally designed to be slow. Tech is, by its nature, very fast. It will always be a game of catch up.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  This actually follows set a number of cases years ago dealing with local government use of internet (which themselves directly applied caselaw applicable to privately-owned physical forums with virtually no distinction); the only movement by the Federal Government is the executive branch doing things that the courts had already determined no public official was permitted to do.
bluetidepro 7y ago
To be fair, why does any major political figure, celeb, influencer, or whoever waste effort/time to 'block' anyone on Twitter? Esp. with someone like Trump, they probably have too many mentions/activity for any real human to sort through, that they probably just ignore all that noise anyways. I can't imagine how you'd sift through the millions of @ replies he receives everyday. So, even if they can 'block' them, I don't understand the value in it. Seems odd they would even waste their time with it, and not just ignore that tab/feature all together in Twitter. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- howard941 7y ago
  > I don't understand the value in it That's probably because you're not trolling.
  - bluetidepro 7y ago
    Well right, but with the level of activity they get, how can they read any replies? It's like trying to use the live chat on Twitch or something, it moves so fast that there isn't anything valuable in there anyways. I don't understand why they wouldn't just ignore all activity and just use it for a platform to go one direct (out vs in).
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > To be fair, why does any major political figure, celeb, influencer, or whoever waste effort/time to 'block' anyone on Twitter? Blocking prevents blocked posts from gaining visibility due to their association with the account doing the blocking and it's content; public figures don't do it to manage what they see themselves (they have other methods of managing that) but to control what other people viewing their content see alongside it; it's a method of censorship. (Which is why it's a First Amendment issue when a government official does it in a forum which meets the legal standard for a public forum.)
  - bluetidepro 7y ago
    Oh really? I didn't know their algorithm took that into account. Are you 100% positive on that? I would be curious to see where you read about that. If that's the case, it must not be super effective, because I know from first hand I've seen organic tweets show up in my feed by other celebs criticizing Trump, whom he has blocked.
    - dangus 7y ago
      Yes, you can actually see sort of a "switch" flip after Trump lost this court ruling the first time. All his Twitter replies at the top were supportive. Afterwards his top replies tend to be critical. It's not about which tweets show up in your feed, it's about which users replies are allowed/shown in Trump's own feed. He can't block anyone so anyone is allowed to reply and be seen.
gremlinsinc 7y ago
I hope Twitter follows up by adding a 'public servant' tag like 'verified', but public servants cannot block users, because I'm sure Trump will still claim he can do it, and will still do it, unless the platform itself won't let him. Because he's Trump and thinks he can do anything he wants.
- vokep 7y ago
  This would be the correct course of action it seems.
andegre 7y ago
Ridiculous, it's his own twitter account. He can do with it as he pleases.
- moate 7y ago
  Except that he can't. This is why the Hatch act and laws like it exist. Your thought makes sense (sorta?) when applied to a private citizen. But, he's not. Blocking people as the president is closer to limiting the free speech of citizens than exercising his right to free speech.
- jressey 7y ago
  Well, it's already been ruled to be an official governmental communication tool, so you're wrong there. From a practical perspective, it is the only way the administration addresses the public since they block any honest journalist from an interview and they have essentially cancelled press conferences.
- rhcom2 7y ago
  The WH calls it the official Presidential account and he disseminates policy, sometimes exclusively, through Twitter. It really isn't just "his own twitter account" anymore because of his own doing.
  - the_watcher 7y ago
    But it's not private, so if you are blocked, you can simply log out and view it. All blocking does is prevent you from seeing the tweets while logged in and tweeting AT the account. It's really hard to square with how this restricts free speech unless it's a violation of the First Amendment for the White House to block emails, throw out letters without opening them, etc. Plus, muting exists. I think it's wildly stupid that the President would block people on Twitter, if only from a PR POV (particularly given the existence of muting), let alone read his replies in the first place, but it's impossible to create a coherent case for why blocking someone on Twitter infringes on free speech.
    - 7y ago
droithomme 7y ago
Under the same principle banning accounts from social media because of their political opinions must also be considered unconstitutional.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  No, because the principle actually at issue here is one governing government officials’ restrictions of communication in privately-owned forums used for official government purposes.
