7 ms·
It's further complicated by the people who sued Trump for blocking them. They won, he had to unblock them. Considering they could log out (or open a private ta
by caseysoftware 6y ago
It's further complicated by the people who sued Trump for blocking them. They won, he had to unblock them.
Considering they could log out (or open a private tab) and view the content, obviously it wasn't access to the information that was fundamental but the act of the President taking a step to reduce someone's access.
With that in mind, does the host have the authority to take the same action? Why or why not?
This is not a 1st Amendment issue - after all Trump blocking someone doesn't limit their ability to tweet him or at all - but it's a really weird spot of free speech vs private property vs public forum vs public access vs.. ?
- akersten 6y agoAs a government official, you cannot take action to try to impede someone's access to your official statements. That is independent of the platform, and independent of how much work someone has to do to still access the information.
- mc32 6y agoBut a private company can take action to impede everyone’s access to an official’s statements if they “suppress” those statements... that would mean Twitter has to allow anything any public official, at least in the US, broadcasts via that medium...
- caseysoftware 6y agoYou're getting downvoted to oblivion but I think that's a fundamental question in all of this. Does a private company have the authority to impede access to Official Statements? If so, under what conditions? If no, is it "never"?
- gamblor956 6y agoThis fundamental question has already been addressed by the courts many times. The answer is yes to your first question. A private company is not required to make available "Official Statements" (whatever that means) using its own resources. The government (in the US at least) must pay for publication and dissemination of "Official Statements."
- caseysoftware 6y agoFantastic, despite looking, I hadn't found a decision along those lines. Can you give me a case to read? Just the name, I'm happy to do the research myself. Thanks in advance! And to be clear, I've read the DOJ position asserting that "Trump's tweets are official government statements" (linked in this thread) but wasn't aware of court rulings.
- belltaco 6y agoThere's probably no decision because it's black and white. For example, many media outlets stopped carrying full Trump press conferences live. https://www.indiewire.com/2020/04/cnn-msnbc-not-airing-trump-coronavirus-briefing-1202222521/ https://www.indiewire.com/2020/04/cnn-msnbc-not-airing-trump...
- caseysoftware 6y agoPlease don't imply gamblor956 is just making things up. That's inappropriate. I'm looking forward to reading one of the many cases. It's always good to understand a) what the law says and b) how it's interpreted. They're rarely 1:1.
- gamblor956 6y agoWest Virginia v. Barnett. Rumsfield v Forum. There are more. The answers you want are the first search result in Google and Bing for first amendment and compelled speech and are covered by the Wikipedia page on the First Amendment.
- caseysoftware 6y agoI've actually read the Rumsfeld case before but I don't see how it addresses my question from above: Does a private company have the authority to impede access to Official Statements? If so, under what conditions? If no, is it "never"? As noted, I suspect this is not a 1st Amendment issue as the "speech" is present regardless and you have organizations, not necessarily people.
- gamblor956 6y agoTwitter isn't suppressing Trump's tweets. They're still publishing them...along with a notice that the statements in those tweets are lies, with links to sources documenting the falsity of those statements and the true state of reality (i.e., that mail-in voting is not unconstitutional).
- akersten 6y ago> But a private company can take action to impede everyone’s access to an official’s statements if they “suppress” those statements... Yes, that is their right to control how their website works. > that would mean Twitter has to allow anything any public official, at least in the US, broadcasts via that medium... No, they are not part of the US government, and they are not required to host official US government statements.
- AnimalMuppet 6y agoBut when Trump tweets, are those official statements? (IANAL, and I don't know. I can see why they might be considered to be so, and I can see why they wouldn't.)
- akersten 6y agoA lot of folks[0] are saying yes, they are official statements. But I'm not a lawyer either. [0]: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=are+trump+tweets+official+statements https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=are+tru...
- packetslave 6y agoI can't vouch for the source (so do your own research if you're so inclined), but Trump's own Justice Department says they are: https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/government_says_trumps_tweets_are_official_presidential_statements https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/government_says_trum...