- moate 7y ago
  No, because Twitter itself isn't the government. For everyone playing at home: When the Government (personified by Trump in this case) limits your ability to express your freedom of speech (represented by blocking you on twitter) they're violating the first Amendment. When a private citizen or corporation does it, you're probably just violating their ToS.
  - geggam 7y ago
    Arguably then every govt employee is bound by this.
    - tareqak 7y ago
      Yeah and if they have decision-making power that affects their constituents then they probably should be bound by this ruling.
    - sdinsn 7y ago
      Every government employee that uses their twitter account as an official communication tool is bound by this
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  Are they interacting with an official government account? If yes, I agree. If no, then the block doesn't prevent any interactions with an official government account.
tomatotomato37 7y ago
>The suit claimed that, as Trump's Twitter feed is a public forum in which the president posts official statements of policy... I wonder how this will work with Twitter's new guidlines of demphasizing rule breaking tweets from public figure, specifically any US politicians who use the same Twitter account for policy changes and general opinions
- stevenwoo 7y ago
  An article I read earlier today said they would preface those with a warning, like the EU privacy thing that pops up on websites if your geo location appears to be in the EU, and get the viewing user's consent before showing that tweet. (after the offending tweet is flagged.)
clinta 7y ago
This might have some interesting implications for Twitter's ability to moderate their platform. If the President blocking someone violates the First Amendment, then surely Twitter themselves blocking individuals is also a violation. Will this force Twitter to allow all legal speech on their platform?
- ball_of_lint 7y ago
  Why does that follow? The article specifically states: > "Nor do we consider whether private social media companies are bound by the First Amendment when policing their platforms."
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- meritt 7y ago
  > then surely Twitter themselves blocking individuals is also a violation That's quite the leap. Twitter is not a representative of the federal government.
  - clinta 7y ago
    The court has ruled that individuals have a First Amendment right to use Twitter to interact with representatives of the federal government. But you can't use Twitter to interact with those representatives if Twitter has banned you.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > The court has ruled that individuals have a First Amendment right to use Twitter to interact with representatives of the federal government. No, it hasn't, except insofar as such a right is protected against a specific form of government action. It has ruled, more accurately, that individuals have the right to not have the government officials exclude them from full participation in particular corners of Twitter used for official government purposes.
Cyclone_ 7y ago
So does this mean that no government officials can block anyone on Twitter? What if a president is giving a speech and someone runs into the aisle and starts screaming, do they have a right to be there without being escorted away by secret service?
- arcticbull 7y ago
  Screaming is disruptive, replying on twitter isn't, even in all caps haha. If you're actively disrupting the ability of the president to communicate, sure, that's not okay and you may get removed from the platform. If you're replying with opinion and commentary in a way that people can opt into, that's not precluding anyone else from hearing the president. At that point, it becomes about managing the power differential.
  - Cyclone_ 7y ago
    The point is whether or not the 1st amendment gives you a right to not be blocked, whether or not they are disruptive is irrelevant. I could have phrased the original scenario differently. If the president hosts a radio show and he takes calls from listeners, is he now forced to listen to every caller or can he legally hang up? It's a scenario where people can opt into as well. This seems like a largely populist ruling to me, I'm guessing it will be overturned.
    - arcticbull 7y ago
      The president isn't forced to read replies and neither is anyone else, though, that's my point. On a radio call-in show, they are forced to listen, and once again the caller is being disruptive. That the president chooses to read replies and becomes personally offended to the point of blocking people is, (a) shameful and (b) on him. Twitter is free to block anyone not following their code of conduct, and this ruling does not enjoin them from doing so. The case here is about whether the president can block someone from listening to them solely because they share different political viewpoints. It appears the answer is no. I think disruptiveness is in fact the crux. The president's communications are official government communications and "blocking haters" is not a function of the US government. In fact, they're so important, certain arms of the US government get their marching orders from Trump's Twitter feed, horrifying though that may be. Trump is not tweeting in a personal capacity, and if he were, I don't believe this ruling would apply.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
iooi 7y ago
Who is now responsible for unblocking the users Trump blocked? Twitter or the US Government?
- icebraining 7y ago
  The government, since they're the ones illegally blocking.
mmsimanga 7y ago
In South Africa we had lots of issues with previous president. Some of the issues were tied to the fact that presidential powers were a bit fuzzy. During the drafting of the new constitution everyone knew Nelson Mandela would be president so the laws were drafted taking into consideration he generally did the right thing. Not all presidents do the right thing we soon learned. Perhaps we are a young democracy. Will this ruling have an adverse effect for a future president?
tictoc 7y ago
Do people really enjoy twitter? I mean literally 99% of the time, it looks like it's just people trying to be clever. I get it that it can be a meme generator, but every time I've used it, like any popular site, it is just majority trash. Maybe I haven't tailored my twitter experience, but I can't stand the site after more than a few hours and I'll just stop using it.
- mfatica 7y ago
  I've liked it recently for hearing things directly from prominent people, such as the president or other politicians.
- MBCook 7y ago
  Yes, I do. It’s all in who you follow (and using a 3rd party client that doesn’t mess up the experience). I get to see the news in little bubbles I’m interested in, and some jokes between those people.
- sdht0 7y ago
  > Maybe I haven't tailored my twitter experience I think this is super important on any social website that has reached certain level of popularity (Twitter, Quora, FB). Without curation, there is just too much content to wade through between reaching the interesting ones. Personally, I use Twitter to follow people from CS and tech, and it benefits me a lot. Many times, I get news on Twitter faster than my feed reader, for instance.
- jvagner 7y ago
  I don't enjoy it much anymore, but I've been un-following anyone discussing politics much, and all VCs. VC posts are the worst.
- noobermin 7y ago
  That's every website, even this site sometimes. The signal-to-noise is higher than the rest of the web but nowhere online is ideal.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
SkyBelow 7y ago
One thing I think missing in this discussion is that Trump cannot block anyone. When he 'blocks' someone, he is sending info to Twitter. Twitter is the one who chooses to react to that information, and based on that reaction, block users. I think the courts conclusion is correct, but their reasoning is not. In this case, I think twitter should not be allowed to stop someone interacting with an official government account as long as they do business with the government (if twitter quits that relationship, then the limit is removed).
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- ggggtez 7y ago
  So, you want Twitter to be both law enforcement, and the judicial system when determining if a government employee is breaking the law, and then preventing them from doing so? This is literally a case about federal law. Why would you hold Twitter accountable, but not the government?
  - SkyBelow 7y ago
    I don't follow. What I think should happen is that Twitter is not allowed to block anyone from responding with official government accounts, same as any other user of the service (and this would likely also apply to any premium features). When it comes to a non-government account, Twitter can do whatever they want. Only when it comes to government accounts will this equality be enforced, including allowing interactions from someone who has otherwise been banned from the service. I don't see how Twitter is being law enforcement or judicial system in such a setup. >Why would you hold Twitter accountable, but not the government? The one held responsible should depend upon the contract. If the government does not specify or require the equal treatment of all users, then they should be held responsible. If it is required in the contract, and Twitter does not honor it, then Twitter should be held responsible.
    - la_barba 7y ago
      I don't see why Twitter should be expending resources determining what is or isn't an 'official' government account, and what rules apply in all the different countries' legal jurisdictions. That's just a hornets nest.
wanderer2323 7y ago
It's 2nd circuit (Connecticut, New York, and Vermont) which seems to be relatively uncontroversial, unanimous decision by 3 judges, 2 Bush 1 Obama appointees. """ We do conclude, however, that the First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise‐open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees. """ Seems pretty narrow and it appears that a public official would still be able to block trolls and spammers. This all combined makes me think that SCOTUS will be unlikely to take this case. edit -- the "otherwise-open" part also suggest that posting a message where all replies are blocked would also be acceptable (does twitter has this functionality? I have it blackholed so no idea...)
tropo 7y ago
This doesn't just affect Trump, or the president, or republicans. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez just got sued, using the Trump court ruling as precedent: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/aoc-to-face-lawsuit-over-blocking-twitter-users-following-appeals-court-ruling-on-trump https://www.foxnews.com/politics/aoc-to-face-lawsuit-over-bl... I wonder if the people who sued Trump will be happy with this outcome.

89 points by jackalo 7y ago

Yeah. Good luck with that.

I hope this signals that the US Federal Government is finally catching up on how laws and rules should be applied to technology.

moate 7y ago
BWA HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Probably not. It feels more like they're solving 2010 problems 9 years later, which has always been the case. The law (and US government) is generally designed to be slow. Tech is, by its nature, very fast. It will always be a game of catch up.
dragonwriter 7y ago
This actually follows set a number of cases years ago dealing with local government use of internet (which themselves directly applied caselaw applicable to privately-owned physical forums with virtually no distinction); the only movement by the Federal Government is the executive branch doing things that the courts had already determined no public official was permitted to do.

bluetidepro 7y ago

To be fair, why does any major political figure, celeb, influencer, or whoever waste effort/time to 'block' anyone on Twitter? Esp. with someone like Trump, they probably have too many mentions/activity for any real human to sort through, that they probably just ignore all that noise anyways. I can't imagine how you'd sift through the millions of @ replies he receives everyday. So, even if they can 'block' them, I don't understand the value in it. Seems odd they would even waste their time with it, and not just ignore that tab/feature all together in Twitter. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

howard941 7y ago
> I don't understand the value in it That's probably because you're not trolling.
- bluetidepro 7y ago
  Well right, but with the level of activity they get, how can they read any replies? It's like trying to use the live chat on Twitch or something, it moves so fast that there isn't anything valuable in there anyways. I don't understand why they wouldn't just ignore all activity and just use it for a platform to go one direct (out vs in).
dragonwriter 7y ago
> To be fair, why does any major political figure, celeb, influencer, or whoever waste effort/time to 'block' anyone on Twitter? Blocking prevents blocked posts from gaining visibility due to their association with the account doing the blocking and it's content; public figures don't do it to manage what they see themselves (they have other methods of managing that) but to control what other people viewing their content see alongside it; it's a method of censorship. (Which is why it's a First Amendment issue when a government official does it in a forum which meets the legal standard for a public forum.)
- bluetidepro 7y ago
  Oh really? I didn't know their algorithm took that into account. Are you 100% positive on that? I would be curious to see where you read about that. If that's the case, it must not be super effective, because I know from first hand I've seen organic tweets show up in my feed by other celebs criticizing Trump, whom he has blocked.
  - dangus 7y ago
    Yes, you can actually see sort of a "switch" flip after Trump lost this court ruling the first time. All his Twitter replies at the top were supportive. Afterwards his top replies tend to be critical. It's not about which tweets show up in your feed, it's about which users replies are allowed/shown in Trump's own feed. He can't block anyone so anyone is allowed to reply and be seen.

gremlinsinc 7y ago

I hope Twitter follows up by adding a 'public servant' tag like 'verified', but public servants cannot block users, because I'm sure Trump will still claim he can do it, and will still do it, unless the platform itself won't let him. Because he's Trump and thinks he can do anything he wants.

vokep 7y ago
This would be the correct course of action it seems.

andegre 7y ago

Ridiculous, it's his own twitter account. He can do with it as he pleases.

moate 7y ago
Except that he can't. This is why the Hatch act and laws like it exist. Your thought makes sense (sorta?) when applied to a private citizen. But, he's not. Blocking people as the president is closer to limiting the free speech of citizens than exercising his right to free speech.
jressey 7y ago
Well, it's already been ruled to be an official governmental communication tool, so you're wrong there. From a practical perspective, it is the only way the administration addresses the public since they block any honest journalist from an interview and they have essentially cancelled press conferences.
rhcom2 7y ago
The WH calls it the official Presidential account and he disseminates policy, sometimes exclusively, through Twitter. It really isn't just "his own twitter account" anymore because of his own doing.
- the_watcher 7y ago
  But it's not private, so if you are blocked, you can simply log out and view it. All blocking does is prevent you from seeing the tweets while logged in and tweeting AT the account. It's really hard to square with how this restricts free speech unless it's a violation of the First Amendment for the White House to block emails, throw out letters without opening them, etc. Plus, muting exists. I think it's wildly stupid that the President would block people on Twitter, if only from a PR POV (particularly given the existence of muting), let alone read his replies in the first place, but it's impossible to create a coherent case for why blocking someone on Twitter infringes on free speech.
  - 7y ago

droithomme 7y ago

Under the same principle banning accounts from social media because of their political opinions must also be considered unconstitutional.

dragonwriter 7y ago
No, because the principle actually at issue here is one governing government officials’ restrictions of communication in privately-owned forums used for official government purposes.
moate 7y ago
No, because Twitter itself isn't the government. For everyone playing at home: When the Government (personified by Trump in this case) limits your ability to express your freedom of speech (represented by blocking you on twitter) they're violating the first Amendment. When a private citizen or corporation does it, you're probably just violating their ToS.
- geggam 7y ago
  Arguably then every govt employee is bound by this.
  - tareqak 7y ago
    Yeah and if they have decision-making power that affects their constituents then they probably should be bound by this ruling.
  - sdinsn 7y ago
    Every government employee that uses their twitter account as an official communication tool is bound by this
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
SkyBelow 7y ago
Are they interacting with an official government account? If yes, I agree. If no, then the block doesn't prevent any interactions with an official government account.

tomatotomato37 7y ago

>The suit claimed that, as Trump's Twitter feed is a public forum in which the president posts official statements of policy... I wonder how this will work with Twitter's new guidlines of demphasizing rule breaking tweets from public figure, specifically any US politicians who use the same Twitter account for policy changes and general opinions

stevenwoo 7y ago
An article I read earlier today said they would preface those with a warning, like the EU privacy thing that pops up on websites if your geo location appears to be in the EU, and get the viewing user's consent before showing that tweet. (after the offending tweet is flagged.)

clinta 7y ago

This might have some interesting implications for Twitter's ability to moderate their platform. If the President blocking someone violates the First Amendment, then surely Twitter themselves blocking individuals is also a violation. Will this force Twitter to allow all legal speech on their platform?

ball_of_lint 7y ago
Why does that follow? The article specifically states: > "Nor do we consider whether private social media companies are bound by the First Amendment when policing their platforms."
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
meritt 7y ago
> then surely Twitter themselves blocking individuals is also a violation That's quite the leap. Twitter is not a representative of the federal government.
- clinta 7y ago
  The court has ruled that individuals have a First Amendment right to use Twitter to interact with representatives of the federal government. But you can't use Twitter to interact with those representatives if Twitter has banned you.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > The court has ruled that individuals have a First Amendment right to use Twitter to interact with representatives of the federal government. No, it hasn't, except insofar as such a right is protected against a specific form of government action. It has ruled, more accurately, that individuals have the right to not have the government officials exclude them from full participation in particular corners of Twitter used for official government purposes.

Cyclone_ 7y ago

So does this mean that no government officials can block anyone on Twitter? What if a president is giving a speech and someone runs into the aisle and starts screaming, do they have a right to be there without being escorted away by secret service?

arcticbull 7y ago
Screaming is disruptive, replying on twitter isn't, even in all caps haha. If you're actively disrupting the ability of the president to communicate, sure, that's not okay and you may get removed from the platform. If you're replying with opinion and commentary in a way that people can opt into, that's not precluding anyone else from hearing the president. At that point, it becomes about managing the power differential.
- Cyclone_ 7y ago
  The point is whether or not the 1st amendment gives you a right to not be blocked, whether or not they are disruptive is irrelevant. I could have phrased the original scenario differently. If the president hosts a radio show and he takes calls from listeners, is he now forced to listen to every caller or can he legally hang up? It's a scenario where people can opt into as well. This seems like a largely populist ruling to me, I'm guessing it will be overturned.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    The president isn't forced to read replies and neither is anyone else, though, that's my point. On a radio call-in show, they are forced to listen, and once again the caller is being disruptive. That the president chooses to read replies and becomes personally offended to the point of blocking people is, (a) shameful and (b) on him. Twitter is free to block anyone not following their code of conduct, and this ruling does not enjoin them from doing so. The case here is about whether the president can block someone from listening to them solely because they share different political viewpoints. It appears the answer is no. I think disruptiveness is in fact the crux. The president's communications are official government communications and "blocking haters" is not a function of the US government. In fact, they're so important, certain arms of the US government get their marching orders from Trump's Twitter feed, horrifying though that may be. Trump is not tweeting in a personal capacity, and if he were, I don't believe this ruling would apply.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

iooi 7y ago

Who is now responsible for unblocking the users Trump blocked? Twitter or the US Government?

icebraining 7y ago
The government, since they're the ones illegally blocking.

mmsimanga 7y ago

In South Africa we had lots of issues with previous president. Some of the issues were tied to the fact that presidential powers were a bit fuzzy. During the drafting of the new constitution everyone knew Nelson Mandela would be president so the laws were drafted taking into consideration he generally did the right thing. Not all presidents do the right thing we soon learned. Perhaps we are a young democracy. Will this ruling have an adverse effect for a future president?

tictoc 7y ago

Do people really enjoy twitter? I mean literally 99% of the time, it looks like it's just people trying to be clever. I get it that it can be a meme generator, but every time I've used it, like any popular site, it is just majority trash. Maybe I haven't tailored my twitter experience, but I can't stand the site after more than a few hours and I'll just stop using it.

mfatica 7y ago
I've liked it recently for hearing things directly from prominent people, such as the president or other politicians.
MBCook 7y ago
Yes, I do. It’s all in who you follow (and using a 3rd party client that doesn’t mess up the experience). I get to see the news in little bubbles I’m interested in, and some jokes between those people.
sdht0 7y ago
> Maybe I haven't tailored my twitter experience I think this is super important on any social website that has reached certain level of popularity (Twitter, Quora, FB). Without curation, there is just too much content to wade through between reaching the interesting ones. Personally, I use Twitter to follow people from CS and tech, and it benefits me a lot. Many times, I get news on Twitter faster than my feed reader, for instance.
jvagner 7y ago
I don't enjoy it much anymore, but I've been un-following anyone discussing politics much, and all VCs. VC posts are the worst.
noobermin 7y ago
That's every website, even this site sometimes. The signal-to-noise is higher than the rest of the web but nowhere online is ideal.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

SkyBelow 7y ago

One thing I think missing in this discussion is that Trump cannot block anyone. When he 'blocks' someone, he is sending info to Twitter. Twitter is the one who chooses to react to that information, and based on that reaction, block users. I think the courts conclusion is correct, but their reasoning is not. In this case, I think twitter should not be allowed to stop someone interacting with an official government account as long as they do business with the government (if twitter quits that relationship, then the limit is removed).

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ggggtez 7y ago
So, you want Twitter to be both law enforcement, and the judicial system when determining if a government employee is breaking the law, and then preventing them from doing so? This is literally a case about federal law. Why would you hold Twitter accountable, but not the government?
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  I don't follow. What I think should happen is that Twitter is not allowed to block anyone from responding with official government accounts, same as any other user of the service (and this would likely also apply to any premium features). When it comes to a non-government account, Twitter can do whatever they want. Only when it comes to government accounts will this equality be enforced, including allowing interactions from someone who has otherwise been banned from the service. I don't see how Twitter is being law enforcement or judicial system in such a setup. >Why would you hold Twitter accountable, but not the government? The one held responsible should depend upon the contract. If the government does not specify or require the equal treatment of all users, then they should be held responsible. If it is required in the contract, and Twitter does not honor it, then Twitter should be held responsible.
  - la_barba 7y ago
    I don't see why Twitter should be expending resources determining what is or isn't an 'official' government account, and what rules apply in all the different countries' legal jurisdictions. That's just a hornets nest.

wanderer2323 7y ago

It's 2nd circuit (Connecticut, New York, and Vermont) which seems to be relatively uncontroversial, unanimous decision by 3 judges, 2 Bush 1 Obama appointees. """ We do conclude, however, that the First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise‐open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees. """ Seems pretty narrow and it appears that a public official would still be able to block trolls and spammers. This all combined makes me think that SCOTUS will be unlikely to take this case. edit -- the "otherwise-open" part also suggest that posting a message where all replies are blocked would also be acceptable (does twitter has this functionality? I have it blackholed so no idea...)

tropo 7y ago

This doesn't just affect Trump, or the president, or republicans. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez just got sued, using the Trump court ruling as precedent: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/aoc-to-face-lawsuit-over-blocking-twitter-users-following-appeals-court-ruling-on-trump https://www.foxnews.com/politics/aoc-to-face-lawsuit-over-bl... I wonder if the people who sued Trump will be happy with this outcome.